Algonquian Connections to Salishan and Northeastern Archaeology

J. PETER DENNY University of Western Ontario

Beyond the written records of the last few centuries, our access to Al­ gonquian history is through historical linguistics and archaeology. In this paper1 I discuss two problems in this regard: 1) the likelihood that Al­ gonquian languages and Salishan languages are genetically related, and 2) possible relations between Algonquian speech and the archaeological tradi­ tions of the Northeast. Since I am a semanticist, not a historical linguist or an archaeologist, my perspective centers on word meanings and upon selected lexical systems, notably noun classifiers and incorporated nouns It was semantic problems that firstmad e me wonder about the complex­ ities of Algonquian history. I encountered a number of morphemes whose meanings seemed improbable if it were true that Algonquian speakers had always lived m small hunting bands like those of the Cree-Montagnais and Ojibwa speakers in the boreal forest. Some of the puzzles are these: 1) Proto-Algonquian (PA) *elenyiwa 'person' may come from the root *elen- ordinary ; this suggests the possibility that ordinary people were contrasted with higher status people in a stratified society at some time earlier in Al­ gonquian history.

2) WTDS.? SCTh°/ SPedal V6rb n^ ^°r aCti°nS d0ne * i»taun*»t. (not in oairsnt f • "f- ^^ WdI malked morPh°logically since they come cLTmarker w £T ^T verbs-hich always has a semantic verb th d ( enn y 985 d one SSil! f* t T ? L ? )' ™ for transitive inanimate verbs belonging to sub-class 1, which, under the analysis of Pigeott (1979^ if oT l983) haV Stem endi"S in a verb d« m-ker a^ ii See and Ojibwa this very clear-cut group contains an unexpected member I iK

°<*-^ my study integrative articles concerned with geo.ranhlfre^n § VK 'T^ °Ut t0 be Peri ds since it is only at this level of inference^ thataXP. °*u *"** ° ' historical linguistics. My general ttlrZ "chaeology can be connected to (1981) g Urtlng P01nts were Tu<* (1978) and M ason

86 ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 87

four of the regular members of the group, in their PA reconstructions, and then the puzzler: *-esw 'by heat' 'by cutting edge' *-ahw 'by tool or medium' *-ikahw 'by blow' Ojibwa -nisahw '(by) sending'; si-nisahw-a:kan 'messenger' Cree -tisahw '(by) sending'; i-tisah-ama:towin 'message' The problem morpheme, Ojibwa -nisahw and Cree -tisahw shows a further morphological resemblance to the group: like *-ikahw 'by blow', it is based on the most general morpheme in the set, *-ahw 'by tool or medium'. These many morphological identities make it likely that it originally had an in­ strumental meaning. Its present meaning in both languages is 'send, chase someone', but a hint of its original meaning is seen in the derived nouns I havefisted fo r 'messenger' and 'message'. Its original instrumental meaning must have been 'to do something to someone by sending', i.e., it was an instrumental verbfinal o f sending. It seems unlikely that a culture would develop such a specialized instrumental verb unless doing things by send­ ing others was quite common. It looks again as if some high status people had authority over others. In the egalitarian society of the boreal forest this meaning was lost and the morpheme came to mean just 'send someone'. 3) PA *aOoxkye:wa 'he works' may be related to verbs for hiring and commis­ sioning work. For example, in Ojibwa only vowel length separates anokki: 'he works' from ano:kki: 'he commissions something to be done' which is related to ano:n 'to hire someone'. Other derivations by vowel shortening are known in Ojibwa, e.g., incorporated noun -min- 'berry' from noun mi:n 'berry', and incorporated noun -a:kon- 'snow' from noun ako:n 'snow'. Again, this sort offinding suggest s a ranked society in the Algonquian past, in which so much important work was done for those in authority that the ordinary word meaning 'work' was derived from those referring to authoritarian control of work. As I began to look at Algonquian history I found that two phases had been discussed, an earlier one in which Proto-Algonquian was thought to be related to other non-Algonquian languages, and a later one in which Proto- Algonquian was a separate language ending when it broke apart into the daughter languages. My semantic puzzlers are most likely solvable at the later, Proto-Algonquian stage, but to understand that, it helps to clarify the earlier stage.

Algic on the Pacific One idea about the origins of Algonquian languages seems to have been quietly abandoned: that they were related to the Muskogean languages of the Southeast (Haas 1958). Campbell and Mithun (1979:38) include 88 J. PETER DENNY

this theory in a list of "notable cases of splitting", i.e., language families formerly thought to be related, but now thought not to be related. In that list they cite two other papers in the same volume (Goddard 1979; Haas 1979) which a reader might presume to contain further details on the question. However, the former contains no mention of it, and the latter reviews it with no evaluative remarks whatever. Since the Algonquian- Muskogean connection is accepted in some archaeological publications, it might be a good idea for the historical linguists to drop it more loudly. The other suggestion which has been worked on to some degree is Sapir's (1929) Algonkin-Wakashan hypothesis which links Algonquian, Rit- wan, Wakashan, Salishan, Chimakuan, Kutenai, and Beothuk languages as descendants of a hypothesized ancient language (sometimes called Al- mosan). Two things are accepted about this complex: 1) the position of Beothuk has to be left in abeyance due to inadequate data on this extinct language; and 2) the relation of Proto-Algonquian to the Ritwan languages, Wiyot and Yurok, has been established (Goddard 1975). Since archaeol­ ogists believe the Wiyot and Yurok migrated fairly recently to the Pacific Coast from the Columbian Plateau, it is likely that the ancestor language of Algonquian and Ritwan (sometimes called Algic) was spoken in that region. (See maps at end of paper for place names.) Beyond this established Algonquian-Ritwan relationship, only a few studies have taken steps towards showing genetic relations to the other lan­ guage families of the hypothesized Almosan grouping. Berman (1982:419) has noted "the similarity of the Proto-Algonquian-Ritwan vowel system to the Proto-Salish vowel system". Haas set forth a preliminary group of cog­ nates and sound correspondances linking Algonquian and Kutenai, and a set of lexical resemblances between Kutenai and various Salishan languages — evidence which she describes as "too substantial to be explained away as entirely the result of borrowing or accident" (1965:88). I should say in passing that the lexical resemblances offered in support of Almosan in Greenberg's (1987) much-publicized book Language in the Americas do not strengthen the hypothesis. Much of the data is inaccurate (Goddard 1987); also Campbell (1988) has shown that the kind of resemblances Greenberg gives are no more frequent than chance resemblances to Finnish. The best way to establish a very ancient relationship between language families is that practiced by Goddard in the Algonquian-Ritwan case: show that there are idiosyncratic morphological identities. If one finds a package of these, they are unlikely to have occurred by chance or borrowing, and therefore are evidence for common descent from an ancestor language. I have noted such a set of idiosyncratic morphological identities for noun classifiers and incorporated nouns between Salishan and Algonquian: ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 89

1) In both Salishan and Algonquian languages, both noun classifiers and incor­ porated nouns occur in the verb. (Salishinists call them "lexical suffixes" and Algonquianists call them "medials".) This pattern does not seem to be found in any non-Amerindian language family. 2) In both Salishan and Algonquian, noun classifiers and incorporated nouns are separate lexical items. Furthermore, all Salishan lexical suffixes on verbs are either incorporated nouns or classifiers (Saunders and Davis 1975) and the same is true of Algonquian medials (Denny 1989). This is not true, for example, of Northern Iroquoian languages where there is only one lexical set, the incorporated nouns, which sometimes have classifier usages (Denny 1989). 3) In Salishan, the classifiers and the incorporated nouns occur at the end of the verb stem, e.g., Bella Coola classifier cp-ui- 'to wipe a three-dimensional object'. This is a rare pattern in Algonquian, e.g., Ojibwa manki-to:n- 'to have a big mouth'. Usually incorporated nouns are followed by post-medial -e:-, e.g., manki-sit-e:-'to have a big foot', and classifiers are followed at least by the stative abstractfinals -a:-, -at-, or -isi-, e.g., manki-minak-at- 'to be a large three-dimensional object'. For the rare stem-final pattern to be ancient it must, of course, be reconstructable in Proto-Algonquian: *tahk-ikamy-i- 'to be cold water'. In this particular case the general or unmarked verb final *-»'- has been reconstructed, but this is still not the regular Proto-Algonquian pattern in which the stative abstractfinals *-ya:-, *-at- or *-esi- occur, e.g., *kenw-a:pye:k-at- 'to be a long string'; therefore this example still counts as a slight regularization away from an old pattern of stemfinal occurrence. Also *-ikamy- itself is likely to be an old noun classifier because it is not formed by the regular derivation with post-medial -ak from an incorporated noun, e.g., Cree classifier -a:kon-ak- 'snow' from incorporated noun -a:kon- 'snow', and classifier -min-ak- 'three-dimensional object' from incorporated noun -min- 'berry'. To conclude, it appears that Proto-Algonquian or an ancestor of it had classifiers and incorporated nouns in stemfinal position as Salish languages do. 4) In both language families, classifiers and incorporated nouns may occur as nounfinals or particle finals: Particle Finals Noun Finals

Okanagan asal-isxen '2 stones' Kalispel kuten-essen 'big stone' (PA *a?senya 'stone') PA *ni:sw-a:pye:ki '2 strings' Ojibwa assap-a:py 'rope' (Columbian -ap 'rope') I have noted possible cognates in parentheses; Haas (1965) claims the numer­ als for 'two' are cognate also. Although lexical resemblances are of interest, at this time depth there will not be very many; Kinkade (1969:6) found only a few between the lexical suffixes of Salishan and Wakashan, "certainly too few to detect any regular sound correspondences." Goddard (1975) describes the difficulties of this traditional method and argues that the method being pursued in this paper, systematic morphological identities, is more powerful. 5) In both families, nouns are derived from classifiers and incorporated nouns by prefix m-: 90 J. PETER DENNY

Upper Chehalis maqwam 'prairie' < -(a)qw 'prairie PA *mask-imota:yi 'grass-bag' < *-ask-imotye:- 'grass-bag' As can be seen, these are also possible cognates. I have shown five morphological identities in the noun classifier and incorporated noun systems between Salishan and Algonquian. These make it likely that Algonquian and Salishan languages descend from a common ancestor. We may speculate that it was spoken on the Columbian Plateau about 7000 BC (±1000 years). Perhaps the genetic relation of Salishan and Algonquian can be established in the future by demonstrating other idiosyncratic morphological identities.

Great Lakes Homeland I will pass quickly over the next few millenia of Algonquian history since little has been published concerning them, and proceed to the Great Lakes homeland of the Proto-Algonquians. Following the separation of Algonquian- Ritwan (Algic) from Salishan and perhaps other components of Almosan, there would have been an Algic period in the west ending with the sepa­ ration of Algonquian from Wiyot and Yurok. Proulx (1982) suggests that this was triggered by the drying up of the pluvial lakes in the Columbia drainage between 7000 and 5000 BC. He also estimates the break-up of Algic at about 5500 BC (±1000 years) using lexicostatistics. For the mi­ gration eastwards, I suppose the direct route was down the Missouri and up the Ohio — at any rate an entry from the south-west of the Great Lakes is likely. In the last 15 years there has been gradual progress in coordinating Algonquian linquistics and Northeastern archaeology. The earliest hypoth­ esis, given by Walker (1975), suggested that Proto-Algonquian should be identified with Ritchie's Early Point Peninsula, a ceramic style stretching from Manitoba to New Brunswick. Redefinition of Point Peninsula as an en­ tire cultural system with a much more limited geographic range (described below), as well as the establishment of its derivation from Meadowood (de­ scribed below) and subsequent development into the Iroquoian tribes, make it almost certain to have been Iroquoian-speaking. Thus, it cannot have been the Proto-Algonquians. Another early hypothesis, suggested very tentatively by Tuck (1977), was that Algonquian languages were spoken in three of the four Late Ar­ chaic cultural areas of the Northeast (dating very roughly from 5000 BC to 2000 BC): the Shield Archaic of the boreal forest, the Maritime Archaic from Labrador to northern New England, and the Narrow Point Archaic of the Ohio and mid-Atlantic (also called Mast Forest Archaic, and containing parts called Coastal Archaic, Atlantic Slope Archaic, Piedmont tradition, ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 91

Taconic tradition, and Appalachian tradition). Tuck also suggests that Iro- quoian languages were spoken in the fourth Late Archaic area, the Lake Forest Archaic of the lower Great Lakes and upper St. Lawrence, whose best known component is the Laurentian Archaic. These are reasonable and appropriately tentative ideas; reasonable, because of the cultural and biological continuity which has been shown in archaeological studies from the Late Archaic populations forward in time to the modern Algonquian and Iroquoian groups; and tentative, because no linguistic research was used. Not surprisingly, when we look at historical linguistics, we find that these hypotheses seem to be ruled out: they involve a large geographic range for Algonquian languages at dates that are much earlier than any sug­ gested by historical linguists for the break-up of Proto-Algonquian into the daughter languages. Goddard (1978a) suggests this took place about 1000 BC to 500 BC. For Algonquian languages to have been spoken across the three widespread and culturally distinct Archaic areas, Proto-Algonquian would have had to diverge into the daughter languages 2000 or 3000 years earlier; this is impossible given the observable similarities among the lan­ guages. Similar difficulties arise for the hypothesis that the Lake Forest Archaic (including Laurentian) was Iroquoian-speaking. Lounsbury (1978) suggests that Proto-Northern Iroquoian begins about 2000 to 1500 BC; therefore, it cannot be the language of the Lake Forest Archaic back to 4500 BC. The next hypothesis, offered by Snow (1976, 1980), is strengthened by explicit use of historical linguistics. With respect to Iroquoian languages, Snow recognizes that they only arrive in the Northeast at the end of the Archaic. For Algonquian, this implies to him that the Lake Forest Archaic (including Laurentian) must have been Algonquian speaking. He develops his hypothesis further by a re-analysis of Siebert's (1967) linguistic study of the Proto-Algonquian homeland. In contrast to the small region between Lake Huron and Lake Ontario arrived at by Siebert, Snow finds that the biological terms of Proto-Algonquian only permit us to limit the Proto- Algonquian homeland to some part of the mixed forest zone containing both the larch (tamarack) and the beech, which runs from the lower Great Lakes and upper St. Lawrence, through New England and the Maritimes. If we recognize the term for harbor seal as well, then the Proto-Algonquian homeland has to include some access to the St. Lawrence drainage below Niagara Falls. With these loosened constraints, he suggests that all three of the Archaic traditions found in this zone might have been Algonquian- speaking, the Lake Forest Archaic, the Narrow Point Archaic (Mast Forest Archaic) and the Maritime Archaic. The main difficulty with this hypoth­ esis, as with Tuck's, is that it implies a break-up of Proto-Algonquian into 92 J. PETER DENNY the daughter languages at a much earlier date than the 1000-500 BC based on historical linguistics. To cover such a big geographic range even the L- complex of related Proto-Algonquian dialects which Snow envisages would have had to diverge into separate languages by 2000 BC at the very latest. A fourth hypothesis has been more recently developed by Seeber (1982). She suggests that Proto-Algonquian was only spoken in the Laurentian Archaic component of the Lake Forest Archaic, not in the other Archaic traditions to the north, south and east. This is an improved hypothesis because the relatively small area, just Lake Erie to Lake Champlain, might have supported a complex of related dialects. Furthermore, Seeber recog­ nizes that Proto-Algonquian must continue beyond the end of Laurentian at about 2000 BC. Based on the archaeological continuity from Lauren­ tian to Point Peninsula, she hypothesizes that Point Peninsula (about 200 BC to 1000 AD) was also Algonquian-speaking (Point Peninsula stretches from the east half of Lake Erie, around Lake Ontario, east to the upper St. Lawrence, lower Ottawa, and Mohawk.) She also includes an account of the separation of the Eastern Algonquian languages by the arrival of the Iroquoians: Proto-Eastern Algonquian may have become a separate lan­ guage as early as 700 BC, but she suggests that the geographic isolation of its daughter languages comes with the invasion of Iroquoian speakers in the form of the Princess Point archaeological tradition beginning AD 500. This more plausible and detailed theory still presents several difficul­ ties. First of all, if we claim that Proto-Algonquian spreads out with the Laurentian Archaic beginning about 4000 BC and doesn't break up until about 700 BC, we are positing an improbably long time for it to be main­ tained as an L-complex of mutually intelligible languages — 3000 plus years when 1000 would be more plausible. Secondly, it is very unlikely that Point Peninsula was Algonquian-speaking since there is excellent archaeological continuity from it to the Iroquoian tribes. Thirdly, Princess Point is un­ likely to be the Iroquoian arrival: it develops north of Lake Erie apparently from local sources (Fox 1982). Given the geographic location of the mod­ ern Iroquoian languages they are likely to have come from the southeast, probably via the Susquehanna. The most recent hypothesis by Fiedel (1988) is similar to the firston e of Walker (1975). He makes an important advance by recognizing that historical linguistics shows that the Algonquian dispersal must occur in the Early Woodland period (after 1000 BC) and cannot be linked to Late Archaic traditions such as Laurentian. He notes that Siebert (1967) and Haas (1965) suggest dates for the break-up of Proto-Algonquian which are close to Goddard's dates of 1000-500 BC. Fiedel also points out a number of words, reconstructed in Proto-Algonquian, that refer to Early Woodland culture: ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 93

*myene9ki 'earthwork, entrenchment' wexpwa:kana 'pipe' wetama:kana 'pipe' pemeGkwi 'gourd' mahkahkwi 'calabash' (i.e., gourd container) Fiedel's choice for the Early Woodland culture which he thinks carries out the Algonquian expansion is Point Peninsula. However, as pointed out before, Point Peninsula is almost certainly Iroquoian. Fiedel's alternate hypothesis is Adena, and here I think he has touched upon part of the truth — Adena is at least a secondary contributor to the spread of Algonquian language.

A New Theory We are looking for an archaeological tradition of the Early Woodland period (1500-200 BC) which might be the carrier of Proto-Algonquian language as it spreads out and differentiates into the Algonquian languages. Within this period several further constraints narrow the search. One of the most important is that no large-scale replacement of population can be involved — archaeologists are firm in claiming that cultural change took place among in situ populations after the Archaic era. We can further constrain the pos­ sibilities by accepting Snow's (1977, 1980) view that Iroquoian language arrives in the Northeast as the Frost Island archaeological tradition (about 1600 to 1300 BC) in the Finger Lakes (south of Lake Ontario) and north­ ern Susquehanna valley. This fitsfairl y well with Lounsbury's suggested dates for Northern Iroquoian: 2000 to 1500 BC. Snow suggests that Iro­ quoian language spreads firsta s the Meadowood tradition (about 1200-300 BC) to a larger region from the west half of Lake Erie around Lake On­ tario to the Mohawk, and then spreads somewhat further northeast as the Point Peninsula tradition (about 200 BC to AD 1000) to include the upper St. Lawrence and Ottawa valleys. The only extensive archaeological units left are all mortuary traditions and all have Ohio valley foci. They are: 1) the Red Ocher tradition (about 1500 to 200 BC) which carried mortuary goods from the Wabash north up both shores of Lake Michigan, 2) the Glacial Kame tradition (about 1200 to 900 BC) stretching from the Wabash northeast to the north of Lakes Erie and Ontario as far east as Lake Champlain, and 3) the Adena tradition (about 700 to 100 BC) which spread mortuary goods from the Scioto to the northeast and east over an incredible range reaching to the north shore of Lake Huron, the Labrador coast, the Miramichi River in the Maritimes, and the Delmarva Peninsula. 94 J. PETER DENNY

Given the probable origins of Proto-Algonquian in the west, its spread through the Northeast is likely to have started in the Ohio valley. As the mortuary practices, including extensive trade in grave goods, spread north as Red Ocher and northeast as Glacial Kame, bilingualism in Proto- Algonquian must have developed among speakers of diverse local languages, so as to facilitate both trade and the learning of the new religious ideas. Proto-Algonquian must have been maintained as a set of related dialects in the newly expanded territory for some centuries, leading to the development of words for northern trees such as the larch (tamarack) and for maritime mammals such as the seal (in Lake Ontario). Including Adena, religious in­ fluence from the Ohio region lasted at least 1000 years, an enormous length of time during which local languages would have been slowly abandoned so that the populations spoke only some dialect of Proto-Algonquian, diverg­ ing before the end of the period into a separate Algonquian language. It is likely that the Ohio valley religious ideas were attractive in part because of their links to new social, political and economic practices, which may have impressed the outlying populations and led them to selectively adopt some of these new ways. The new ideas available from the Ohio val­ ley at this time included improved food storage, particularly for seeds and nuts, some plant domestication especially seed plants for food and gourds for containers, more fixed territorial arrangements, and some development of social hierarchy and permanent leadership. This wider range of possible innovations beyond the religious ideas must have been a further encour­ agement to adopt Algonquian speech. The new mortuary practices, such as burial mounds, are thought to have provided ceremonial support for territorial claims, and, in some cases, for an emerging social hierarchy. An excellent discussion of other cases of the spread of ceremonial ideas through trade in status goods may be found in Flannery (1968:98-108); in one case, the Inland Tlingit, language-switching was involved as I have hypothesized for Algonquian. This theory may explain the semantic puzzlers that I began with as well as the words reviewed by Fiedel which are indicative of Early Wood­ land culture. My three cases all concerned words that seemed to imply that there had been distinctions of social status in the communities from which Proto-Algonquian was spreading, probably only achieved, adult-lifetime distinctions of the "big-man" variety. Fiedel's words concern earthworks, tobacco-smoking, and gourd-containers, all in fact well-established by the end of Late Archaic times (3000-1500 BC) in the Ohio-Mississippi-Missouri region (Phillips and Brown 1983). In sum, this theory claims that Algonquian language spread through language switching among already existing populations, not through terri­ torial expansion by an Algonquian-speaking group. Various tribes adopted ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 95

Proto-Algonquian and gradually gave up their previous languages due to many centuries of social influence from the Ohio region. Iroquoian Competition

This period when Algonquian language was spreading is also the time of the main Iroquoian expansion as the Meadowood tradition (about 1200-300 BC), according to Snow's theory. Meadowood is also a mortuary tradition, one which spreads from a focus in the Finger Lakes. It was most likely adopted by various adjacent tribes as a new set of religious practices, with associated social and economic ideas, just as occurred for Red Ocher and Glacial Kame. It is likely that participants became bilingual in Proto- Northern Iroquoian, and that, for most of the Meadowood area, when the local populations continued as Point Peninsula, they switched entirely to Iroquoian speech. Although some people from the Northern Iroquoian core area in the Finger Lakes may have moved into the tribal areas that were adopting Iroquoian culture, there was no wide-scale population replacement and no invasion of territory by the kind of warfare which develops only after AD 1000. This view that Iroquoian society expanded by cultural influence helps to explain the biological and social continuity which has been noted be­ tween the preceding Laurentian Archaic and Point Peninsula. The existing population continued many aspects of their previous life while absorbing some of Iroquoian culture and adopting Iroquoian speech. The partial na­ ture of the Iroquoian influence is seen in Wright's (1972) observation that Meadowood pottery is only one of three sources for Point Peninsula pottery. The competition between Algonquian expansion and Iroquoian expan­ sion can be seen in the borderline area between them north of Lake Erie and south of Lake Huron. Here the indigenous Terminal Archaic popula­ tion, the Small Point Archaic, was first affected by Glacial Kame probably with the development of bilingualism in Algonquian. Then much of the area was affected by Meadowood culture, most likely with some bilingual­ ism in Iroquoian. However, Iroquoian influence seems to have subsequently waned since Point Peninsula occupies only the eastern half of the area. In the southwest, Couture (Western Basin) culture (500 BC to AD 500) was almost certainly Algonquian-speaking, as Spence et al (1989) claim. To the northwest, Saugeen culture (200 BC to AD 500) may also have been Algonquian-speaking since it is just on the edge of the earlier Glacial Kame influence. On the eastern borderline, Iroquoian expansion as Meadowood seems to have been contained by the Middlesex tradition (about 450 BC to AD 1), which Snow (1980) interprets as a conversion of Meadowood peoples to Adena practices. 96 J. PETER DENNY

Eastern Algonquian Red Ocher, Glacial Kame and the Adena heartland on the Scioto account for the Algonquian expansion in the lower four Great Lakes. But to account for the Eastern Algonquian languages from the Maritimes to Chesapeake Bay requires further explanations. The crucial area is southern New Eng­ land: this is likely to be the Proto-Eastern Algonquian homeland because many more of the descendent languages are located there than to the north and south. Standard accounts hold that Proto-Algonquian broke apart simultane­ ously into Proto-Eastern Algonquian and the other individual Algonquian languages (Goddard 1978a). However, recently Rhodes (1988) has shown a probable order through time in which the languages separated. I will use this order, with three small modifications made to better fitth e archaeo­ logical and geographic constraints of the present theory:2 Early Proto-Algonquian

Blackfoot Mid PA

Arapaho Late PA

Proto-Eastern Algonquian Central

Cree

Menomini/Cheyenne

Ojibwa Miami/Illinois Fox/Shawnee

Later splits are not detailed here. Since Blackfoot and Arapaho are likely to have split off before the expansion into the Northeast, it is what I have

2 Rhodes (personal communication) says that this preliminary report will be altered by further research before publication. My three suggested changes are: 1) Blackfoot splits off first,sinc e it is lexically the most deviant; the Blackfoot are also the most deviant biologically (Szathmary and Auger 1983); 2) Arapaho diverges before PEA since the Algonquian migration comes from the west; and 3) Ojibwa and Miami/Illinois split off separately from Eastern Great Lakes since they are so far apart geographically. An alternative view of Algonquian language history is given in Proulx (1980, 1984), criticized in part in GoddaxdflQM) Proulxs view involves rejecting Proto-Eastern Algonquian, which I accept and indudes other relations among the languages for which I would want to seemore ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 97 called "Late PA" which began the dispersal we are studying. Since the first split from this was Proto-Eastern Algonquian (PEA), this must have happened relatively early in the hypothesized period 1000 to 500 BC. Also, Goddard (1978b) has suggested that PEA itself broke into its own daughter languages by about 100 BC; there must have been some centuries before this in which PEA spread as a chain of dialects. Consequently it is likely that Glacial Kame (about 1200-900 BC) rather than the later Adena was involved. This may not seem very probable since Glacial Kame reached no further east than Lake Champlain whereas Adena was found in all ar­ eas eventually occupied by Eastern Algonquian languages. However, Snow (1980:270) says that "the mortuary system at the [Glacial Kame] site [on Lake Champlain] resembles that which came to characterize all of New Eng­ land during the Terminal Archaic [up to 700 BC]", so perhaps there was sufficient cultural influence to cause adoption of Proto-Algonquian in south­ ern New England. However, Snow also points out that the burial practices continue many features of the previous (Late Archaic) Mast Forest tradition in the region. Another reason for favoring Glacial Kame as the introducer of Algonquian speech to southern New England is that the variety of Algon­ quian spoken was most likely Proto-Algonquian (from which Proto-Eastern Algonquian diverges), whereas Adena, coming later, is more likely to be the carrier of a particular descendant language, perhaps Fox/Shawnee or just Shawnee. If we follow this hypothesis, then it is Orient culture (about 1200-700 BC) which is most likely to have spoken Proto-Eastern Algon­ quian. Snow (1980:278) says that up to 700 BC, the end of Orient, southern New England "appears to be a single cultural unit". The following period, characterized by the North Beach tradition (perhaps 700 BC to AD 1) in this core area, is likely to be the time of the spread of Eastern Algonquian speech north and south along Atlantic Coast. One indicator of this may be the spread of the characteristic Rossville and Lagoon points, one or both of which are found by 200 BC from the Maritimes to the Delmarva Peninsula, virtually the full geographic range of the Eastern Algonquian languages. The Adena sites scattered throughout this Eastern Algonquian region (from about 400 BC to AD 300) do not show the southern New England focus necessary for this mortuary system to be responsible for the spread of Eastern Algonquian dialects. The original focus was, of course, the Scioto, but if there was an Atlantic Coast center it seems to have been the Delmarva. It is plausible that Adena spread due east from the middle Ohio via the Potomac to Chesapeake Bay and the Delmarva; Proto-Algonquian on the other hand probably arrived, as Goddard (1978a:587) suggests, via the upper St. Lawrence. Adena no doubt reinforced the ideas which had already been accepted from the Ohio valley including Algonquian speech. Its persistence for hundreds of years in the Eastern Algonquian region as a 98 J. PETER DENNY religious option for some local groups suggests that it must have harmonized in many respects with local cultural practices. In the case of northern New England and the Maritime peninsula it is the appearance of Lagoon/Rossville bipoints about 200 BC which most likely marks the spread of Algonquian speech north from southern New England. In contrast to the main dispersal of Algonquian by language switching in response to new social practices, this spread does seem to in­ volve migration. Allen (1982:124) says "bands of Lagoon/Rossville point users . . . moved northwards along the coast taking advantage of previously unused shell fishinglocations . Having reached the Maritime peninsula these people interacted with the resident populations and introduced them to the efficient use of an additional food resource . . ." The timing of this migration fits well with Goddard's (1978b) suggestion that the Eastern Algonquian languages have been diverging from each other for about 2000 years. There is no later archaeological tradition which might have carried Algonquian speech north because, as Allen points out, "from approximately 2200 B.P. [200 BC] until the most recent prehistoric period ... no major trends can be attributed to external influences". However, for the Lagoon/Rossville migration to be the source of the northernmost Eastern Algonquian lan­ guages, three other earlier influences have to be ruled out: Susquehanna, Meadowood and Adena. Susquehanna (about 1700 to 1200 BC) refers to influences coming north from the Carolina Piedmont via the Susquehanna. For the Finger Lakes region this is the migration which brings in Frost Island culture and, by Snow's hypothesis, Iroquoian speech. However, Snow suggests that there is no migration into Southern New England, only the spread of selected tech­ nological innovations to the indigenous Mast Forest (Narrow Point) Archaic population, notably various types of broad points and soapstone vessels. Starting about the same time, 1700 BC, the Maritime Archaic was wan­ ing in northern New England and a migration of Susquehanna-influenced Mast Forest Archaic peoples from southern New England occurred, which replaced the Maritime Archaic population in northern New England and adjacent parts of the Maritime peninsula. This first, Susquehanna phase of southern New England migrations northward is not likely to be the carrier of Algonquian speech because it is too early — at this date Proto-Algonquian had not even begun its dispersal from the Illinois-Wabash region. Meadowood influences are found throughout New England and the Maritimes; however, they cannot be responsible for Algonquian speech be­ cause Meadowood is almost certainly Iroquoian-speaking. Likewise Adena is found throughout the area. I have already stated why it is unlikely to be the carrier of Eastern Algonquian language: it is not focussed in southern New England as Eastern Algonquian language is, and its language is more ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 99 likely to be Proto-Fox/Shawnee than Proto-Eastern Algonquian. To summarize this complicated account of Eastern Algonquian: Proto- Eastern Algonquian was probably developed in southern New England by people belonging to the Orient tradition (1200-700 BC). They may have adopted Proto-Algonquian from contacts with Glacial Kame mortuary cul­ ture in the Lake Champlain region. Eastern Algonquian spread north and south during the following North Beach period — the Lagoon/Rossville points associated with it are found from the Maritime peninsula to the Delmarva peninsula by 200 BC, just about the extent of the Eastern Al­ gonquian languages. The northern spread is known to be a migration of southern New England inhabitants, but the mechanism of the southern spread is unestablished. The weak point in this account is unfortunately the first step, the hy­ pothesized arrival of Proto-Algonquian with Glacial Kame at Lake Cham­ plain, and its hypothesized adoption by the Orient culture peoples. Snow (1980) emphasizes that the archaeology of this crucial period in southern New England, especially the Hudson drainage, is not sufficiently developed to substantiate this hypothesis. The best that we can do to support it at the present is to remind ourselves why the alternative routes for the ar­ rival of Algonquian in the east cannot be true. Susquehanna, Frost Island, Meadowood, and Point Peninsula are all thought to be Iroquoian-speaking. The most likely alternative is, of course, Adena, which is almost certainly Algonquian-speaking. However, as we have reviewed, it lacks a southern New England focus and its language is likely not Proto-Algonquian. The spread of Lagoon/Rossville bipoints from southern New England to the full range of the Eastern Algonquian languages is our best clue that Algonquian speech entered southern New England in the immediately preceding Orient era. Contact with Glacial Kame in the early part of Orient remains the only plausible route, although direct evidence of the influence is still lacking.

The Boreal Forest

I return at last to my personal starting point, the Cree-Montagnais and Ojibwa languages of the boreal forest which are the subjects of my own se­ mantic studies. It was in this sphere that I firstbecam e aware of the large discrepancy between archaeological and linguistic evidence. The enormous expanse of the Cree-Montagnais dialects, from Labrador to the Churchill and Saskatchewan drainages, can only have been recently achieved, proba­ bly not much before AD 1000. Yet archaeologists emphasize the continuity of Shield Archaic culture from 5500 BC to the present (Wright 1987:Plates 6-9). The only possible way to join these accounts is by language-switching: at some period the boreal forest bands must have gradually adopted Cree 100 J. PETER DENNY

and Ojibwa language. It is useful to consider the geographic arrangement of Cree-Montagnais and Ojibwa: each is a horizontal band from east to west, with Cree- Montagnais to the north of Ojibwa. Therefore Cree most likely spread first to the boreal forest, followed later by Ojibwa. This accords well with Rhodes's (1988) claim that Cree splits off from Proto-Algonquian before Ojibwa does. For languages moving north from the Illinois-Wabash region, access to the boreal forest is obviously between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Therefore it is likely that first Cree and then Ojibwa spread north from the Sault Ste-Marie region. Turning to archaeology, Dawson has identified two cases of small-scale migrations of southerners into the boreal forest, which I think may have provided the basis for the adoption of Algonquian language. The first shows up between 200 BC and AD 200 in the rapid adoption of Laurel ceramics. Dawson (1983:71) notes that these "ceramics are a product of skilled crafts­ men, which suggests northward movement of peoples. The lithic assemblage remains fundamentally the same. These factors suggest ... a blending of existing and new people . . ." Perhaps another skill adopted from the new­ comers was Cree language. Dawson further suggests that expansion was achieved by the technique of settling "in small discrete natural commu­ nities which tended to have a greater number and diversity of flora and fauna". This may be the beginning of a new social pattern which Dawson describes: "Larger camps occur in microenvironomental settings . . . [which] represent core villages where individual families gathered primarily during the spring and summer, forming large communities." The new economic practices of the migrants, which besides pottery included wild rice storage pits, in addition to the new social patterns, would be powerful inducements to the existing Shield Archaic population to gradually affiliate with the new­ comers and adopt their Algonquian speech. The most-northerly position of Cree-Montagnais and the early divergence of Cree from Proto-Algonquian leads to the inference that this language would have been Cree. The second migration described by Dawson occurred between AD 700 and AD 1200 when there was a more "extended period of coalescence" between the Laurel peoples and new southern peoples, leading eventually to Selkirk and Blackduck ceramics. This second wave of newcomers may have added Ojibwa speech to the continuing Shield Archaic tradition. Linguistic and biological evidence support Dawson's notion of a lengthy coalescence between the Ojibwa migrants and the indigenous Cree: genetic distances show that "Ojibwa and Cree are much like one another" (Szathmary and Auger, 1983), and there is considerable influence of Cree language upon Ojibwa. It seems likely that this new push from the south may have also displaced Cree speakers to the east so that they slowly diffused among ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 101 existing people in the Quebec-Labrador peninsula, thereby spreading Cree- Montagnais throughout the area.

An Overview of Algonquian-Language History

Morphological evidence shows that Algonquian is probably genetically re­ lated to Salishan. Since Algonquian is known to be a descendant of Algic (i.e., Algonquian-Ritwan, or Algonquian-Yurok-Wiyot), it is probable that Algic and Salishan are among the descendants of an ancient Almosan lan­ guage which was most likely spoken in the Columbia Plateau around 7000 BC. Since Yurok and Wiyot are Pacific Coast languages it is likely that Algic was spoken in the Columbia region until Algonquian split off from it, probably about 5500 BC. At an unknown time thereafter, Algonquian speakers must have migrated east perhaps to the Missouri-Missippi-Ohio region. Based on the indirect evidence that the Blackfoot are linguistically and biologically the most discrepant among the Algonquians, it seems likely that they remained in the West. As yet, no archaeological identity is known for the Algonquian arrival in the Midwest. It is plausible, but unsubstan­ tiated, that Arapaho became a distinct language in this early Midwestern phase. The spread of Proto-Algonquian, eventuating in its separation into the descendant languages, appears to have been the result of the spread of religious practices by the Red Ocher and Glacial Kame traditions. Start­ ing about 1500-1200 BC from a focus in the Illinois-Wabash region these mortuary traditions carried a package of new religious, social and economic ideas north up both coasts of Lake Michigan, and northeast along the north shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario as far east as Lake Champlain. The attraction of these new practices probably encouraged bilingualism in the Proto-Algonquian language which is hypothesized to have been spoken by their originators (for whom no archaeological identity is yet established). This social influence from the Ohio region was very long-lasting: Red Ocher continues to 200 BC, and Glacial Kame is continued by its successor Adena to about 100 BC. During this millenium, bilingualism in Proto-Algonquian would have gradually led to the abandonment of previous local languages and to the divergence of mono-lingual Proto-Algonquian dialects into Al­ gonquian languages. The argument for Red Ocher and Glacial Kame as the carriers of Algon­ quian language has two bases: 1) firstth e dates, 1000 to 500 BC, suggested by historical linguists for the gradual break-up of Proto-Algonquian; and 2) the elimination of all other widespread archaeological traditions of the period in the Great Lakes region. The excellent archaeological continuity from Meadowood through Point Peninsula to the Iroquoian tribes makes J. PETER DENNY 102

4? ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN it almost certain that these two traditions were Iroquoian-speaking. The only other widespread tradition of the time, Adena, begins too late, around 700-500 BC, to be the Proto-Algonquians. Since it is archaeologically the successor of Glacial Kame, and runs to about 100 BC, it is more likely to be a continuing encouragement rather than the original stimulus for the Ohio valley ideas. Similarly, the Adenans likely spoke a descendant language of Proto-Algonquian, most probably Shawnee, and therefore could not have spread Proto-Algonquian itself. The spread of Algonquian language in the Northeast has discernible stages. The first stage may be thought of as ending with the waning of Glacial Kame; the hypothesized situation circa 900 BC is shown in Map 1. By this time Glacial Kame had carried Algonquian speech as far as Lake Champlain, from where it had spread into southern New England and separated into the Proto-Eastern Algonquian (PEA) language spoken by peoples of the Orient tradition. Iroquoian competition in the form of the Meadowood expansion had spread around Lake Ontario and cut off Eastern Algonquian. The Central Algonquian dialects had been spread out by Red Ocher and Glacial Kame influence to the extent shown by the dotted lines. The map also indicates the languages, Arapaho and Blackfoot, which probably separated prior to this firststage . A second stage is hypothesized to have produced the situation circa 200 BC shown in Map 2. Central Algonquian had differentiated into the languages shown, one of which, Shawnee, was most likely the language of Adena. As evidenced by the spread of Rossville-Lagoon bipoints, the Eastern Algonquian dialects had spread north and south from southern New England to their full extent and were developing into separate languages. A third stage (not shown by a map) was the spread of Algonquian speech northwards into the boreal forest. Cree is hypothesized to be the language of southern migrants arriving between 200 BC and AD 200 whose coalescence with local populations yielded Laurel culture. Ojibwa is hy­ pothesized to be the language of a second group of southern migrants arriv­ ing between AD 700 and 1200. The result was Cree-speaking Selkirk culture and Ojibwa-speaking Blackduck culture. Although no evidence shows it as yet, it is possible that Cree spread to bands living in the Quebec-Labrador peninsula at about this time. 104 J. PETER DENNY

REFERENCES

Allen, Patricia 1982 The Oxbow Site: An Archaeological Framework for Northeastern New Brunswick. Pp. 119-133 in Approaches to Algonquian Archae­ ology. Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooyman, eds. Calgary: Uni­ versity of Calgary Archaeological Association Berman, Howard 1982 Two Phonological Innovations in Ritwan. International Journal of American Linguistics 48:412-420. Campbell, Lyle 1988 Review of Joseph Greenberg, Language in the Americas. Language 64:591-615. Campbell, Lyle, and Marianne Mithun, eds. 1979 The Languages of Native America. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dawson, K.C.A. 1983 Prehistory of the Interior Forest of Northern Ontario. Pp. 55-84 in Boreal Forest Adaptations: The Northern Algonkians. A. Theodore Steegman, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Denny, J. Peter 1983 Semantics of Abstract Finals in Algonquian Transitive Inanimate Verbs. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28:133-148. 1985 Semantic Verb Classes and Abstract Finals. Pp. 241-271 in Pa­ pers of the Fifteenth Algonquian Conference. William Cowan, ed. Ottawa: Carleton University. 1989 The Nature of Polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo. In Theo­ retical Perspectives on Native American Languages. Donna Gerdts, ed. Albany: SUNY Press. [In press.] Fiedel, Stuart J. 1988 Algonquian Origins: A Problem in Archaeological-Linguistic Corre­ lation. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:1-11. Flannery, Kent V. 1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction in Formative Times. Pp. 79-110 in Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Elizabeth P. Benson, ed. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks. Fox, William A. 1982 The Princess Point Concept. Arch Notes: Newsletter of the Ontario Archaeological Society 82(2):17-26. Goddard, Ives 1975 Algonquian, Wiyot and Yurok: Proving a Distant Genetic Rela­ tionship. Pp. 249-262 in Linguistics and Anthropology in Honor of C.F. Voegehn. M. Dale Kinkade et al, eds. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 105

1978a Central Algonquian Languages. Pp. 583-587 in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 1978b Eastern Algonquian languages. Pp. 70-77 in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. 1979 Comparative Algonquian. Pp. 70-132 in The Languages of Native America. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eds. Austin: Uni­ versity of Texas Press. 1981 Against the Linguistic Evidence Claimed for Some Algonquian Dia­ lectal Relationships. Anthropological Linguistics 23:271-297. 1987 Comments on Joseph H. Greenberg, Language in the Americas. Current Anthropology 28:656-657. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Haas, Mary 1958 A New Linguistic Relationship in North America: Algonkian and the Gulf Languages. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 14:231-264. 1965 Is Kutenai Related to Algonquian? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10:77-91. 1979 Southeastern Languages. Pp. 299-326 in The Languages of Native America. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eds. Austin: Uni­ versity of Texas Press. Kinkade, M. Dale 1969 Lexical Suffixes in Mosan Languages. Paper read at 8th Conference on American Indian Languages, New Orleans. Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1978 Iroquoian Languages. Pp. 334-343 in Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Mason, Ronald J. 1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Phillips, James L., and James A. Brown, eds. 1983 Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest. New York: Academic Press. Piggott, Glyne 1979 Verb Classification in Ojibwa. Montreal Working Papers in Linguis­ tics 12:149-186. Proulx, Paul 1980 The Linguistic Evidence on Algonquian Prehistory. Anthropological Linguistics 22:1-21. 1982 The Linguistic Evidence on the Algonquian-Iroquoian Encounter. Pp. 189-211 in Approaches to Algonquian Archaeology. Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooymans, eds. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association. 106 J. PETER DENNY

1984 Two Models of Algonquian Linguistic Prehistory: Diffusion Versus Genetic Subgrouping. Anthropological Linguistics 26:393-434. Rhodes, Richard A. 1988 On the Classification of Central Algonquian. Paper read at 20th Algonquian Conference, Hull, Quebec. Sapir, Edward 1929 Central and North American Languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed. 5:138-141. Saunders, Ross, and Phillip W. Davis 1975 Bella Coola Referential Suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 41:355-368. Seeber, Pauleena M. 1982 Eastern Algonquian Prehistory: Correlating Linguistics and Ar­ chaeology. Pp. 135-146 in Approaches to Algonquian Archaeology. Margaret G. Hanna and Brian Kooyman, eds. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association. Siebert, Frank T. 1967 The Original Home of the Proto-Algonquian People. Pp. 13-47 in Contributions to Anthropology: Linguistics I (Algonquian). An­ thropological Series 78, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 214. Ottawa. Snow, Dean R. 1976 The Archaeological Implications of the Proto-Algonquian Urheimat. Pp. 339-346 in Papers of the Seventh Algonquian Conference. Wil­ liam Cowan, ed. Ottawa: Carleton University. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. New York: Academic Press. Spence, Michael W., Robert H. Pihl, and Carl R. Murphy 1989 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland. In The Native Archaeology of Southern Ontario to 1650. London Chapter, Ontario Archaeological Society, Occasional Publication 5. [In press.] Szathmary, E.J.E., and Franklyn Auger 1983 Biological Distances and Genetic Relationships Within Algonkians. Pp. 289-315 in Boreal Forest Adaptations. A. Theodore Steegman, ed. New York: Plenum Press. Tuck, James A. 1977 A Look at Laurentian. Pp. 31-40 in Current Perspectives in North­ eastern Archaeology. Robert E. Funk and Charles F. Hayes, eds. Albany: New York State Archaeological Association 1978 Regional Cultural Development, 3000 to 300 BC. Pp. 28-43 in Hand­ book of North American Indians, vol. 15. Bruce G. Trigger, ed. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Walker, Willard 1975 The Proto-Algonquians. Pp. 633-647 in Linguistics and Anthropol­

ogy m Honor of C.F. Voegelin. M. Dale Kinkade et al, eds. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. ALGONQUIAN CONNECTIONS TO SALISHAN 107

Wright, James V. 1972 Ontario Prehistory. Toronto: Van Nostrand. 1987 Plate 6: Cultural Sequences, 8000-4000 BC; Plate 7: Cultural Se­ quences, 4000-1000 BC; Plate 8: Cultural Sequences, 1000 BC-AD 500; Plate 9: Cultural Sequences, AD 500-European contact. In Historical Atlas of Canada, vol. 1. R. Cole Harris and Geoffrey J. Matthews, eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.