DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Nagpra Native American Reburial Policy and Its Implications on Cultural and Linguistic Classification Ryan Lawrence Pendleton

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Nagpra Native American Reburial Policy and Its Implications on Cultural and Linguistic Classification Ryan Lawrence Pendleton Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2003 Pre-Nagpra Native American Reburial Policy and Its Implications on Cultural and Linguistic Classification Ryan Lawrence Pendleton Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES PRE-NAGPRA NATIVE AMERICAN REBURIAL POLICY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC CLASSIFICATION BY RYAN LAWRENCE PENDLETON A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Art Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2003 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Ryan L. Pendleton defended on June 24th, 2003. ______________________________ Michael K. Faught Professor Directing Thesis ______________________________ Glen H. Doran Committee Member ______________________________ Bruce T. Grindal Committee Member Approved: ________________________________________________________________________ Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis, while taking me entirely too long to complete, could not have happened without the support from others. I would first like to thank my parents, Larry Pendleton and Denise Loomis, for if it wasn’t for their support and constant chiding I would never have finished. I know it took seven years, but its finally done. Thanks to Deborah Leslie for allowing me use the questionnaire data from the survey she designed and sent out. Thanks to Anthony Paredes for giving me the data set and starting me on my research path. Thanks to Glen Doran and Bruce Grindal for their input and their assistance in finishing in that final last minute rush. Special thanks to Michael Faught for your constant support and guidance. Your energy, creativity, and brilliance, not only aided me in my thesis development, but helped in my development, both professional and personal. Thanks to my entire family for their support. Thanks to Steven Kidd for your great friendship and making me feel better because your thesis isn’t complete. Thanks to Mr. Glass for helping me through the thesis writing and for causing me to take seven years. Thanks to Greg Heide for your support and judgement which spurred me through the thesis completion. Last but not least thanks to Camila Tobon, the love of my life, without your positive reinforcement and love I would not have finished. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 2- HISTORY OF CLASSIFICATION OF NATIVE AMERICANS.............. 5 Colonial Contributions..................................................................................................... 5 Native American Historical Linguistics: 17th-Early 19th Centuries................................. 7 Native American Historical Linguistics: 19th Century................................................... 9 Pierre Duponceau......................................................................................................... 9 Albert Gallatin............................................................................................................ 10 Native American Historical Linguistics: Late 19th Century.......................................... 13 John Wesley Powell ................................................................................................... 14 Native American Historical Linguistics: 20th Century.................................................. 18 Franz Boas.................................................................................................................. 18 Edward Sapir.............................................................................................................. 20 Joseph Greenberg....................................................................................................... 23 Lyle Campbell............................................................................................................ 24 Joel Sherzer................................................................................................................ 24 Other Classifications...................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 3-PROBLEMS AND METHODS ................................................................. 26 Questions Being Asked.................................................................................................. 26 Origin and Development of this Study.......................................................................... 26 The Questionnaire.......................................................................................................... 27 The Database ................................................................................................................. 29 Classifications ................................................................................................................ 30 Sapir’s Super Six Classification.................................................................................... 30 Sherzer’s Linguistic Area Classification....................................................................... 32 Campbell’s Classification.............................................................................................. 33 Greenberg’s Classification............................................................................................. 34 Neo-Culture Area........................................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER 4-RESULTS................................................................................................... 36 Linguistic and Cultural Groupings Comparisons .......................................................... 36 Solidarity of Answering................................................................................................. 37 Variability Analysis ....................................................................................................... 39 Deviation Analysis......................................................................................................... 41 Don’t Know Analysis .................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................... 45 Greenberg...................................................................................................................... 46 Sapir............................................................................................................................... 47 iv Campbell........................................................................................................................ 47 Sherzer ........................................................................................................................... 48 Current Location............................................................................................................ 48 Question Genres............................................................................................................. 49 Pan-Indianism................................................................................................................ 49 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 50 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDIX B................................................................................................................... 55 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX D................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX E................................................................................................................... 60 APPENDIX F.................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX G................................................................................................................... 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 69 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 74 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: State Breakdown of Tribes Contacted for Survey……………………………..28 Table 2: Question Summary and Thematic Category…….……………………………..31 Table 3: Solidarity of Answering Analysis Results……….…………………………….37 Table 4: Results from Variability Analysis……………….…………………………….39 Table 5: Deviation Analysis……………………………….…………………………….41 Table 6: Results from Don’t Analysis…………………………………………………..43 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map Showing Powell’s 1891 Classification…………………………..……..17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Toward the Reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: the Algonquian-Wakashan 110-Item Wordlist
    Sergei L. Nikolaev Institute of Slavic studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow/Novosibirsk); [email protected] Toward the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan. Part 3: The Algonquian-Wakashan 110-item wordlist In the third part of my complex study of the historical relations between several language families of North America and the Nivkh language in the Far East, I present an annotated demonstration of the comparative data that was used in the lexicostatistical calculations to determine the branching and approximate glottochronological dating of Proto-Algonquian- Wakashan and its offspring; because of volume considerations, this data could not be in- cluded in the previous two parts of the present work and has to be presented autonomously. Additionally, several new Proto-Algonquian-Wakashan and Proto-Nivkh-Algonquian roots have been set up in this part of study. Lexicostatistical calculations have been conducted for the following languages: the reconstructed Proto-North Wakashan (approximately dated to ca. 800 AD) and modern or historically attested variants of Nootka (Nuuchahnulth), Amur Nivkh, Sakhalin Nivkh, Western Abenaki, Miami-Peoria, Fort Severn Cree, Wiyot, and Yurok. Keywords: Algonquian-Wakashan languages, Nivkh-Algonquian languages, Algic languages, Wakashan languages, Chimakuan-Wakashan languages, Nivkh language, historical phonol- ogy, comparative dictionary, lexicostatistics. The classification and preliminary glottochronological dating of Algonquian-Wakashan currently remain the same as presented in Nikolaev 2015a, Fig. 1 1. That scheme was generated based on the lexicostatistical analysis of 110-item basic word lists2 for one reconstructed (Proto-Northern Wakashan, ca. 800 A.D.) and several modern Algonquian-Wakashan lan- guages, performed with the aid of StarLing software 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, Edited by William Cowan
    Published in Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference, 1992, edited by William Cowan. Ottawa: Carleton University, pp. 119-163 A Comparison of the Obviation Systems of Kutenai and Algonquian Matthew S. Dryer SUNY at Buffalo 1. Introduction In recent years, the term ‘obviation’ has been applied to phenomena in a variety of languages on the basis of perceived similarity to the phenomenon in Algonquian languages to which, I assume, the term was originally applied. An example of a descriptive use of the term occurs in Dayley (1989: 136), who applies the terms ‘obviative’ and ‘proximate’ to two categories of demonstratives in Tümpisa Shoshone, the obviative category being used to introduce new information or to reference given participants which are nontopics, the proximate category for topics. But unlike the obviative and proximate categories of Algonquian languages, the Shoshone categories for which Dayley uses the terms are categories only of a class of words he calls ‘demonstratives’, and are not inflectional categories of nouns or verbs. Similarly, Simpson and Bresnan (1983) use the term ‘obviation’ to refer to a system in Warlpiri in which certain nonfinite verbs occur in forms that indicate that their subjects are nonsubjects in the matrix clause. These phenomena in non-Algonquian languages to which the term ‘obviation’ has been applied may bear some remote resemblance to the Algonquian phenomenon, but I suspect that most Algonquianists examining them would conclude that the resemblance is at best a remote one. The purpose of this paper is to describe an obviation system in Kutenai, a language isolate of southeastern British Columbia and adjacent areas of Idaho and Montana, and to compare it to the obviation system of Algonquian languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Berkeley Linguistics Society
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BERKELEY LINGUISTICS SOCIETY February 10-12, 2006 GENERAL SESSION and PARASESSION on THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO ARGUMENT STRUCTURE Edited by Zhenya Antić Michael J. Houser Charles B. Chang Clare S. Sandy Emily Cibelli Maziar Toosarvandani Jisup Hong Yao Yao Berkeley Linguistics Society Berkeley, CA, USA Berkeley Linguistics Society University of California, Berkeley Department of Linguistics 1203 Dwinelle Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-2650 USA All papers copyright © 2012 by the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0363-2946 LCCN 76-640143 Printed by Sheridan Books 100 N. Staebler Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS A note regarding the contents of this volume ........................................................ vi Foreword ............................................................................................................... vii GENERAL SESSION Verb Second, Subject Clitics, and Impersonals in Surmiran (Rumantsch) .............3 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON Cross-linguistic Variation in a Processing Account: The Case of Multiple Wh-questions ..........................................................................................................23 INBAL ARNON, NEIL SNIDER, PHILIP HOFMEISTER, T. FLORIAN JAEGER, and IVAN A. SAG Several Problems for Predicate Decompositions ...................................................37 JOHN BEAVERS and ITAMAR FRANCEZ Wh-Conditionals in Vietnamese and Chinese: Against Unselective Binding .......49 BENJAMIN BRUENING
    [Show full text]
  • Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape
    Endangered Languages, Linguistics, and Culture: Researching and Reviving the Unami Language of the Lenape By Maureen Hoffmann A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Linguistics Bryn Mawr College May 2009 Table of Contents Abstract........................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures................................................................................................................. 5 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6 II. The Lenape People and Their Languages .................................................................. 9 III. Language Endangerment and Language Loss ........................................................ 12 a. What is language endangerment?.......................................................................... 12 b. How does a language become endangered?.......................................................... 14 c. What can save a language from dying?................................................................. 17 d. The impact of language loss on culture ................................................................ 20 e. The impact of language loss on academia............................................................. 21 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Languages, Indigenous Languages of the Native Peoples of North, Middle, and South America
    Native American Languages, indigenous languages of the native peoples of North, Middle, and South America. The precise number of languages originally spoken cannot be known, since many disappeared before they were documented. In North America, around 300 distinct, mutually unintelligible languages were spoken when Europeans arrived. Of those, 187 survive today, but few will continue far into the 21st century, since children are no longer learning the vast majority of these. In Middle America (Mexico and Central America) about 300 languages have been identified, of which about 140 are still spoken. South American languages have been the least studied. Around 1500 languages are known to have been spoken, but only about 350 are still in use. These, too are disappearing rapidly. Classification A major task facing scholars of Native American languages is their classification into language families. (A language family consists of all languages that have evolved from a single ancestral language, as English, German, French, Russian, Greek, Armenian, Hindi, and others have all evolved from Proto-Indo-European.) Because of the vast number of languages spoken in the Americas, and the gaps in our information about many of them, the task of classifying these languages is a challenging one. In 1891, Major John Wesley Powell proposed that the languages of North America constituted 58 independent families, mainly on the basis of superficial vocabulary resemblances. At the same time Daniel Brinton posited 80 families for South America. These two schemes form the basis of subsequent classifications. In 1929 Edward Sapir tentatively proposed grouping these families into superstocks, 6 in North America and 15 in Middle America.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of the World--Native America
    REPOR TRESUMES ED 010 352 46 LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD-NATIVE AMERICA FASCICLE ONE. BY- VOEGELIN, C. F. VOEGELIN, FLORENCE N. INDIANA UNIV., BLOOMINGTON REPORT NUMBER NDEA-VI-63-5 PUB DATE JUN64 CONTRACT MC-SAE-9486 EDRS PRICENF-$0.27 HC-C6.20 155P. ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS, 6(6)/1-149, JUNE 1964 DESCRIPTORS- *AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES, *LANGUAGES, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, ARCHIVES OF LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD THE NATIVE LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS OF THE NEW WORLD"ARE DISCUSSED.PROVIDED ARE COMPREHENSIVE LISTINGS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE LANGUAGES OF AMERICAN INDIANSNORTH OF MEXICO ANDOF THOSE ABORIGINAL TO LATIN AMERICA..(THIS REPOR4 IS PART OF A SEkIES, ED 010 350 TO ED 010 367.)(JK) $. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION nib Office ofEduc.442n MD WELNicitt weenment Lasbeenreproduced a l l e a l O exactly r o n o odianeting es receivromed f the Sabi donot rfrocestarity it. Pondsof viewor position raimentofficial opinions or pritcy. Offkce ofEducation rithrppologicalLinguistics Volume 6 Number 6 ,Tune 1964 LANGUAGES OF TEM'WORLD: NATIVE AMER/CAFASCICLEN. A Publication of this ARC IVES OF LANGUAGESor 111-E w oRLD Anthropology Doparignont Indiana, University ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS is designed primarily, butnot exclusively, for the immediate publication of data-oriented papers for which attestation is available in the form oftape recordings on deposit in the Archives of Languages of the World. This does not imply that contributors will bere- stricted to scholars working in the Archives at Indiana University; in fact,one motivation for the publication
    [Show full text]
  • Algonquian Connections to Salishan and Northeastern Archaeology
    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 first made 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Southern Algonquians and Their Neighbours DAVID H. PENTLAND University of Manitoba INTRODUCTION At least fifty named Indian groups are known to have lived in the area south of the Mason-Dixon line and north of the Creek and the other Muskogean tribes. The exact number and the specific names vary from one source to another, but all agree that there were many different tribes in Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas during the colonial period. Most also agree that these fifty or more tribes all spoke languages that can be assigned to just three language families: Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Siouan. In the case of a few favoured groups there is little room for debate. It is certain that the Powhatan spoke an Algonquian language, that the Tuscarora and Cherokee are Iroquoians, and that the Catawba speak a Siouan language. In other cases the linguistic material cannot be positively linked to one particular political group. There are several vocabularies of an Algonquian language that are labelled Nanticoke, but Ives Goddard (1978:73) has pointed out that Murray collected his "Nanticoke" vocabulary at the Choptank village on the Eastern Shore, and Heckeweld- er's vocabularies were collected from refugees living in Ontario. Should the language be called Nanticoke, Choptank, or something else? And if it is Nanticoke, did the Choptank speak the same language, a different dialect, a different Algonquian language, or some completely unrelated language? The basic problem, of course, is the lack of reliable linguistic data from most of this region. But there are additional complications. It is known that some Indians were bilingual or multilingual (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • A Synthesis of Obviation in Algonquian Languages
    A Synthesis of Obviation in Algonquian Languages by Irina Volchok A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Linguistics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright© 2019 Irina Volchok iii Abstract One of the most prominent features of the Algonquian languages of North America is obviation, a third person referencing system. Although it has been known for nearly 400 years, linguists are still debating about its role and function. This work seeks to synthesize what is already known about obviation and what is still unresolved. More specifically, it looks at the syntactic and discourse working principles of obviation in different types of noun phrases, and in single, conjoined, complement, and adverbial clauses, as well as in narratives and in elicitation. iv Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Geographical Location of Algonquian Languages ................................................................ 1 1.2 Classification of Algonquian Languages ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Algonquian Grammar Myths
    Algonquian grammar myths Will Oxford University of Manitoba This paper seeks to clarify several misconceptions that occasion- ally arise with respect to direct-inverse marking, person hierar- chies, obviation, and transitivity in the Algonquian languages. The paper presents illustrative data from a variety of Algonquian languages and is intended to serve as a reference for some of the more complex principles of Algonquian morphosyntax. 1 Introduction The Algonquian languages are known for their complex and typologically unusual morphosyntax. Despite the existence of a comprehensive descriptive framework (especially Bloomfield 1962 and Goddard 1969), certain misconceptions about Algonquian morphosyntax have arisen both within and outside the Al- gonquianist literature. This paper seeks to clarify several of these “Algonquian grammar myths”, with the more general goal of highlighting what is known about these difficult aspects of Algonquian grammar. I have tried to limit the identification of “myths” to matters of descriptive fact. Many morphosyn- tactic phenomena in Algonquian are controversial, such as whether obviation can be understood as switch- reference (Muehlbauer, 2012), whether unspecified-actor forms are impersonal or passive (Dryer, 1996), whether transitive inanimate theme signs are derivational or inflectional (Piggott, 1989; Goddard, 2007), and whether transitive animate theme signs mark hierarchical alignment, object agreement, or viewpoint aspect (Wolfart, 1973; Rhodes, 1976; Bliss, Ritter, & Wiltschko, 2014). Regardless of one’s stance on these issues, it would be unfair to refer to opposing positions as myths. In other cases, however, it is clear that certain descriptive statements are inadequate. This paper focuses on such clear cases, though I acknowledge that my judgments may reflect my own biases, and I may well be labouring under some myths of my own.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Languages in Canada
    Catalogue no. 98-314-X2011003 Census in Brief Aboriginal languages in Canada Language, 2011 Census of Population Aboriginal languages in Canada Census in Brief No. 3 Over 60 Aboriginal languages reported in 2011 The 2011 Census of Population recorded over 60 Aboriginal languages grouped into 12 distinct language families – an indication of the diversity of Aboriginal languages in Canada.1 According to the 2011 Census, almost 213,500 people reported an Aboriginal mother tongue and nearly 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home.2,3 Largest Aboriginal language family is Algonquian The Aboriginal language family with the largest number of people was Algonquian. A total of 144,015 people reported a mother tongue belonging to this language family (Table 1). The Algonquian languages most often reported in 2011 as mother tongues were the Cree languages4 (83,475), Ojibway (19,275), Innu/Montagnais (10,965) and Oji-Cree (10,180). People reporting a mother tongue belonging to the Algonquian language family lived across Canada. For example, people with the Cree languages as their mother tongue lived mainly in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or Quebec. Those with Ojibway or Oji-Cree mother tongues were mainly located in Ontario or Manitoba, while those whose mother tongue was Innu/Montagnais or Atikamekw (5,915) lived mostly in Quebec. Also included in the Algonquian language family were people who reported Mi'kmaq (8,030) who lived mainly in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and those who reported Blackfoot (3,250) as their mother tongue and who primarily lived in Alberta.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Blair Rudes Papers, 1974-2008, Undated
    Guide to the Blair Rudes papers, 1974-2008, undated Tyler Stump The papers of Blair Rudes were processed with the assistance of the Smithsonian Institution's Collections Care and Preservation Fund. April 2016 National Anthropological Archives Museum Support Center 4210 Silver Hill Road Suitland 20746 [email protected] http://www.anthropology.si.edu/naa/ Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 4 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 4 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 2 Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 4 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 6 Series 1: Biographical, 1999-2007........................................................................... 6 Series 2: Correspondence, 1975-2007.................................................................... 7 Series 3: Linguistic Research and Data, 1969-2008, undated................................
    [Show full text]