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

Home , Algonquian languages, Iroquoian languages

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

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map Showing Powell’s 1891 Classification…………………………..……..17 Figure 2: Diagram Showing Diffusion Model versus Genetic Model……………….…31

vii

ABSTRACT

This thesis presents a historiography of classifying schemes of Native American language groups, compares several of the most prominent models, and examines these models with current cultural data. This research doesn’t attempt to classify or group languages, but rather the intention is to use modern non-linguistic data (specifically, questionnaire data) to bolster one or more of the more prominent classification schemes. In 1989-90, a survey was sent out to tribes throughout North America, inquiring about tribal beliefs and policies pertaining to reburial issues. The respondents were researched and sorted according to five different linguistic and cultural classificatory schemes. Also the survey questions were sorted into genres, policy, cultural, and analysis, to examine the differences between genres and between classifications. These classifications and question genres were compared several ways, including testing for solidarity, variability, and deviation in answering. Several noticeable trends were found which have implications for sorting variability in Native America and for relations with modern tribes on the complicated issues of reburial and repatriation.

viii

CHAPTER 1-INTRODUCTION

Since first contact, there has been scholarly scientific debate about the origins of the indigenous people of the Americas. The keystone topics have always been when did these people get here, how did they get here, and how are they related. One way to fully understand this monumental cultural phenomenon is to comprehend the ethnographic and linguistic relationships between different Native American groups. Classification and categorization of culture groups can aid in better understanding human behavior. This thesis reviews different classifying schemes of Native American language groups, compares several different of the most prominent models, and examines these models with current cultural data. This research doesn’t attempt to classify or group languages, but rather the intention is to use modern non-linguistic data (specifically, questionnaire data) to bolster one or more of the more prominent classification schemes. Cultural and linguistic classifications are important for explaining cultural associations. This is especially true in the western hemisphere, where the questions, Who are these indigenous people, Where did they come from, and When did they settle into the New World, have been intriguing scholars since European contact. Understanding cultural and linguistic relationships among Native Americans will allow us to make more precise models for the prehistory of this continent. The study of Native Americans and their languages has always been a central theme in anthropology and anthropological linguistics. Classification of the native tribes of North America has always posed problems for anthropologists, and debates remain in the field today. Scholars, like Humboldt, Barton, and Gallatin, were some of the first to develop classification schemas for the New World (Campbell 1997). They laid the groundwork for the first American anthropologists, like Powell, Boas, Kroeber, and Sapir (Boas 1929; Kroeber 1925; Powell

1 1966; Sapir 1921). Today, three influential names in Native American Linguistic Classification are Joseph Greenberg, Lyle Campbell, and Joel Sherzer (Campbell 1997; Greenberg 1987; Greenberg, et al. 1986). Greenberg and Campbell both employ genetic linguistic classifications, but with contrasting methodologies, reductionism and particularism respectively. The Sherzer categorization is based on areal-typological boundaries, not genetic lineages. The Reductionists (sometimes referred to as “Lumpers”) try to reduce the number of separate language families in Native America. People in this school propose large inclusive language families with very remote relationships. This school of thought was pioneered by Edward Sapir, who proposed his “Super Six” classificatory scheme in 1921. Sapir groups all North American Indian languages into six stocks. Although Sapir considered this schema a working hypothesis, it led to more reductionism (Sapir 1921). After Sapir, other linguists and anthropologists picked up where he left off. In fact, Paul Radin argued that all languages in the New World belonged to a single family (Radin 1919). Most scholars disregarded Radin’s theory due to his lack of concrete evidence (Campbell 1997). More recently, Joseph Greenberg has led the reductionist movement. In 1987 Greenberg proposed three large linguistic families for the New World. These three families, he argues, represent three separate migrations of peoples into the New World (Greenberg 1987; Greenberg, et al. 1986). The Particularists (sometimes referred to as “Splitters” and what Campbell calls the assessment approach) also look for language relationships, BUT they only accept unequivocal evidence for relationships, especially distant relationships. This school of thought could be traced back to John Wesley Powell and Franz Boas. Powell, the founding director of the Bureau of American Ethnology, was one of the first people to classify the native languages. His classification of Native American languages north of Mexico proposed 58 language families (Powell 1966). This landmark classification, although conservative, sets the tone for particularism. Franz Boas, the grandfather of American Anthropology, could also be seen as one of the early proponents of the splitter school. Boas stressed an areal typological approach to language study, which he demonstrated with his work in the Pacific Northwest coast. Besides compiling word lists and other linguistic and cultural data from this culture area, he pieced together the

2 linguistic relationships between the many different groups of this area. Boas thought it better to understand linguistic relationships between regional groups than to propose huge linguistic families which could not be adequately proven (Boas 1929; Campbell 1997). Today, the Particularists are best represented by Lyle Campbell. Campbell also splits North American Indian languages into 58 different families. He only groups languages which have demonstrable relationships, thus he ends up with many smaller language groupings which could be seen as isolates (Campbell 1997). Sherzer, who was heavily influenced by Boas’ areal-typological studies, represents an entirely different method for categorizing groups. He uses geographically based linguistic groups, borrowed from Driver’s Culture Area concept (Driver 1961). The areal-typological perspective is very important and influential today. My methodology for comparing these different schemas is unique. In 1990, a questionnaire survey (see Appendix A) was sent out to Native American groups all over North America (north of Mexico) which was designed to get a better understanding of tribal reburial policies, whether formal or informal. Previous to my interest, no one had summarized, described, or analyzed this data set. This data has been gathered and entered into a database. All questionnaire results were broken down into the five different classifications and the results compared, based on solidarity, variability, and deviation, to see if one or more of the schemes is more plausible according to this survey data. Each known tribe in the database has been classified five ways, per Greenberg, Sapir, Campbell, Sherzer, and by the author (according to modern tribal locations). Assuming that cultural traits, beliefs, and behaviors are similar amongst linguistically related groups, I hope that the cultural survey data will bolster one or more of these schemes. In 1990, the survey mailing list was generated using the Tribal leader list (February 1990) issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for federally recognized tribes. Of the 530 federally recognized tribes, a total of 309 tribes were selected to send the questionnaire (Leslie 1991). The data consists of 166 different tribal groups responding. Of these, 127 groups responded to the questionnaire (the remaining just sent letters and/or material), for a response rate of 41 percent. Over the last decade or so, some of the original data has been lost or maybe it was never there in the first place. This is

3 demonstrated by the fact that although there were 166 respondents, I only know the identity of 144 of them. Twenty-two of the respondents are unknown. However the data can still show us a picture of the tribal trends. . Of the 144 know respondents, all major linguistic areas (as per Sherzer) are represented as well as all six of Sapir’s North American stocks, the three Greenberg Families, and 28 different Campbellian linguistic families (Campbell 1997; Greenberg 1987; Sapir 1921). Greenberg’s Amerind Family is subdivided into 11 subgroups of which four (the North American subgroups) are represented in the data set (Greenberg 1987). The next chapter traces the development of different cultural and linguistic classification schemes from first contact through modern day. Chapter 3 discusses the specific methodologies used in this study. Chapter 4 displays the results and different analytical methods used for the classification comparison. And Finally, chapter 5 summarizes the data, making conclusionary remarks.

CHAPTER 2- HISTORY OF CLASSIFICATION OF NATIVE AMERICANS

This chapter will briefly cover the history and development of Native American Linguistics. In this chapter I present a concise chronological perspective, beginning with the “Discovery” of the New World through present time. This overview attempts to familiarize the reader with most of the major contributors to the field, however due to time and space constraints some important scholars are not mentioned. In addition, this overview focuses on North American linguistic studies and classifications. There are many influential scholars and important works that focus on the indigenous languages of Central and South America. For more information on these topics, I recommend Greenberg 1960, Kaufman 1990 & 1994, Loukotka 1968, Suarez 1974, and Swadesh 1959. Colonial Contributions

Investigations and research into Native American Linguistics began at the onset of contact from the New World. Obviously, the first investigators were explorers from the expansionist empires of Spain, France and other European powers. With the Spanish Empire having such a large colonial territory during the Age of Exploration, it is not surprising that there are many Spanish works on Native American linguistics. The breadth of this early Spanish language documentation comes from Mesoamerica and the Caribbean, due to the fact that this is where Spain had colonial strongholds. The Spanish colonial period, through the works of explorers and missionaries, led to great descriptive accounts of native languages. Many of these works, written in Native American languages with Spanish orthography, include dictionaries and grammars and are

5 contemporaneous with many similar studies and compilations of non-classical European languages (Campbell 1997; Gray and Fiering 2000). While it can be debated who was the first to “rediscover” the New World, most recognize Christopher Columbus as a first explorer. Hence, the earliest observations of Native American languages come from his expeditions. His linguistic recordings produced some vocabularies of now extinct languages (i.e. Taino) and commented on similarities and differences between different indigenous languages (Campbell 1997; Gray and Fiering 2000). Colonial missionaries were also on the front wave of native language studies in the New World. Spanish priests working in New World parishes documented indigenous language vocabularies and commented on relationships. Francisco Ximenez was an early Spanish Dominican who studied and wrote on Mayan languages (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Gray and Fiering 2000). Jesuits also had a great impact on early Native American Linguistics. Filippo Salvatore Gilij, an Italian Jesuit, was stationed in modern day Venezuela. He had a great impact on early South American Linguistics. Gilij studied indigenous languages and recognized sound correspondences, which led him to develop one of the earliest language family schema for South America (Campbell 1997). He separated the indigenous languages of the region into nine related families, which he termed lenguas matrices, mother languages. Gilij’s concepts predate Sir William Jones’s 1798 publication (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Gray and Fiering 2000). Then there was Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, a Spaniard Jesuit who worked in Mexico. Hervas y Panduro represents the culmination of Spanish Colonial contributions to North American Linguistics. He was stationed in Mexico until the Jesuits were expelled, and then he went back to Europe where he wrote copious amounts on New World languages. Like Gilij, he too established lengua matrices, which he based on sound correspondences, grammar, and vocabulary. His language classifications and relationships also were based on nonlinguistic data such as cultural evidence and geography. He wrote not only on native Mexican languages, like Mayan, but also wrote and proposed relationships on Iroquoian, Cariban and other indigenous New World languages. Although some of his language classifications and views on language change have been proven to be incorrect, Hervas y Panduro contributed to the early collection of

6 data and generation of theories on North American linguistics (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Gray and Fiering 2000).

Native American Historical Linguistics: 17th-Early 19th Centuries

The last section dealt with Colonial contributions, mainly Spanish explorers and missionaries. Although not mentioned above, there were also contributions to the body of Native American linguistics from the French. Like the Spanish, the French also added important data, including vocabularies, grammars and dictionaries, on indigenous languages. Most of this data comes from regions where the French had colonial strongholds. There is early data on Algonquian, Cariban, Athabaskan, and others that were provided by early French colonialists (Campbell 1997; Gray and Fiering 2000). Roger Williams provided one of the earliest works on indigenous North American languages. His work, A Key into the Language of America (1643), was one of the earliest examinations of the Algonquian languages of New England. He made an early observation on sound changes that would influence future scholars like Pickering, Duponceau, and Haas (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992, 2001). Like Williams, Benjamin Smith Barton contributed to early American studies. He collected vocabularies of Native languages and was the first scholar to connect Cherokee with Northern Iroquoian languages. He was also one of the first to hypothesize that indigenous American languages were related to Asian languages. In fact, Alexander von Humboldt later used Barton’s compiled vocabulary data to compare languages from around the world. His goal was to find a connection between New and Old World languages (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992, 2001). Another early scholar who influenced later well-known linguists was John Heckewelder. Heckwelder’s seminal work History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations, Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States (1819) compiled linguistic as well as other data on the natives of this region. He hypothesized that there were mother or principal languages in the New World that evolved into many related dialects. This was very innovative thinking for the time, and this book had a major

7 influence on later Native American linguists like Humboldt, Pickering, and Duponcaeu (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Nichols 1990). Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, had a great interest in Native American studies. Jefferson was also the third President of the American Philosophical Society, whose main goals at the time were to collect data on Native American languages. In addition to having an influence on early American Archaeology, Jefferson was greatly interested in Native American linguistics. He collected and compared linguistic data and hypothesized about the age and relationships of Native American languages. He was interested in the age and origins of Native Americans and saw linguistic studies as the best method for resolving these questions (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). Jefferson recognized that there was a great deal of time needed for the languages to have separated from their common origin, suggesting “perhaps not less than many people give to the age of the earth”. Jefferson’s scholarship on linguistics, especially his thoughts on language relationships and origins, was ahead of its time and influential on future scholars (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992, 2001). The interest in Native American linguistics was not just an American obsession. Scholars from all over the world were eager to study and debate the subject, and it became the dominant focus of historical linguistics. European scholars were also very influential. Johann Vater, a German linguist, spent time studying Mayan languages. Vater stressed that language comparisons should not be limited to vocabulary but that structure was an important factor to study and compare in order to solve linguistic affinities (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Lounsbury 1968). Another influential European was Rasmus Rask, a Danish linguist. Rask made his name in Indo-European language studies, where he helped produce what is known as Grimm’s Law. He used the same comparative methods he was using on Indo-European languages to prove genetic relatedness between Eskimo and Aleut. This was one of the earliest instances where scholars treated Native American language study the same as “refined” European language studies. Before, many people saw Native American languages as crude and primitive and not deserving the same attention paid to European languages (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992).

Native American Historical Linguistics: 19th Century

Pierre Duponceau

Pierre Duponceau (aka Peter Stephen Duponceau) moved from France to the United States to serve as an officer in the Revolutionary Army. After the war he settled in Philadelphia and developed an strong interest in Native American languages. Like Jefferson, he was a member and eventual President of the American Philosophical Society, which was dedicated to collecting and studying indigenous American languages. Like Rask, Duponceau’s work had great impact on linguistic thinking in Europe. His memoir on the grammatical system of the Indian languages, Mémoire sur le systeme grammatical des langues de quelques nations Indiennes de l'Amérique du Nord, won the Volney prize of the French Institute in 1835 (Campbell 1997). Duponceau influenced and worked with other Native American philogists, such as Heckewelder, Pickering, Humboldt, and H.R. Schoolcraft (whose linguistic articles on the Algonquian languages Duponceau translated into French, which led to Schoolcraft winning the medaille d’or by the French Institute in 1831). Duponceau borrowed the term “polysynthesis” which he applied to Native American languages, because many of them have single words, with many morphemes, that convey a large amount of information. This polysynthesis implies that these languages are complicated, not crude primitive language forms as once thought. He offered one of the first genetic classification of Northeastern languages, in which he divided into four families (three of these families are accurate). While Duponoceau worked primarily with Algonquian languages, he was a great synthesizer of Native American linguistic studies and his influence on linguistic studies is significant (Campbell 1997; Campbell and Mithun 1979; Darnell 1992). One of Duponceau’s friends and linguistic colleague was John Pickering. Pickering’s scholarship focused on Iroquoian languages, specifically Cherokee. However, in his 1830 Encyclopedia Americana article, he presents a broad spectrum view of North American languages, into which he divided into 34 “stocks”. Like Duponceau,

9 he was in constant correspondence with European linguistic scholars and had considerable influence on European thinking. Pickering thought that genetic relations could be fleshed out by examining both lexical and grammatical evidence. Like Jefferson, Pickering saw linguistics as the best tool for resolving questions of prehistory, specifically the peopling of the New World. Another one of Pickering’s contributions to American Indian linguistics was that he was the academic mentor to Horatio Hale, who eventually became Franz Boas’s teacher (Boas 1929; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). Wilhelm von Humboldt, brother of Alexander von Humboldt (the famous geographer), was one of the most influential linguists of his time. Humboldt was influenced by and had a great impact on American Indian linguistics. He used Native American languages as his primary examples in his work on the origins of grammar (1822). He stated that New World languages are related most closely with languages from Northeast Asia, a view which gave more credence to the Beringia migration model. His methodology for studying linguistic relatedness included comparing grammar, sound correspondences, and core vocabulary. For Humboldt, “the science of languages is the history of progress and evolution of the human mind” (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992, 2001).

Albert Gallatin

The Swiss born, Albert Gallatin also had a major impact on American Indian Historical linguistics. Gallatin, who was Jefferson’s Secretary of Treasury, helped found and was the first President of the American Ethnological Society, which had the goal of collecting data on Native American culture and language. Gallatin, heavily influenced by Duponceau and Jefferson, compared vocabulary and grammar to come up with one of the first major overall classifications of North American Indian languages. His classification included 81 tribes, consisting of 32 distinct families, which belonged to eight great families or stocks. These stocks were Eskimaux, Athapascas, the Black Feet, the Sioux, the Algonkin-Lenape, the Iroquois, the Cherokee, and the Chahta-Muskhog. This classificatory scheme was most influential until Powell came out with his famous 1891 classification. In fact Powell gave credit to Gallatin in the introduction to his 1891 work

10 saying, “as Linnaeus is to be regarded as the founder of biologic classification, so Gallatin may be considered the founder of systematic philology relating to North American Indians” (Campbell 1997). Gallatin’s classification of the languages of the Northwest Coast was based primarily on the data collected by Horatio Hale. Hale studied under Pickering and Duponceau at Harvard and due to their influence was assigned to Wilkes expedition to the South Pacific. Hale’s duties were to collect ethnological and linguistic data. When the expedition stopped in the Northwest Coast, Hale seized the opportunity to collect volumes of cultural and linguistic data of the local Native American groups. Hale collected data on many indigenous languages of the Northwest Coast and used the comparative method to reconstruct the relationships and history of the Native American groups. Hale examined vocabularies, but stressed that grammatical comparisons were needed to truly understand group relationships. Using this grammatically stressed comparison, he proved that Cherokee was part of the Iroquoian family and that Tutelo was Siouan not Iroquoian which was assumed before (Campbell 1997). Later in his life, Hale was appointed, along with Edward Tylor, to a committee whose task was to conduct anthropological investigations of the indigenous cultures of the Northwest Coast (Darnell 1992). This committee chose Franz Boas to conduct the fieldwork. Hale supervised Boas for six years and had a great influence on his thinking and methodology (Campbell 1997). Hale stressed to Boas that grammatical comparisons (in addition to lexical comparisons) were necessary to get an accurate picture of the linguistic and cultural history of the region. In addition to his linguistic fieldwork and methodological concerns, Hale is important to American Indian Historical Linguistics because he bridged the gap from his theoretically based predecessors, like Duponeau and Pickering, to the later fieldwork intensive scholars like Boas and Powell (Boas 1929; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Mithun 1999). George Gibbs also had a major influence on North American linguistic studies. Gibbs was the first linguist hired by the Smithsonian Institute. In this role and with the help of William Whitney he created the questionnaire that what used to elicit Native American vocabularies (this same questionnaire was expanded and used by John Wesley Powell). Gibbs conducted fieldwork in the Northwest Coast region and also collected

11 linguistic data on Alaskan natives through correspondence with Russians. Gibbs’ goal was to compile a complete collection of western North American languages. With this data, he thought he would be able to discover the origins and migration routes of Native Americans. Gibbs helped Powell and Gallatin found the Bureau of American Ethnology, which became the premier institute of Native American linguistics. Later in his life, Gibbs ambitiously pursued compiling linguistic data for all of North America. He fell short of his goal, but it was later realized by his colleague John Wesley Powell in 1891 (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Powell 1966). Robert Latham was a well known British linguist of the nineteenth century. He attempted to classify all of the world’s languages in his 1862 work Elements of Comparative Philology. His classification of the American Indian languages was largely based on the fieldwork of Hale and other field linguists. Latham did not collect linguistic data but rather synthesized and studied other’s findings. Latham made many relational proposals of Native American languages including, proposing a Macro-Siouan group, grouping Beothuk with Algonquian, and associating Ute, Shoshone, Paiute, and Commanche (all Uto-Aztecan languages). Latham also used his linguistic knowledge to propose Native American migrations and homelands. For example, he proposed that Numic groups in the Northwest Coast had been there for a long time, but the Numic groups in the Southwest were more recent intrusions (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). William Whitney had a great impact on American Indian Historical linguistics even though he did not work specifically with classifying Native American languages (Sanskrit was his specialty). Whitney was the most notable American linguist of the nineteenth century. Whitney wrote one of the first American textbooks in linguistics, Language and the Study of Language (1867), and had a great influence on other scholars such as Powell, Gibbs, and Trumbull. He helped both Gibbs and Powell formulate the questionnaires they used to elicit data on Native American languages. He promoted the strict use of the comparative method, looking at vocabulary, sound correspondences, and grammar (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992). As mentioned above, one of the scholars Whitney had an influence on was J. Hammond Trumbull. Like Hale, Trumbull preferred grammatical comparisons over lexical for elucidating linguistic classifications. He thought that vocabularies were useful

12 in determining the more obvious genetic relationships, but grammatical evidence analysis is what separates linguists from word collectors. Trumbull questioned the earlier typological classifications that were generated primarily from lexical comparisons, and like Whitney was an ardent proponent of the comparative method. Trumbull’s work and methodological stress on grammar and the comparative method even influenced Powell, who worked mostly from lexical data. Powell was persuaded to look at grammatical evidence especially for determining internal subgroupings (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992; Powell 1966).

Native American Historical Linguistics: Late 19th Century

Lucien Adam was a late nineteenth century French linguist specializing in Native American linguistics (Darnell 1992). At this time Native American topics were the major focus of the field of linguistics as a whole. Adam is best known for his work on Cariban languages, where he figured out some of the internal subgroupings of this family, but he also worked with classifying Siouan, Mayan, and Algonquian language families. He looked at both lexical and grammatical evidence in trying to genetically classify languages. He differed from earlier scholars like Duponceau and debated his contemporaries, like Brinton, that all Native American languages were NOT genetically related (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). Another late nineteenth century linguistic scholar was Daniel Garrison Brinton. Brinton competed with John Wesley Powell to publish the first major overall classification of Native American languages (Brinton 1891; Campbell 1997). Brinton’s The American Race (1891) came out before Powell’s famous monograph but not before Powell initially published his classification in the journal Science. Brinton complained that he was only allowed limited access to all of the collected linguistic data housed at the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE) that Powell headed. Briton’s scholarship prompted Powell’s to finish the BAE classification he was having doubts and difficulties

13 with. Brinton’s classification covered both North and South America and is considered more liberal and speculative. Brinton stressed a methodology that included phonetic, grammatical, and lexical analyses, while Powell relied heavily on lexical data. However, despite his stressed methods, Brinton’s results were based primarily on lexical comparisons. As a disciple of Duponceau and Humboldt, Brinton thought that all Native American languages possessed an overall grammatical unity. Both Brinton’s and Powell’s classification of North America contained 58 families, however they had different names and groupings. Brinton coined the family “Uto-Aztecan”, lumping Aztecan, Shoshonean, and Sonoran together. This classification (which Powell rejected) and family name are still accepted today. Brinton also proposed a Hokan group, relating Seri, Yuman, and Tequistlatec, which was later accepted and expanded on by Sapir and Whorf. Brinton also classified Pawnee with Caddoan and Natchez with Muskogean, both of which are accepted by many scholars today. Briton’s classification of North American languages included culture (or linguistic) areas, like California, Northwest Coast, and Pueblos, which remind us of later areal classifications (like Sherzer) (Brinton 1891; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992; Powell 1966).

John Wesley Powell

John Wesley Powell, best known for his historic Colorado River exploration, served as an Union officer in the Civil War (where he lost an arm), headed the United States Geographical and Geological Survey, and founded the Bureau of American Ethnology, where he gathered cultural and linguistic data on the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Obviously a very important American historical figure, Powell also left a mark on the field of American Indian Historical linguistics. While with the U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey, Powell was assigned the duty of collecting cultural and linguistic data on tribes of the Rocky Mountain Region. A few years later, he was chosen as the founding Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology, where his mission was the classification of Native American languages (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992; Powell 1966).

14 In 1891, Powell came out with one of the first overall classifications of Native American languages north of Mexico. This work has become a foundation for subsequent classificatory endeavors. As Edward Sapir wrote, it is “the cornerstone of the linguistic edifice in aboriginal North America” (Campbell 1997). Powell worked with other great linguistic scholars on this monumental task, including Gatschet, Dorsey, and Mooney. As mentioned above, Brinton and Powell competed to see who could produce the classification first. While both men completed their classifications within a year of each other, Powell published his preliminary data first and is much more prominent in books about the history of American Indian Historical Linguistics. This overall classification had been the goal of the field since early scholars like Williams and Jefferson (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971; Powell 1966). Powell’s classification of languages north of Mexico included 58 “stocks” and was seen as more conservative than Brinton’s. Powell based his classificatory schema primarily on lexical comparisons. One reason for this was that only vocabularies (no grammatical data) were collected for many languages. However, for languages in which Powell had access to both lexical and grammatical data, he tended to favor lexical data. This has a lot to do with Powell’s overall anthropological perspective. Powell was heavily influenced by Lewis Henry Morgan’s work on cultural evolution, where cultures pass through evolutionary phases from savagery, to barbarism, then ultimately to civilization (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971). Powell believed that if one examined and compared grammatical data, he would elicit information on social progress rather than genetic relatedness. Powell’s reliance on vocabulary led to differences in opinion amongst his own staff, for Gatschet was a proponent for also comparing grammatical evidence and sound correspondences (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971; Powell 1966). Powell’s classification impacted anthropology. The classification was used and helpful for ethnological studies and classifications of aboriginal North America. For instance, Hodge’s Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (1907) and Kroeber’s Handbook of the Indians of California (1925) used language families and classifications from Powell’s 1891 work. Also, Powell’s classification influenced how the Smithsonian Institute designed their display on the Native Americans. The Smithsonian originally wanted to set up the exhibit under a evolutionary (Morganian) scheme, but after Powell’s

15 classification they organized the Native American displays along language family and culture area lines. From the time it was first published and for many years after, Powell’s classification of language families was seen as the best way organize and classify Native American culture (Boas 1911; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971; Voegelin and Voegelin 1965). Powell’s benchmark classification did have some aspects that were later accepted as inaccurate. For example, Powell did not include the family Uto-Aztecan because he didn’t believe the evidence warranted such a grouping. There are also groupings which were later accepted as not related, like Seri related to Yuman, and groups which he didn’t relate, like Miwok-Costanoan (Campbell 1997). Despite the inaccuracies Powell’s classification was very important in the development of American Indian Historical Linguistics. It acts as a starting point for future classifications and studies. In fact, Powell thought of his work as preliminary, stating that there is “not desire that this work shall be considered final, but rather as initiatory and tentative” (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971; Powell 1966). As mentioned above, Powell’s BAE staff included Albert Gatschet, a Swiss born linguist taught in the historical linguistic tradition of Duponceau and Humboldt. Gatschet and Dorsey were the only classically trained linguists on Powell’s team. Gatschet differed from Powell in that he stressed comparing sound correspondences and grammatical forms, instead of vocabularies, in order to figure out genetic relationships. This fundamental difference in methodology led to disagreements between Powell’s BAE staff. Gatschet is also known for his linguistic fieldwork on the Klamath, which he began while working under Powell at the U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey. Without Gatschet’s linguistic fieldwork, sophisticated methodology, and sound synthesis of others’ work (like Gibbs, Lantham, and Bancroft), Powell and the BAE team would not been as successful with their pioneering classification (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992).

Figure 1: Map Showing Powell’s 1891 Classification

Native American Historical Linguistics: 20th Century

Franz Boas

Franz Boas, considered the Father of American Anthropology, naturally had a great impact on the field of Native American Linguistics. The German-born Boas first worked on Baffin Island, collecting cultural and linguistic data on the native Eskimo population. Later, he went back to the U.S. to study the indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast. This research proved to be fruitful and led to published articles and the position of editor of the journal Science (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). Subsequently, a committee from the British Association for the Advancement of Science, chaired by Edward Tylor and Horatio Hale, chose Boas as the field agent for anthropological investigations of the cultures and languages of the Northwest Coast. Hale served as Boas’s supervisor and had a major influence on how Boas collected and studied linguistic data. Boas went on to teach at Clark University (where he graduated the first American PhD in Anthropology, A. F. Chamberlain) and Columbia University, which under his guidance became the epicenter for American Anthropology and Linguistic studies. In 1901, he was chosen as the chief philologist for the Bureau of American Ethnology, where he prepared and edited the Handbook of North American Indian Languages Vol. 1 & 2 (Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992, 2001). Heavily influenced by his tutor Hale, Boas stressed a three tiered comparative method, examining lexical, grammatical and phonetic evidence, for classifying languages or reconstructing language and cultural relationships. However, he thought comparisons of grammatical forms were best for understanding genetic relationships. Later in his career Boas favored an areal-typological approach to language study. With much of his work in the Pacific Northwest, Boas realized it was hard to distinguish between inherited traits and diffused traits. He started examining traits of languages in a particular geographical area and how they mutually influenced each other. Boas became a proponent of the areal-typological approach to language study because he thought the

18 inability to distinguish between diffused and inherited characteristics made remote genetic relationships impossible (Campbell 1997). This change in methodological approach caused a schism in Native American linguistic studies and a debate among colleagues Boas and Sapir (Boas 1929; Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001). Boas’s most significant contribution to American Indian Historical Linguistics and Anthropology as a whole was his emphasis on fieldwork. He wished to collect as much cultural and linguistic data on the indigenous people before they disappeared or were permanently altered. He passed this urgency for fieldwork on to his students and due to this there are volumes of ethnographic work on the indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast and California. He stressed description over generalization in cultural and linguistic studies and believed a scholar should describe language and cultures in their own terms, not preconceived notions. This emphasis on descriptive work went hand in hand with his areal-typological approach to linguistics and represents a major paradigm shift in anthropological studies (Boas 1911, 1929; Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001; Darnell and Sherzer 1971). One of Boas’s most influential and important students was A.L. Kroeber. Kroeber met Boas at Columbia as a student enrolled in Boas’s first course on American Indian languages. Kroeber was Boas’s first student and received his PhD in Anthropology from Columbia in 1901. In his early career, Kroeber, like all Boasian students, focused on fieldwork and areal-typological studies. This is where he met his colleague and collaborator, Roland Dixon, another Boasian pupil. In the beginning Kroeber and Dixon’s goal was an areal-typological comparison, rather than a genetic classification, of the languages and cultures of California. They compared 16 Powellian language families of California and classified them into three structural-geographical categories: Northwestern California, Central California, and Southwestern California. These categories were not genetic relationships, but rather groups of languages that shared similar structure and geography. Following Boasian areal-typological approaches, Kroeber and Dixon explained similarities in lexicon and grammar to possible diffusion or convergence rather than genetic relatedness (Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001).

19 Later in their careers, both Kroeber and Dixon turned from their areal-typological orientation to genetic relatedness hypotheses. This change corresponds with Kroeber’s relationship with Edward Sapir. While it seems obvious that Sapir influenced both Kroeber and Dixon, both were starting to lean towards genetic classificatory models independently. Employing a Powellian-like lexical comparison of California languages, Kroeber and Dixon reduced Powell’s 22 California stocks or families to twelve. Of these twelve, there are two very inclusive families proposals, which get their name from the word for “two”, Penutian and Hokan. These reductionist classifications were derived from scant lexical comparisons and are still controversial today. Nevertheless, Kroeber and Dixon’s classification of California languages is important historically because it marks the beginning of what Campbell terms “Post-Powellian Reductionism” (Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001; Sapir 1921).

Edward Sapir

Another student of Boas who had a huge impact on American Indian Historical Linguistics is Edward Sapir. Sapir received his PhD, under Boas, from Columbia in 1909 with his dissertation of the Takelma language of Southern Oregon. Like Boas and Hale before him, Sapir employed methods which relied on lexical, grammatical, and phonetic evidence for examining and classifying languages. Sapir used this rigorous methodology for proposing distant genetic relationships among Native American languages. As mentioned before, Sapir differed from Boas in that he thought distant genetic relationships could be elucidated and inherited and borrowed traits could be distinguished (Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sapir 1921). Sapir conducted linguistic fieldwork on over forty different languages over his career. In 1913, Sapir supplied evidence which related Ritwan with Algonquian languages. He also validated the language family Uto-Aztecan, which Powell and other had rejected earlier. Another distant genetic proposal Sapir supported was the Na-Dene family, in which he linked Athabaskan, Tlingit, and Haida. Later, in 1917, Sapir presented evidence for the Hokan family that Kroeber and Dixon originally proposed. In this Hokan family, Sapir further lumped in the Coahuiltecan languages. For all of these

20 distant proposals (which some are still controversial today) Sapir looked at phonetic, lexical, and grammatical evidence. His critics do not condemn his methodologies or the evidence he used, but rather they argue that the evidence does not warrant his conclusions (Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Bright 1990; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sapir 1921). Sapir’s distant genetic relation proposals associate with the reductionism movement in American Indian Historical Linguistics of the early part of the twentieth century. Sapir and other reductionists were taking Powell’s original 58 language families and combining them into larger more inclusive language families to decrease the number of distinct genetic groups. In 1921, Sapir clearly became the champion of the reductionist movement with his Super Six Classification proposal. In this proposal, Sapir lumped all of the languages of North America into six stocks: Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, Algonquian-Wakashan, Penutian, Hokan-Siouan, and Aztec-Tanoan (Sapir 1921). Sapir derived these six stocks from comparing morphological and grammatical features, hoping that lexical and phonological evidence would eventually appear to support them. The linguistic data he examined to come up with this hypothesis was gathered by himself and his predecessors (like Boas, Powell, Kroeber, Dixon). Sapir offered this classification as initial and tentative, saying, “it is offered merely as a first step toward defining the issue, and it goes without saying that the status of these languages may have to be entirely reinstated”. Despite Sapir’s intent for this classification to be considered a working hypothesis that needed testing, it was widely accepted and unquestioned (Bright 1990; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sapir 1921). The apex of the reductionist movement in Native American language studies can be seen in the work of Paul Radin. Radin was another Boasian student from Columbia who wrote his dissertation on the Winnebago. Radin conducted fieldwork in Mexico, where he collected data on Zapotec and Huave languages. He also worked with Sapir in Canada. Radin was influential in the proposed Mexican Penutian and Macro-Mayan families, due to his hypothesized relationships among Mayan, Huave, and Mixe-Zoque. However, he is probably best known for his 1919 work where he proposed that all Native American (North and South America) languages are related, belonging to one huge family (Campbell 1997; Radin 1919). For the most part, Radin’s proposal was dismissed

21 by the linguistic community because of its lack of linguistic method (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Lounsbury 1968). Another person to have a great impact on the field of American Indian Historical Linguistics was Leonard Bloomfield. Bloomfield worked on a historical reconstruction of the Algonguian language. Bloomfield reconstructed Algonquian by strictly employing the comparative method (Darnell 1992). His major contribution was proving that sound changes are regular in “exotic” or unwritten languages, and thus the comparative method was fully applicable to these unwritten languages. In addition to validating the comparative method, Bloomfield wrote the famous book Language (1933), which marks the beginning of Structuralism in American Linguistics (Bloomfield 1933; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). John Swanton, a cultural anthropologist, also was involved in Native American linguistics and language classification. Swanton, who received the first PhD in Anthropology at Harvard, studied with Boas at Columbia and in the Pacific Northwest in order to get better linguistic training and a dissertation on the Chinook language. Over his career, Swanton proposed several language family groupings, most which remain controversial. Like Sapir, Swanton proposed a grouping of Athabaskan, Tlingit, and Haida. He also proposed a group, Coahuiltecan, which some think influenced Sapir’s Hokan-Coahuiltecan family. Swanton worked with Southeastern languages, where he proposed a Tunican family (composed of Tunica, Chitimacha, and Atakapa) and eventually grouped it with his Natchez-Muskogean family. This worked had an impact on Mary Haas (her proposed Gulf family) and Sapir (his Hokan-Siouan proposal). Swanton employed a simplistic lexical comparison methodology, similar to Powell’s, to arrive at these hypotheses (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). John Harrington, who is relatively unknown in the field of American Indian Historical linguistics, also made an impact on the field. Harrington is best known for his linguistic fieldwork of native California languages. He worked for the Bureau of American Ethnology where he collected data on over 125 indigenous languages of California and the Far West. In addition to the volumes of descriptive data, Harrington also made some genetic proposals. For example, he proposed that Quechua was Hokan, linked Chumash with Yuman and Kiowa with Tanoan, and conducted historical

22 reconstructions of Athabaskan. Despite his relative obscurity, scholars of Native American linguistics are indebted to Harrington for the quantity of his descriptive linguistic data (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). In 1964, linguist Carl Voegelin organized the first Conference on American Indian Languages at Indiana University, Bloomington. Voegelin, who served as the editor for the International Journal of American Linguistics, compiled thirty of the most well-known specialists of the day in order to classify all of the indigenous languages of the New World (Voegelin and Voegelin 1965). The resulting classification, which still echoes Sapirian reductionism, presents seven language stocks (American Arctic Paleosiberian, Na-Dene, Macro-Algonquian, Macro-Siouan, Hokan, Penutian, and Aztec- Tanoan) and several unclassified languages (Keres, Yuki, Beothuk, Karankawa, Kutenai, Chimakuan, Salish, Wakashan, and Timucua). This classification is very well known due to the widely utilized Voegelin and Voegelin language map (1966) (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Voegelin and Voegelin 1965, 1985).

Joseph Greenberg

Another scholar that has to be mentioned when talking about classifications of Native American languages is Joseph Greenberg. Greenberg, a well-known linguist who published a classification of African languages, reduces all of the indigenous languages of the New World into three genetic stocks, Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, and Amerind (Greenberg 1987, 1996; Greenberg and Ruhlen 1992; Greenberg, et al. 1986). Greenberg’s controversial hypothesis is widely published and ingrained in the public and professional consciousness. Greenberg ascertains that the Eskimo-Aleut language family represents a more recent migration of peoples into the Continent. His Na-Dene grouping, similar to Sapir’s, represents an earlier migration into the New World, around 7000- 10000 BP. Greenberg’s Amerind family is a huge stock encompassing the remaining languages which show great internal linguistic differentiation. Greenberg asserts that this huge Amerind family is connected with the first migration of humans into the New World, Paleoindian or Clovis Culture. In addition, Greenberg tries to strengthen his

23 hypothesis with serological and dental evidence. This reductionist classification, although controversial, uses both archaeological and biological supporting evidence in order to clarify the linguistic diversity and the Peopling of the New World (Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001; Greenberg 1987, 1996; Greenberg and Ruhlen 1992; Greenberg, et al. 1986).

Lyle Campbell

While Greenberg’s reductionist classification might be seen as liberal, there is a great tendency in modern American Indian Historical linguistics toward conservatism. This conservatism is most obvious in the works of Lyle Campbell. Campbell does not favor distant genetic classifications, but rather he offers classification schemes that have groupings that can be clearly demonstrated by historical linguistic methods (aka comparative method) (Campbell 1997; Campbell and Mithun 1979). In 1979, Campbell and Mithun offer a classification of indigenous languages north of Mexico with 59 independent linguistic groups. This conservative or “Splitter” classification reminds us of Powell’s 1891 classification which had 58 groups. This new conservatism in Native American linguistics has been received favorably by many, and scholars like Campbell are and will continue to be very influential in the field (Campbell 1997; Campbell and Mithun 1979; Darnell 2001).

Joel Sherzer

Besides liberal reductionist and conservative “Splitter” classifications, areal linguistic studies and classifications are modern influential ways to study Native American languages. Areal linguistics seeks to explain shared linguistic traits, whether they are genetic or diffused. Joel Sherzer’s work on North American linguistic areas is very important in the field. Sherzer uses previously defined culture areas as linguistic areas and characterizes each area’s linguistic traits, phonological and morphological (Sherzer 1973, 1976, 1992; Sherzer and Bauman 1972). Sherzer follows Sapir’s intermediate classification as the basis for determining whether shared traits are genetically related or areally diffused traits. Areal linguistic studies have recently

24 received a lot of attention and are important ways for studying language and language change (Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001; Darnell and Sherzer 1971; Sherzer 1973, 1976, 1992; Sherzer and Bauman 1972).

Other Classifications

I will now briefly describe other less significant classifications of North American languages. In 1858 Hermann Ludewig published a catalog of tribal/language names for Native North America. In this, Ludewig identifies different families and relates tribes/languages with one another (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). In 1908, Christainus Uhlenbeck published a classification of North American languages, however this proposal was widely disregarded because it resembled Powell’s 1891 work too much (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992). George Trager also made some genetic proposals. Trager, who worked with Whorf, proposed a classification which slightly rearranged Sapir’s Penutian and Hokan-Siouan stocks and added Natchez-Muskogean and Siouan- Yuchi as new independent stocks (Darnell 1992). In 1959, Sydney Lamb proposed a 23 family scheme which looks like a compromise between Powell’s and Sapir’s classification (Campbell 1997). William Elmendorf (1965) and Karl Gursky (1966) also proposed classifications, but both were supplanted by the 1964 Conference Classification (Campbell 1997; Voegelin and Voegelin 1965).

CHAPTER 3-PROBLEMS AND METHODS

Questions Being Asked

This thesis intends to investigate different classifying schemes of Native American language groups, compare several different of the most prominent models, and see if current cultural data (questionnaire data) validates one or more of these models. Obviously, linguistic methodologies are the best instruments for compiling and constructing linguistic classifications. This research doesn’t attempt to classify or group languages, but rather the intention is to use modern non-linguistic data to bolster one or more of the more prominent classification schemes. Cultural and linguistic classifications are important representations for simplifying complex cultural phenomena. This is especially true in the western hemisphere, where the questions, Who are these indigenous people, Where did they come from, and When did they settle into the New World, have been intriguing scholars since European contact. Understanding cultural and linguistic relationships among Native Americans will allow us to make more precise models for the prehistory of this continent. The study of Native Americans and their languages has always been a central theme in anthropology and anthropological linguistics.

Origin and Development of this Study

This research and scholarship has taken me down a strange winding road, changing completely from the original intentions. In 1996, as a first year graduate student at the Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, I started my initial work for this thesis. My major professor at the time, Dr. J. Anthony Paredes, gave me a box of dog-eared papers and correspondence. In this box were the results of a cultural survey conducted by graduate student Debbie Leslie from 1989-91. Ms. Leslie was

26 interested, as I was at the time, in Native American beliefs and policies toward reburial and repatriation. She sent out a simple fourteen question survey to all federally recognized tribes in the United States, excluding Hawaii, asking them a range of questions concerning tribal reburial policies (see Appendix A). At this time I was responsible for managing the archaeological and ethnographic collections housed by the Department. In this role, I was in constant correspondence with different tribal representatives concerning NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) and the department’s collections and had a great interest in this applied anthropological problem. This led me to research NAGPRA and reburial and repatriation issues and led me to that box of dog-eared papers. Originally, I was going to write a thesis on NAGPRA and reburial and repatriation issues. I was going to use the survey information which predated the implementation of NAGPRA and report on the changes, whether positive or negative, that the law had on the Native American community and the Professional Archaeological and Museum communities. As the years passed and the thesis research remained stunted, my major professor retired, leaving me with an undeveloped thesis and no academic mentor. Knowing that I had already invested too much effort in the research and database development, I forged ahead with the same survey data but looking for a new research goal. Under the tutelage of Dr. Michael Faught, I was able to refocus my efforts towards a topic that I had much greater interest in, Native American linguistics. I decided to use the Leslie survey results to compare different linguistic classification schemes.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaires were sent out by Leslie from a list of 530 federally recognized tribes issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1990. Of the 530 federally recognized tribes Leslie chose 309 to send the survey. For Alaskan tribes, Leslie chose to send the questionnaire only to 10 of the 206 recognized tribes, for the ten contacted appeared to be inter-community organizations, rather than individual community governments. Other tribes were not included in the survey for other reasons such as no mailing addresses, vacant leader positions, and “not active” or “pending” status (Leslie 1991). See Table 1

27 for a State summary of contacted tribes and Appendix B for a list of tribes who responded. The questionnaire sent out in 1989-1990 by Leslie consists of fourteen multiple- choice questions (See Appendix A). Seven of the fourteen questions are yes/no questions, but all these questions have a third answer choice, “don’t know”. The first question inquires whether the tribe has an informal, unofficial policy concerning the reburial of human remains. If respondents answer “yes”, they are informed to “Go to Question 2”, however if the respondent answers “no”, they are instructed to “Go to Question 13”. This is due to the fact that questions 2-12, inquire about the details of the tribal informal policies. There are other instances in the questionnaire where respondents are directed to skip over questions depending on their answers to others. This results in each question having a different number of total respondents.

Table 1: State Breakdown of Tribes Contacted for Survey

Total # of Total # Total # of Total # STATE Tribes Contacted STATE Tribes Contacted Alabama 1 1 Montana 7 7 Alaska 206 10 Nebraska 3 3 Arizona 19 19 Nevada 23 16 California 93 82 New Mexico 22 22 Colorado 2 2 New York 7 6 Connecticut 1 1 North Carolina 1 1 Florida 3 3 North Dakota 4 4 Idaho 5 5 Oklahoma 35 35 Iowa 1 1 Oregon 9 9 Kansas 4 4 Rhode Island 1 1 Louisiana 3 3 South Dakota 8 8 Maine 4 3 Texas 3 3 Massachusetts 1 1 Utah 4 4 Michigan 7 7 Washington 26 26 Minnesota 12 7 Wisconsin 11 11 Mississippi 1 1 Wyoming 2 2 Missouri 1 1 Summary 530 309

For analytical reasons, individual questions within the questionnaire were divided into three different thematic categories, Policy, Cultural, and Analysis (See Table 2). The policy questions (1-4, 10, 11, and 14) ask specifically about tribal policies relating to

28 reburial issues. The cultural questions (5-7, 12, and 13) inquire about cultural customs and practices, and the analysis questions (8 and 9) elicit data about tribal beliefs on scientific analysis of human remains. Dividing the questionnaire into different question genres allowed for a comparison between question genres as well as between culture groups.

Table 2: Question Summary and Thematic Category

Question # Summary Category 1 Do you have policy Policy 2 How long have you had policy Policy 3 Summarize Policy Policy 4 Do you use existing legislation Policy 5 Items placed into graves Cultural 6 Reburial location Cultural 7 Who makes reburial decisions Cultural 8 In the field analysis Analysis 9 Lab Analysis Analysis 10 Burial location information maintenance Policy 11 Established Penalties Policy 12 Litigation concerning reburial Cultural 13 Cremation Cultural 14 Currently setting up formal policy Policy

The Database

Once all the returned questionnaires were gone over preliminarily, an Access database was created to record all of the data (See Appendix B). This database consists of 27 different fields, ID, Tribe, Old Number, Response Address, Contact/Questionnaire Preparer, Campbell Classification, Greenberg Classification, Sapir Classification, Linguistic Area, Current Location, Attached Material, Completed Questionnaire, Questions 1-14, and Additional Comments. All survey response data was scrutinized and the responding results were entered into the database. If field information was unknown or missing, the corresponding fields were left blank.

29 Classifications

The focus of this research is the comparison of five different classification schemes, four linguistic models of Native North America and one areal cultural classification. Each linguistic model has received support and criticism from the academic community, and each represents different ways to study and classify languages. While there are many different classification schemes for Native American languages, I chose these four to represent the breadth and history of these endeavors. This section will profile each classification scheme, describing its particulars and explaining its importance and representative nature. I will start with Sapir’s 1919 classification and move forward chronologically.

Sapir’s Super Six Classification As discussed in Chapter 2, Edward Sapir, a student of Boas, first published his famous classification in the 1919 Encyclopedia Britannica article. In this classification, Sapir proposes that all North American (as well as some Meso-American) languages belong to six “super stocks” or phyla. These six groups are Eskimo-Aleut, Algonquian- Wakashan, Na-Dene, Penutian, Hokan-Siouan, and Azteco-Tanoan (See Appendix C) (Bright 1990; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sapir 1921). Sapir’s classification model is important because it represents a model of culture change, the genetic model. Although a Boasian student, Sapir was greatly influenced by Indo-European language studies which led him to an alternative model of cultural process (See Figure 2). While Boas’s model for historical process, the diffusion model, stressed that the origins of traits (whether cultural or linguistic) were diverse, arbitrary, and unrecoverable, Sapir’s model, a genetic model, proposed that traits (whether linguistic or cultural) developed into various new forms that continued to reflect their common origin. This dichotomy, while not mutually exclusive, shows the basis behind the Boas-Sapir controversy. Sapir’s model attempted to distinguish between the effect of “archaic residue” and “diffusional cumulation” on internal linguistic grounds, which implied that language and linguistic studies could classify the ethnologist’s data (see Figure 2). Sapir’s genetic

30 model for culture change emphasizes time and history for cultural study. Boasian anthropology stressed description rather than history, and this was partly due to Boas’s critique of unilinear evolutionary models of culture which dominated late nineteenth century anthropological thinking (Bright 1990; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sapir 1921).

Figure 2: Diagram showing Diffusion Model versus Genetic Model

Sapir arrived at his six stocks by analyzing and combining the 58 linguistic families that Powell proposed in 1891 (Powell 1966; Sapir 1921). The “profound” features which Sapir compared to arrive at this landmark classification were not lexical or phonological correspondences, but rather typological similarities of grammatical systems. Historically, Sapir’s classification is very influential, for it marks the beginning of the reductionist movement in American Indian Historical Linguistics. While not as extreme as other reductionist classification schemes (like Greenberg’s or Radin’s), Sapir’s model represents a moderate reductionist model. Sapir’s classification is also very important

31 (and was chosen as a comparison classification) because it was the accepted linguistic model of North America from its publication through later half of the twentieth century (Bohannan and Glazer 1988; Bright 1990; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1971, 1992; Powell 1966; Sapir 1921).

Sherzer’s Linguistic Area Classification Joel Sherzer’s classification of the American Indian languages north of Mexico is important because of its methodology. Sherzer employs areal-typological linguistic studies in order to better understand the linguistic complexity of Native North America. First published in 1976, Sherzer’s study aimed to delimit linguistic areas, determine how diffusion has affected phonological and morphological traits, and compare linguistic areas with culture areas (a term that has become popular in anthropological studies) (Darnell and Sherzer 1971). Sherzer classifies languages according to geographical location (See Appendix D) (Sherzer 1973, 1976). Areal-typological linguistic studies of North America, while never a dominant focus, have been prominent historically. Franz Boas’s studied indigenous languages with an areal-typological focus, as seen by his work in the Northwest Coast. Boas passed this tradition on to his students, Kroeber, Dixon, and Sapir, who in their early careers studied languages with an areal-typological perspective. In fact most of the real empirical work in areal linguistics in the first half of the twentieth century was done by Kroeber, Dixon, and Sapir. After Sapir’s Super Six Classification came out, the focus of North American linguistics reverted to a genetic perspective (Campbell 1997; Darnell 2001; Darnell and Sherzer 1971). Sherzer classifies languages by geographical area which enabled him to determine the degree of linguistic homogeneity within these areas. His classification uses culture areas, as defined by the Handbook of American Indians. The eleven groupings or linguistic areas he uses are The Arctic, The Western Subarctic, The Eastern Subarctic, The Northwest Coast, The Plateau, California, The Southwest, The Great Basin, The Plains, The Northeast, and The Southeast (See Appendix D). Within these linguistic areas, Sherzer uses Sapir’s intermediate groupings in order to include both areal and genetic perspectives. Sherzer examines linguistic traits (morphological and

32 phonological) in the attempt to see if these traits are the result of common ancestor or diffusional contact. He concludes that areal linguistic traits do occur across genetic boundaries, and therefore areal studies and classifications are fruitful endeavors in Native American linguistics (Boas 1911; Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Sherzer 1976).

Campbell’s Classification Lyle Campbell’s Classification of Native North American languages is the third classificatory scheme used and compared for this research. Campbell’s (Campbell and Mithun) classification was first published in 1979, but the one used in this study is from his 1997 publication (which is almost identical to the 1979 publication). Campbell’s classification represents a conservative orientation towards genetic classification. Campbell requires substantial evidence for linguistic relatedness, especially for long- range or distantly related proposals. His classification, now widely accepted, represents conservatism in North American linguistics in the latter part of the twentieth century. Campbell’s work is the most extreme example of the splitting tendency or school in American Indian Historical Linguistics (Campbell 1997; Campbell and Mithun 1979; Darnell 1992). Campbell’s original classification contained 59 independent linguistic families, but his 1997 classification (the one used in this study) has been slightly condensed to 58 independent families (see Appendix E). If you recall from chapter 2, 58 families is the same number Powell came up with in his 1891 classification. Campbell’s 58 linguistic families of North America are: Eskimo-Aleut, Eyak-Athabaskan, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Wakashan, Chimakuan, Salish, Kutenai, Chinookan, Alsea, Siuslaw, Coosan, Takelman, Sahaptian, Klamath-Modoc, Molala, Cayuse, Shasta, Karuk, Chimariko, Palaihnihan, Yana, Pomoan, Washo, Esselen, Salinan, Chumashan, Cochimi-Yuman, Wintuan, Maiduan, Miwok-Costanoan, Yokutsan, Yukian, Uto-Aztecan, Keresan, Kiowa-Tanoan, Zuni, Siouan, Caddoan, Adai, Tonkawa, Karankawa, Coahuilteco, Cotoname, Aranama-Tamique, Solano, Comecrudan, Atakapan, Chitimacha, Tunica, Natchez, Muskogean, Timucua, Yuchi, Iroquoian, Algic, and Beothuk (Campbell 1997). Campbell’s classification was used in this study because it represents narrow genetic classifications (sometimes referred to as Splitters or Assessment Approach). This

33 approach, as opposed to the Reductionists or Super-Lumpers (See next section on Greenberg’s Classification), is one methodology in genetic classifications. So-called Splitters, like Campbell, build classificatory schemes on explicit evidence and avoid proposing distant genetic relationships in which there is not compelling evidence. Campbell bases his classification on standard techniques of historical linguistics (i.e. comparative method). Splitting tendencies, like Campbell’s, have received favorable reviews from Native American scholars and are very influential in the field (Campbell 1997; Darnell 1992; Greenberg 1996).

Greenberg’s Classification On the opposite end of the genetic classification spectrum is Joseph Greenberg, whose 1979 classification of American Indian languages represents the extreme reductionists or Super Lumpers. Greenberg’s landmark classification reduces all of the linguistic diversity in the New World into three separate genetic families, Eskimo-Aleut, Na-Dene, and Amerind (see Appendix F). Greenberg came up with his classification by employing a methodology he terms “multilateral (or mass) comparison” or what others have called “etymology by inspection” and “the inspectional route to genetic classification”. Essentially Greenberg deduced his classification by comparing lexical data and finding similarities (Campbell 1997; Greenberg 1987, 1996; Greenberg and Ruhlen 1992; Greenberg, et al. 1986). Greenberg and others hypothesize that the New World was settled by three distinct migrations of people from Asia, which reflects the three distinct language families. He postulates that Amerind, the family with the most linguistic diversity, reflects the first migration of people into the New World around 12,000 BC. He argues that the linguistic diversity of this family is due to the long period of time since the original colonization. The Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut language families reflect two more recent migrations of people into the New World from Northeast Asia. In 1986, Greenberg, with Christy Turner and Steven Zegura, presented dental and serological evidence to support the three language family classification (Greenberg 1987; Greenberg, et al. 1986).

34 Neo-Culture Area The Neo-Culture Area classification is a categorization scheme I devised that is nothing more than the state in which the tribe currently resides. This areal classification was chosen to see if state boundaries encapsulate distinct cultural trends. Social cohesion among tribes is impacted by common environment as well as common local and state governmental policies. While this classification does not elucidate any information on pre-contact Native America, it does reflect the new Native American culture which has been significantly impacted by Euro-American domination. Each state acts as a micro- culture area because the inhabitants share government and popular culture. The questionnaire respondents represented 26 different neo-culture areas (or states), of these eight (Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington) were used for comparative purposes. For this research, each known respondent (tribe) was researched in order to find out where it would fall under for each of the five classifications. Once known the data was entered into the database in the appropriate field. The largest genetic unit or language family was used for the Sapir and Campbell classification, however secondary language families (e.g. Central Amerind & Northern Amerind) were used for Greenberg’s Classification (See Appendix F). This was only done under the huge Amerind family. The majority of respondents fell under this category, thus it was necessary to use the secondary units for comparative reasons. For the Sherzer Classification, the non-genetic classification, the eleven linguistic area categories were used. Most of the known tribal respondents were able to be classified under the four classificatory schemes, however some difficulty arose. Some tribal respondents, like the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community or the Colorado River Indian Tribes, belong to two or more language families. This is due to historical events that caused different tribal groups to join together and become one cohesive cultural group. For this study, cases like these were unclassified and the appropriate fields were left blank.

CHAPTER 4-RESULTS

This chapter will discuss the results of the survey and the use of these results for the comparison of the five classificatory schemes. The raw data results, which will tell us about tribal attitudes and policies on reburial are presented in Appendix G. The raw data results are the compilation of all questionnaire data and give us a Pan-Indian perspective of reburial issues before the implementation of NAGPRA. Even though my research has taken me away from studying the reburial and repatriation issue, it is necessary to display this data because: 1) This is why the questionnaire was designed and the research was originally undertaken, and 2) This data presents the whole population or Pan-Indian perspective, which will serve as a benchmark for later language classification comparisons. This chapter sorts the questionnaire data by language groups of the five classifications so that comparisons between them can be made.

Linguistic and Cultural Groupings Comparisons This section discusses the questionnaire results as they are used to compare five different classification schemes, Greenberg, Sapir, Campbell, Sherzer, and Current Location. Current location refers to the state in which the tribe currently resides. Each state has it’s own micro-cultural climate and the current location designation acts as a current or Neo-Culture Area. All questionnaire results have been broken down into the five different classifications and the results have been compared to see if there is any evidence that one or more of the schemes is more accurate according to this survey data. In addition the questionnaire data was sorted into question genres (see Table 2, Chapter 3) and compared to see how groups answer thematically different questions. These comparisons are made in four different analyses of the data, Solidarity, Variability, Deviation from Norm, and Percentage of “Don’t Know” answers. The following sections will discuss the results of these four analyses in detail.

Table 3: Solidarity of Answering Analysis Results Question Genres color coded, Red-Policy , Blue-Cultural, Green-Analysis

Total 100% 80-99% 70-79% 70-100% Greenberg Central Amerind Q3, Q5, Q12 3 Na-Dene Q10 Q8, Q9, Q11 4 Total (Pol,Cul, Anl) 1(1,0,0) 3(1,0,2) 3(1,2,0) 7(3,2,2) Sapir Algonquian-Wakashan Q3, Q12 2 Azteco-Tanoan Q3, Q10, Q12 3 Hokan-Siouan Q9 1 Na-Dene Q10 Q8, Q9, Q11 4 Penutian Q4 Q3, Q6 3 Total (Pol,Cul, Anl) 2(2,0,0) 7(3,2,2) 4(2,1,1) 13(7,3,3) Campbell Algic Q3 1 Eyak-Athabaskan Q10 Q8, Q9, Q11 Q1 5 Muskogean Q14 1 Salish Q8, Q9, Q12 Q3 Q1, Q5, Q10 7 Siouan Q1, Q4 Q5 3 Uto-Aztecan Q3, Q5, Q10, Q12 4 Total (Pol,Cul, Anl) 6(3,1,2) 7(4,1,2) 8(5,3) 21(12,5,4) Sherzer California Q9, Q11 Q3, Q10, Q14 5 Great Basin Q12 Q5, Q8, Q10, Q14 5 Northeast Q12 1 Northwest Coast Q11, Q12 Q3, Q10 4 Plains Q1, Q4, Q5 3 Southeast Q14 1 Southwest Q12 1 Total (Pol,Cul, Anl) 0(0,0,0) 10(5,4,1) 10(7,2,1) 20(12,6,2) Current Location Alaska Q1 1 Arizona Q12 Q3, Q5 Q1, Q10, Q11, Q14 7 California Q11 Q3, Q10, Q14 4 Nevada Q1, Q14 2 New Mexico Q4 1 Oklahoma Q11, Q12 2 Oregon Q14 Q1, Q3, Q4, Q10 5 Washington Q8, Q9, Q12 Q3, Q5 Q14 6 Total (Pol,Cul, Anl) 5(1,2,2) 13(11,2,0) 10(9,1,0) 28(21,5,2)

Solidarity of Answering The Solidarity of Answering analysis examines how groups in each of the classification schemes answer each question. Specifically, this analysis examines and

37 compares which groups answer each question the same. There are three levels of answer solidarity used in this analysis, groups in which 100 percent of the respondents answer the same, groups in which 80 to 99 percent of the respondents answer the same, and groups in which 70 to 79 percent of the respondents answer the same. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 2 , which shows for each classification scheme, which groups have high solidarity in answering for each question (Note: Question 13 responses are not included in this analysis because 90% of all respondents answered “B”, and thus would skew analysis). To examine how the three different question genres were answered, the questions were color coded, red-policy, blue-cultural, and green-analysis (See Table 3). The assumption of this analysis is that higher solidarity in answering indicates more cohesive cultural or linguistic groupings. The results of the Solidarity analysis (Table 3) show some interesting trends. The classifications schemes which groups have more solidarity of answering are Campbell’s (n=21) and Current Location or Neo-Culture Area (n=28). Sherzer’s groups score well in the 80-99% range (n=10) and the 70-79% range (n=10), but none have any 100% ratings, unlike Campbell and Current Location. Greenberg’s groups show the lowest solidarity of answering (n=7), and Sapir’s groups show only slightly more solidarity (n=13). The individual groupings which show the most solidarity are Campbell’s Salish (n=7) and Eyak-Athabaskan (n=5) and Current Location’s Arizona (n=7), Oregon (n=5), and Washington (n=6). When the question genres are examined in the Solidarity Analysis, the results are notable. For policy related questions, the Current Location classification exhibits more overall solidarity (n=21) as opposed to Campbell’s and Sherzer’s (both n=12). This most likely has to do with individual state government policy influencing tribal policy. For the cultural genre, Sherzer’s classification (n=6) scores slightly better overall than both the Campbell (n=5) and Current Location (n=5) classifications. On the analysis related questions, the differences between the classifications are smaller. Campbell’s classification (n=4) scores highest solidarity overall in analysis questions, then Sapir’s classification (n=3), and the rest (n=2).

Table 4: Results from Variability Analysis VI=Variability Index, CVI=Classification Variability Index

Policy Cultural Analysis All Questions VI CVI VI CVI VI CVI Question 1 2 3 4 10 11 14 5 6 7 12 13 8 9 Overall 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.43 4 4 5 3 3 3.8 4 4 4 3.64

N. Amerind 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.43 4 4 5 3 3 3.8 4 4 4 3.64 C. Amerind 2 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 2.86 3 4 5 3 3 3.6 3.27 3 3 3 3 3.21 3.024 Na-Dene 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2.14 3 3 2 3 1 2.4 2 2 2 2.21

Hokan-Siouan 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.43 4 4 5 3 3 3.8 3 3 3 3.5 Penutian 3 4 2 1 3 2 2 2.43 3 2 3 2 3 2.6 2 2 2 2.43 Al-Wakashan 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3.43 2.89 3 4 5 3 2 3.4 3.16 3 3 3 2.7 3.36 2.957 Azteco-Tanoan 2 5 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 3.6 4 3 3.5 3.29 Na-Dene 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2.14 3 3 2 3 1 2.4 2 2 2 2.21

Algic 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.29 2 4 5 3 2 3.2 3 3 3 3.21 Cochimi-Yuman 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2.71 3 3 3 2 2 2.6 3 3 3 2.71 Eyak-Athab 2 3 2 3 1 2 2 2.14 3 3 2 3 1 2.4 2 2 2 2.21 Muskogean 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2.29 2.59 3 3 4 2 2 2.8 2.66 2 2 2 2.357 2.43 2.582 Salish 2 5 2 3 2 3 2 2.71 2 3 4 1 1 2.2 1 1 1 2.29 Siouan 1 3 2 1 3 3 3 2.29 2 3 3 3 1 2.4 3 2 2.5 2.36 Uto-Aztecan 2 5 2 3 2 2 3 2.71 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.86

NW Coast 3 5 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 2.8 3 3 3 2.93 California 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 2.86 4 3 4 3 3 3.4 3 3 3 3.07 Southwest 2 5 3 2 2 3 2 2.71 4 4 5 2 3 3.6 4 3 3.5 3.14 Great Basin 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 2.57 2.73 3 3 4 2 1 2.6 3.03 2 2 2 2.714 2.5 2.837 Plains 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.71 2 4 4 3 1 2.8 3 2 2.5 2.71 Northeast 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2.86 2 3 5 2 2 2.8 3 3 3 2.86 Southeast 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2.43 3 4 5 2 2 3.2 2 2 2 2.64

Arizona 2 4 2 3 2 2 2 2.43 2 3 4 1 2 2.4 3 3 3 2.5 California 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 2.86 4 4 4 3 3 3.6 3 3 3 3.14 New Mexico 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2.57 2.52 4 2 4 2 2 2.8 2.77 4 2 3 2.5 2.71 2.607 Oklahoma 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2.71 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 2.71 Oregon 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 4 2 3 2.8 3 3 3 2.43 Washington 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 2.57 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.14

Variability Analysis The variability of answering analysis examines each group’s variability in answers for each question of the survey. For example, in question 1 the overall variability of all respondents in 3 because all three answer choices are represented. In the same question 1, Campbell’s Siouan Group has a variability of 1, because all respondents belonging to this group answered the same way. Each group’s individual question

39 variability was totaled and divided by the number of questions (14) to arrive at a variability index (VI). The lower the variability index number, the lower variability of answering for the overall questionnaire. These results are displayed in Table 4. The five classification schemes are given overall variability ratings (CVI or Classification Variability Index), by adding their groups’ variability index (VI) number and dividing that by the number of groups. The assumption of this analysis is that groups and schemes with lower variability indexes show lower variability because the grouping or scheme is more accurate. In addition, the different question genres are examined separately in order to examine the variability in answering for each genre (See Table 4). The results of the variability analysis show that the classification scheme with the lowest variability is Campbell’s with a classification variability index (CVI) of 2.58. The classifications that follow are Current Location (2.60), Sherzer (2.83), Sapir (2.95), and Greenberg (3.02). This analysis shows that the Campbell and Current Location classifications are very similar in their overall variability (CVI). Individual groups which show the least variability overall are Campbell’s Salish (2.29), Siouan (2.36), and Eyak- Athabaskan (2.21), Sapir and Greenberg’s Na-Dene (2.21), and Current Location Washington (2.14). When the classification variability index (CVI) is examined by different question genres, the results change slightly. For policy related questions, the lowest classification variability index (CVI) belongs to Current Location (2.52), followed by Campbell (2.59), Sherzer (2.73), Greenberg (2.86), and Sapir (2.89). With the cultural question genre, the results are similar to the overall results, Campbell (2.66), Current Location (2.77), Sherzer (3.03), Sapir (3.16), and Greenberg (3.27). For the last question genre, Analysis, the lowest classification variability index (CVI) belongs to Campbell (2.36), followed by Current Location (2.5), Sapir (2.7), Sherzer (2.71), and Greenberg (3.0). An interesting trend across all classification schemes is that lowest variability exists among analysis related questions and the highest variability lies in the cultural genre questions.

40 Deviation Analysis The deviation analysis focuses on which groups answered questions that deviated from the average answers of the whole respondent group. This analysis highlights groups which answered differently than the norm by 20 percent or greater. For example, on question 1, the majority of all respondents answered A, but the Alaska group answered B 40 percentage points higher than the average. Table 5 documents which groups answered different from the norm and the percentage points difference. The assumption of this analysis is that groups answering a significant percentage (>20) different from the norm are important groups for analysis. As in the Variability Analysis, the questions are grouped by genres, policy, cultural, and analysis (See Table 5).

Table 5: Deviation Analysis Shown are answers which were different than the majority answer and the percentage difference. Question Genres: Red-Policy, Blue-Cultural, Green-Analysis

Question 1 2 3 4 10 11 14 5 6 12 13 8 9 Sum Na-Dene B+44 B+50 2

Na-Dene B+44 B+50 2 Penutian A+29 B+28 A+31 3

Cochimi-Yuman B+36 A+20 D+25 3 Eyak-Athabaskan C+21 B+44 B+50 3 Siouan A+27 B+26 C+21 A+31 4 Uto-Aztecan B+22 1

Great Basin B+22B+28 B+32 3 NW Coast B+23 1 Plains A+27 A+37 2 Southeast B+28 1 Southwest A+23 B+28 A+38 3

Alaska B+40 1 Arizona A+20 A+45 A+46 B+26 4 New Mexico C+29B+58 B+39 3 Oklahoma B+29 1 Oregon C+21 A+67 B+28 A+24 4 Washington B+24 B+28 2

In the deviation analysis, there were deviations from the overall majority answer that ranged from 20 percent to 67 percent. All five classifications schemes, had groups

41 whose answers deviated from the norm for some questions. Overall, however, the Current Location (n=15), Campbell (n=11), and Sherzer (n=10) classifications schemes had groups with the most deviation. This analysis bolstered the Current Location classification model the most, followed by the Campbell and Sherzer schemes. Individual groups which showed the most deviation from the norm are Campbell’s Siouan group (n=4) and Current Locations (Neo-Culture Area) Arizona (n=4) and Oregon (n=4). The most deviation per question is found in the analysis genre of questions, followed by policy and cultural questions. For policy questions, the Current Location classification had the most individual deviations (n=11), followed by Sherzer (n=6), Campbell (n=3), and Sapir (n=1). In the cultural genre of questions there was not much difference between the classifications, the Campbell classification had the most individual deviations (n=4), followed by Current Location (n=3), Sherzer (n=3), and Sapir (n=2). The Campbell classification again had the most individual deviations (n=4) in the analysis questions, followed by Sapir (n=2), Greenberg (n=2), Sherzer (n=1), and Current Location (n=1).

Don’t Know Analysis The Don’t Know analysis examines the percentage of respondents who answer “Don’t Know” on the questionnaire. Each classification scheme is broken down into the larger responding groups and the percentage of respondents answering “Don’t Know” is recorded (Note: Questions 8 and 9, the analysis questions, are the only questions which do not have “Don’t Know” as an answering option). A mean “Don’t Know” percentage rate (or Don’t Know Index, DKI) is generated for each group from statistics generated from the 12 questions. Then a mean “Don’t Know” percentage is generated for each classification (CDKI, or Classification Don’t Know Index) using the mean percentages for each participating group (See Table 6). The analysis was also broken into two question genres, policy and cultural, to compare the answering of the two. This analysis was generated for curiosity sake, rather than for bolstering any of the group or classification validity.

Table 6: Results from Don’t Know Analysis DKI-Don’t Know Index, CDKI-Classification Don’t Know Index Note: There are no “Don’t know” options on Analysis Genre Questions.

Policy Cultural All DKI CDKI DKI CDKI DKI CDKI Question 1 2 3 4 10 11 14 5 6 7 12 13 Overall 4 23 3 22 7 15 7 11.57 14 11 7 10 5 9.4 10.67

Northern Amerind 6 22 4 19 11 21 8 13 13 15 10 9 7 10.8 12.08 Central Amerind 0 29 0 27 0 6 2 9.143 9.762 13 6 6 6 4 7 9.267 8.25 9.556 Na-Dene 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 7.143 17 0 0 33 0 10 8.333

Hokan-Siouan 3 23 4 20 4 23 5 11.71 4 16 4 8 3 7 9.75 Penutian 13 33 0 0 17 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 25 8.4 8.75 Algonquian-Wakashan 10 19 5 23 17 25 13 16 10.51 25 18 20 14 7 16.8 9.84 16.33 10.23 Azteco-Tanoan 0 28 0 25 0 6 2 8.714 13 6 6 6 4 7 8 Na-Dene 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 7.143 17 0 0 33 0 10 8.333

Algic 15 23 8 29 27 29 20 21.57 38 29 31 23 11 26.4 23.58 Cochimi-Yuman 11 0 0 17 0 17 13 8.286 0 17 0 0 0 3.4 6.25 Eyak-Athabaskan 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 7.143 17 0 0 33 0 10 8.333 Muskogean 0 0 25 50 0 25 0 14.29 11.06 25 50 25 0 14 22.8 10.31 17.83 10.75 Salish 0 13 0 13 0 17 0 6.143 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.583 Siouan 0 17 0 0 17 33 17 12 0 17 0 17 0 6.8 9.833 Uto-Aztecan 0 25 0 29 0 0 2 8 7 0 0 7 0 2.8 5.833

NW Coast 6 17 0 25 8 10 0 9.429 0 0 0 8 6 2.8 6.667 California 5 29 0 13 0 6 8 8.714 6 6 0 6 5 4.6 7 Southwest 0 27 0 0 0 18 0 6.429 9 10 11 18 7 11 8.333 Great Basin 0 25 0 42 0 13 0 11.43 12.43 14 0 0 0 0 2.8 11.6 7.833 12.08 Plains 0 20 0 10 10 20 10 10 0 10 0 11 0 4.2 7.583 Northeast 20 33 0 42 38 43 27 29 67 42 50 29 13 40.2 33.67 Southeast 0 0 17 50 0 17 0 12 17 33 17 0 11 15.6 13.5

Arizona 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.333 California 4 25 0 17 0 6 6 8.286 6 6 0 11 4 5.4 7.083 New Mexico 0 50 0 0 0 33 13 13.71 10.98 17 20 25 33 13 21.6 8.567 17 9.972 Oklahoma 14 33 0 57 29 29 7 24.14 29 29 29 14 7 21.6 23.08 Oregon 14 14 0 14 14 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 14 2.8 5.833 Washington 0 17 0 17 0 20 0 7.714 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5

The overall percentage rate of “Don’t Know” answers among all respondents is 10.67%. The classification scheme that has the lowest CDKI is Greenberg (9.55%), followed by Current Location (9.97%), Sapir (10.23%), Campbell (10.75%), and Sherzer (12.08%). The individual groups with the lowest DKI are Campbell’s Salish (3.58%) and Uto-Aztecan (5.83%) groups and Current Location’s Arizona (2.33%), Washington (4.5%), and Oregon (5.83%). The groups with the highest DKI are Sherzer’s Northeast

43 (33.67%) group, Current Location’s Oklahoma (23.08%) group, and Campbell’s Algic (23.58%) and Muskogean (17.83%) groups. For information on all groups’ and classifications’ “Don’t Know” percentage rates see Table 6. When examining the policy genre of questions, the lowest CDKI also belongs to the Greenberg classification (9.76%), followed by Sapir (10.51%), Current Location (10.98%), Campbell (11.06%), and Sherzer (12.43%). The cultural genre of questions show different results with Current Location (8.57%) having the lowest CDKI, followed by Greenberg (9.27%), Sapir (9.84%), Campbell (10.31%), and Sherzer (11.6%). An interesting trend that emerges when examining the different question genres is that tribes are more likely to answer “Don’t Know” on policy related questions as opposed to cultural questions. This is not too surprising considering most people better understand and are more knowledgeable about their behavior and culture compared to their government’s policies.

CHAPTER 5- CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this research has been to better understand the categorization of North American Native Americans. Accurate grouping or classification of these people is difficult due to unknown prehistory and the annihilation of the people, their culture, and their language. Although most of the languages are extinct, classifications based on linguistic criteria can be and have been effective. The majority of linguistic classifications are genetic classifications, where the comparative method is used to elucidate the history, development, and relatedness of the linguistic groups. In this study, Greenberg’s, Sapir’s, and Campbell’s linguistic classifications would fall under this category. These models or schemes use biological metaphor and cladistic classifications. Another method for categorizing linguistic or cultural groups is by employing an areal and typological perspective. This methodology, championed by Franz Boas, can be seen in this study in the Sherzer classification and the Current Location (or Neo-Culture Area) classification. Sherzer uses the same culture areas that were proposed by Driver and finds linguistic homogeneity within these geographically based groups (Driver 1961; Sherzer 1976). The Current Location classification, which I term as Neo-Culture Area, is nothing more than the state in which the tribes currently reside. These state geographical boundaries comprise a unique culture area because each has a specific cultural microclimate, due to location, state laws, history, and ethnic diversity. This research compared these five different classificatory schemes, which employ two distinct methodologies, genetic classification and areal-typological classification, to see if either better arranges the linguistic and cultural diversity in Native North America. The methodology of this research has been comparing the results of a questionnaire sent out to North American tribes in 1990, which elicited information about

45 tribal reburial policies and practices. It is important to remember that this survey was not intended to be used in the manner that it has been in this research. The survey was intended solely to better understand the reburial picture prior to the enactment of NAGPRA in 1991. The survey was a success in eliciting tribal responses pertaining to the very important issue of reburial policy. If nothing else, this research analyzes the raw data on reburial issues and disseminates it so future researcher can use it for comparison. Unfortunately, however, this survey data was not the best data set to use for the classification comparison. The results of this research, while not eliciting the desired effect, show some interesting trends. The solidarity analysis results bolstered the Campbell and Current Location classification, as did the variability and deviation analyses. Since this trend is seen in all three analyses, it lends more credence to the conclusion that these classifications are more reflective of social groups. This conclusion seems logical, since these two classifications use more rigorous requirements for their groupings. The larger grouping classifications, like Greenberg’s and Sapir’s, are more inclusive, and thus have less rigorous requirements for the groupings. While the results lend more support to the smaller grouping classifications, that is not to say that there is no validity in some of the larger groupings. For example, Sapir’s Penutian group, which has caused much controversy among linguistic scholars since its first proposal, scored well in the Solidarity, Variability, and Deviation analyses. Although Penutian as an individual group shows support by these analyses, Sapir’s overall classification did not. In the following section, I will discuss each classification individually, discussing trends and showing which individual groupings scored the best in these analyses. Greenberg

As discussed in an earlier chapter, Greenberg divides all linguistic diversity in the New World into three stocks, Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut. His Amerind group, the largest and most inclusive by far, is divided into eleven subgroups, of which Northern and Central Amerind are used in this study (Greenberg 1987). So, this study is primarily concerned with Greenberg’s Na-Dene, Northern Amerind and Central Amerind

46 groupings (there are a few Eskimo-Aleut responses, but too few to be significant). Overall, the Greenberg classification scored the lowest in the Solidarity, Variability, and Deviation Analyses. However, the Na-Dene group (which is synonymous with Sapir’s Na-Dene group and very close to Campbell’s Eyak-Athabaskan group) scored well in all of the analyses, and seems to be a legitimate grouping most likely attributed to a later migration into the New World from Northeast Asia. Greenberg’s classification while very important due to his correlation with migrations and biological data, seems to have too inclusive of groupings. Sapir

Sapir’s Super Six Classification was also targeted for analysis and comparison by this study. His Eskimo-Aleut grouping was not examined due to low responses. Sapir’s Na-Dene and Penutian grouping seem to be the most legitimate, with his Hokan-Siouan grouping scoring low in all analyses. Overall, Sapir’s classification did not score very well, but it did score better than Greenberg’s classification. Sapir’s classification, like Greenberg, suffered in these analyses by having too large and too inclusive groupings.

Campbell

Like Greenberg and Sapir, Campbell’s classification is a genetic model, but Campbell is a particularist, which means he only groups languages which have demonstrable relationships, thus he ends ups with more total language families with smaller sizes. Campbell’s classification consists of 58 linguistic families for North America (Campbell 1997). The responses from this survey represent members from 27 of these families, however only seven of these families were used in the analyses due to low population numbers for the others (these seven are Algic, Cochimi-Yuman, Eyak- Athabaskan, Muskogean, Salish, Siouan, and Uto-Aztecan). As mentioned above, all analyses seem to bolster this classification. The individual groupings in his classification which scored the best in the analyses were the Salish, Siouan, and Eyak-Athabskan groups. Campbell’s Algic group, however, did not score very well among the analyses.

47 Algic is one of Campbell’s larger more inclusive groupings, which might be the reason it did not score so well in the analyses.

Sherzer

Sherzer’s classification is based on areal-typological groupings. His geographically based groups are modeled after Driver’s culture areas (Driver 1961; Sherzer 1976). All eleven of Sherzer’s linguistic area groupings are represented by the respondents, however only seven were used in the analyses for comparison due to low population numbers for the others (these seven are Northwest Coast, California, Southwest, Great Basin, Plains, Northeast, and Southeast). Sherzer’s classification gets mixed results from the analyses. The classification scores well in the Deviation and Solidarity Analyses but not so well in the Variability Analysis. Within the classification, the grouping that scores the best overall is the Great Basin linguistic area.

Current Location

Like Sherzer’s classification, the Current Location (or Neo-Culture Area) Classification is based on areal-typological groupings. The respondents represented 26 States or Current Locations, of these eight were used for comparison in the analyses due to low population numbers for the others (these eight are Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington). As mentioned earlier, the Current Location (or Neo-Culture Area) classification scored very well in all three analyses. Within this classificatory scheme, the groupings which scored the best in the analyses were the Arizona, Oregon, and Washington groups. The grouping which scored the worst among the analyses was the Oklahoma group, which is not too surprising considering Native American groups from all over the eastern half of the country were forced to relocate there (Kehoe 1992).

48 Question Genres

The questionnaire data was divided into three different genres of questions and these three were compared used to compare the different cultural groupings. When looking at the policy related questions, the analyses supported the Current Location or Neo-culture area model. This is not surprising considering that individual state laws and political climate will influence tribal reburial policy, and thus state boundaries become cohesive social boundaries. Also with the policy questions there was larger percentage on “Don’t Know” answers compared to the other question genres. This might support the idea that individual tribe members were less informed about tribal government policy compared to cultural beliefs and behaviors. I postulate that today, individual tribe members are more informed about tribal policy (due to the enactment of NAGPRA), especially that which is related to reburial and repatriation.

Pan-Indianism

Besides the modest trends from the analyses, the results from this study do not support the notion of Pan-Indianism among modern Native Americans. The concept of Pan-Indianism involves both conscious and unconscious attempts to preserve Native American culture and beliefs. It involves the synthesis of the collective cultural and spiritual reality of Native American peoples. This phenomenon can be seen as both an attempt at Native American solidarity and a process to preserve both cultural and linguistic traits from continuous absorption into and annihilation from the dominant white, Western European culture. The concept of Pan-Indianism purports that tribes and groups, once not related or distantly related, assimilate culturally to a unified “Indian” culture in order to better preserve this culture. This study demonstrates that there is a great heterogeneity of beliefs and attitudes pertaining to reburial issues among modern Native Americans. Therefore, it could be said that this study reveals that there is no Pan- Indian position, at least on this complicated reburial issue. This finding is relative to modern Native American studies because it proves that one policy or attitude towards reburial and repatriation will not work for all of Native America. Rather, it is important

49 that each tribe or reburial/repatriation case be evaluated on a case by case basis. For what works for the interests and perspectives of one group may not be applicable for another.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study, first started as an examination of tribal reburial policies and practices, transformed into a comparison of different tribal categorization schemes. In this study, five different classificatory schemes were examined and compared with mixed results. Even though this research did not produce the results I was hoping for, some interesting trends did emerge. First, the analyses showed that there seems to be more support for the Campbell linguistic classificatory scheme and the Current Location or Neo-Culture Area classification. Campbell’s classification is an example of a particularist approach to genetic linguistic classification, or what some people term “Splitters”. It is not surprising that a particularist scheme, which requires more concrete proof of linguistic groupings, scored better in the analyses performed in this study. The Current Location or Neo-Culture Area classification, which the author devised, is nothing more than the state that the tribes currently reside in. The results supporting this classification were surprising and show that this Neo-Culture Area concept should be examined further with a better testing methodology. This finding supports areal based classifications and shows that smaller culture areas have greater social cohesion. Another trend emerging from the results is that there is no Pan-Indian position towards reburial and repatriation. Thus it is important that each repatriation case be uniquely evaluated so that the tribe’s interests and beliefs are taken into consideration. This concept is particularly important in the modern professional archaeology and museum world. Although some trends and conclusions can be made from this data, I believe that more testing and comparison could be performed. If this study were to continue, I would recommend sending out a new questionnaire, designed specifically to get a broader view of the respondents’ culture and beliefs. Also, a better testing and comparison

50 methodology would help tremendously, for the author performed rudimentary statistical analyses. More complex statistical analyses could examine and test the data further. One thing is for sure, categorization and classification of human cultures is a complex undertaking. While this study examined linguistic and cultural classifications only, I believe that more accurate categorization can be achieved through study of human biological data, whether DNA, serological, dental or other data. Humans are complex due to the fact that different groups interact, causing diffusion and exchange of both cultural and linguistic traits. Therefore, by just examining, linguistic or cultural data, one cannot really get the full picture. Classification and categorization efforts need to incorporate both linguistic and cultural data, as well as biological and archaeological data. The goal or anthropology is to better understand humans and human culture, and the best way to do this is through a multi-disciplinary approach, which after all what makes Anthropology such a great field of study.

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

Please answer the following questions with the appropriate responses, as they relate to your tribe. Circle the letter next to your answer.

1) If your tribe (band, rancheria, etc.) does not have an official policy on human remains, does your tribe have an informal, unofficial policy concerning the reburial of human remains? (Circle the most appropriate answer.) a) yes Go to QUESTION 2 b) no Go to QUESTION 13 c) don’t know Go to QUESTION 4

2) How many years have you had an informal reburial policy ? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) 0 to 5 years Go to QUESTION 3 b) 6 to 10 years Go to QUESTION 3 c) 11 to 15 years Go to QUESTION 3 d) 16 years or longer Go to QUESTION 3 e) don’t know Go to QUESTION 3

3) Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your tribe’s unofficial policy on reburial of human remains? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) We support reburial of tribal human remains in all situations. Go to QUESTION 4 b) We support reburial much of the time, but prefer to make such decisions on a case by case basis. Go to QUESTION 4 c) We do not support the reburial of human remains. Go to QUESTION 5 d) Don’t know Go to QUESTION 4

52 4) Does your tribe use the existing legislation in your surrounding state(s) concerning reburial when it applies? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) yes Go to QUESTION 5 b) no Go to QUESTION 5 c) don’t know Go to QUESTION 5

5) Does your tribe support the reburial of items placed into graves with the deceased? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) in all situations. Go to NEXT QUESTION b) in some situations, with decisions made on a case by case basis. Go to NEXT QUESTION c) not in any instances. Go to NEXT QUESTION d) don’t know Go to NEXT QUESTION

If your tribe does not support reburial go to QUESTION 8, otherwise, continue QUESTION 6.

6) In a reburial situation, would your tribe prefer to place the remains; (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) as near as possible to the original burial location. Go to QUESTION 7 b) near a present day tribal burial area. Go to QUESTION 7 c) at another location to be decided at the time. Go to QUESTION 7 d) don’t know. Go to QUESTION 7

7) In a reburial situation, who would decide how and where a reburial would occur? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) tribal spiritual leaders Go to QUESTION 8 b) elected tribal officials Go to QUESTION 8 c) both tribal spiritual leaders and elected officials Go to QUESTION 8 d) others (for example: relative of deceased, etc.) Go to QUESTION 8 e) don’t know Go to QUESTION 8

8) Which of the following comes closest to describing your tribe’s unofficial policies on non-destructive , in-the-field analysis of tribal human remains? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) We do not support this kind of analysis in any situation. b) We support this kind of analysis if it is followed by reburial. c) We support this kind of analysis in all situations. d) We support all kinds of analysis.

53 9) Which statement best describes your tribe’s informal policies concerning non-destructive analysis of human remains conducted in the laboratory? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

10) Does your tribe have a system, either formal or informal, for maintaining information on tribal burial locations? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) yes b) no c) don’t know

11) Does your tribe have established penalties for those found disturbing a tribal grave site without permission? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) yes (please note what these penalties are in the comment space provided on the last page) b) no c) don’t know

12) Has your tribe ever been involved in litigation concerning the reburial of tribal human remains and/or grave items? (Circle the most appropriate answer.)

a) yes Go to QUESTION 14 b) no Go to QUESTION 14 c) don’t know Go to QUESTION 14

13) Does your tribe traditionally cremate the dead, so there has been no need for a reburial policy?

a) yes Go to END b) no Go to QUESTION 14 c) don’t know Go to QUESTION 14

14) Is your tribe currently working to set up a formal policy on the reburial of tribal human remains?

a) yes (please send me a copy of your policy) Go to END b) no Go to END c) don’t know Go to END

APPENDIX B

Tribe Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 ???? b a a c d a a a a b b b b b ???? a d b a b c c a a b b b ???? b b b ???? b b b ???? b b ???? b b c ???? a a a a b b b b b b b ????? a e a b a a b a a b b b b c ????? a d a c b a b a a b b b b a ??Unknown b a 3 Affiliated Tribes, Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Tribes a d b a a c d a a a b a b a Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma b b b Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians a d a a a a,b d a b b b a Ak-Chin Him-Dak a a a a a b a a a a a b b a Alabama-Coushatta Indian Reservation b d c d d e a c b c b Arapaho Language and Culture Commission b d a a a a c b b a b b a Big Pine Band of Paiute/Shoshone Indians b b b Burns Paiute Tribe a d a a a a c b b a b a b a Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma a e b b a a b b b a b b b a Cahuilla Band of Indians a d b b b b a a,b a a a b b b Campo Band of Mission Indians b b c Cederville Rancheria a d a c a a c b b b b b b b Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma Chitimacha Tribal Council b b b Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma b b b Citizen Band Potawatomi Indians of Oklahoma c c d d e c c c c c Cocopah Indian Tribe b a Colorado River Indian Tribes a b a a a a a b b b b a,b Conf Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians a d a a b a a b b a b b b a Confed Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of OR c e b a b c b b b c b a c a Confed/Tribes/Siletz a c a a,b c,d a b b a Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes a d a a b a a,d a a a b a Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation Confederated Tribes Umatilia Indian Reservation a c a a a a b a a a a b b a Coquille Indian Tribe a d a c b c c c c a b b b Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Cuyapaipe Reservation a c b a c b c b a a c b b b Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma Devils Lake Sioux Tribe a a b a a b c d a c c c b c Eastern Shawnee Tribe b b b Elk Valley Rancheria a a a a b b b b b a b b b b Ely Shoshone Tribe Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe Forest County Potawatomi Community b b a Fort Sill Apache Ft. McDowell Indian Community Hopi Tribe a e a a a a c b a b a b b a Hopland Band of Pomo Indians b e a,b a a b c a a a b b b a Howonquet Indian Council of the Smith River Rancheria a d b c a c c b b a b c b b Hualapai Tribal Council b b a Inaja & Cosmit Band of Mission Indians Iowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska a e a a a d b a a b a b b a Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Jamestown Klallam Tribe b b b

Tribe Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Jicarilla Apache Tribe b b b Kaibab-Paiute Tribe a b a c a b c b b a a b a Karuk Tribe of California a a a a a a c a a a b b b b Kaw Tribe of Oklahoma Kenaitze Indian Tribe a e a a d a c b b a b a b a Ketchikan Native Village b b b Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma c e c d d e a a c c b b b Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma Klawock Cooperative Association b b b La Jolla Band of Mission Indians c d a a a a a b b a b b a b Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians a d a,b a a a c b b a b b b a Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians a e d c d d e c c c a Las Vegas Paiute Tribe b b b Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe b a b c b a b,d a a b c b b a Makah Cultural and Research Center Manzanita Band of Mission Indians a d a a a a c,d a a b b b b b Mashantucket Pequot Tribe Miami Tribe of Okahoma Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida a d b c a d d a a a b b b b Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Moapa River Indian Reservation b a b b b a Modoc Tribe b b b Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Muscogee (Creek) Nation b b b Nambe' O-Ween-Ge' Natives of Kodiak b b b Navajo Nation Nez Perce Tribe Ninilchik Traditional Council b b a Nisqually Tribe a a a a a b,c b,c,d a a a b b b a Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council a d a a a a a b a a a a b b Northwest Florida Creek Indian Council Northwestern Band of the Shoshoni Nation Ottawa Tribe a d a b a a a a a a b b b c Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma b b b Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah a b a b a a c b b b b b b a Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians a c a a a a a,c a,b a a b a b a Penobscot Nation Penobscot Reservation a c a a d b c b b a b b b b Peoria Indian Tribe of Oklahoma a d a a a a b,d a a b b b b a Picuris Pueblo Pinole Indian Community b b b Pio Comanche Indian Tribe Poarch Band of Creek Indians a b a a b c b b b a a a b a Pueblo of Acoma a e a a a c,d d a b c c b b Pueblo of Laguna b a c b c a a b a b b b Pueblo of Sandia Pueblo of Zuni a c a b b a d c b a a b b a Puyallup Tribe of Indians a d a a a a b a a b a b b b Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma a a b a b c c b b b b b b b Quartz Vly. Indian Reservation b b b Quechan Indian Tribe Ramah Navajo Chapter a a b a a a f b b a a c b a Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewas Redding Rancheria a e a a d a c a a b b b c a

Tribe Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Redwood Valley Rancheria a e a a a b b a a a b b b b Reno-Sparks Indian Colony b b b Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians b b b Rohnerville Rancheria Rosebud Sioux Tribe a a a a a b c a a a c a b b Sac & Fox Tribe of Missouri b b b Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa c e a c d d e d d c c c c c Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community a a a b a a,b,c b,d a,b a,b a a b a,b a,b San Carlos Apache Tribe Santa Clara Indian Pueblo b b b Santee Sioux Tribe a d a a a b c b b a b a b a Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians a a a b a a c b b b b b b b Seminole Nation of Oklahoma b b b Seminole Tribe of Florida a d b a b b c a a b b b b b Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma b b b Shoshone-Paiute Tribes b b b Skokomish Tribe a e a a a b c a a a b b b b Soboba Band of Mission Indians b e a a a b b d d a b c b b,c Spokane Tribe of Indians Squaxin Island Tribe b b b St. Croix Chippewa Tribe of Wisconsin a d a a a a c,d b b a b b b a Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians b b a b c Summit Lake Paiute b b b Suquamish Tribe a b a b a b a a a b b b b Susanville Indian Rancheria Swinomish Tribal Community Sycuan Band of Mission Indians b b a d c d b b b a b b Tesuque Pueblo b e c b d d e a a b c b c b The Klamath Tribe a d aaaacaaaaaaa The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin a d c b a a a a b b b The Mohawk Nation of Akwesasne b b b Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (CCTHITA) b b a Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians a d a b a b d a a a b a a Tulalip Tribes a b a b a b a,b a a a b b b Tule River Tribe a a a a b a c a b a b a b b Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana a d a b b b b a a b a a a Turtle Mountain Band Tribal Office a a a a a c c a,b a a b b b Tuscarora Nation a d a c a a,b a a a a b b b b Tyme Mandau Tribe b b b Upper Sioux Community Ute Indian Tribe a b a b a a a b a a b b a Ute Mountain Ute Tribe b b b Utu Utu Gwaita Paiute Tribe b b b Viejas Indian Reservation a b c b a d a a a b a b Walker River Paiute Tribe a d b c b b d a a a b b b b Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California b b a a a b a a a c b b b Western Shoshone National Council a e b c d c d b a b b b b b Wichita and Affiliated Tribes a a a c a a c,d a a b b a b a Wiyot Tribe, Table Bluff Reservation Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe a a b a b b c d c a a b b a Yavapai-Apache Tribe a d a b a a b b b a b b b b Yerington Paiute Tribe b e b a a b b b Yomba Shoshone Tribe b b b

APPENDIX C

I ESKIMO-ALEUT V HOKAN-SIOUAN cont II ALGONQUIAN-WAKASHAN (2) Yana A Algonquian-Ritwan (3) Pomo 1 Algonquian b Washo 2 Beothuk c Esselen-Yuman 3 Ritwan (1) Esselen a Wiyot (2) Yuman b Yurok d Salinan-Seri B Kutenai (1) Salinan C Mosan (Wakashan-Salish) (2) Chumash 1 Wakashan (Kwakiutl-Nootka) (3) Seri 2 Chemakuan e Tequistlatecan 3 Salish 2 Subtiaba-Tlappanec III NA-DENE 3 Coahuiltecan A Haida a Tonkawa B Continental Na-Dene b Coahuilteco 1 Tlingit (1) Coahuilteco proper 2 Athabaskan (2) Cotoname IV PENUTIAN (3) Comecrudo A California Penutian c Karankawa 1 Miwok-Costanoan B Yuki 2 Yokuts C Keres 3 Maidu D Tunican 4 Wintun 1 Tunica-Atakapa B Oregon Penutian 2 Chitimacha 1 Takelma E Iroquois-Caddoan 2 Coast Oregon Penutian 1 Iroquoian a Coos 2 Caddoan b Siuslaw F Eastern group c Yakonan 1 Siouan-Yuchi 3 Kalapuya a Siouan C Chinook b Yuchi D Tsimshian 2 Natchez-Muskogean E Plateau Penutian a Natchez 1 Sahaptin b Muskogean 2 Waiilatpuan (Molala-Cayuse) c Timucua 3 Lutuami (Klamath-Modoc) VI AZTECO-TANOAN F Mexican Penutian A Uto-Aztecan 1 Mixe-Zoque 1 Nahuatl 2 Huave 2 Pima V HOKAN-SIOUAN 3 Shoshonean A Hokan-Coahuiltecan B Tanoan-Kiowa 1 Hokan 1 Tanoan a Northern Hokan 2 Kiowa (1) Karok, Chimariko, Shasta-Achomawi C Zuni

APPENDIX D

I THE ARCTIC D Hokan 2 Apachean A Eskimo-Aleut 1 Karok a Lipan II THE WESTERN SUBARCTIC 2 Chimariko b Kiowa Apache A Athabaskan 3 Shasta B Algonquian III THE EASTERN SUBARCTIC 4 Achomawi 1 Blackfoot A Algonquian 5 Atsugewi 2 Cheyenne 1 Cree 6 Yana 3 Arapaho 2 Ojibwa 7 Pomo C Siouan IV THE NORTHWEST COAST 8 Esselen 1 Dakota A Na-Dene 9 Salinan 2 Crow 1 Eyak 10 Chumash 3 Hidatsa 2 Tlingit 11 Yuman 4 Mandan 3 Haida E Penutian 5 Iowa-Oto 4 Athabaskan 1 Maidun 6 Dhegiha B Penutian 2 Wintun D Caddoan 1 Tsimshian 3 Miwok 1 Pawnee-Arikara 2 Lower Chinook 4 Costanoan 2 Kitsai 3 Alsea 5 Yokuts 3 Wichita 4 Siuslaw F Uto-Aztecan 4 Caddo 5 Coos 1 Tubatulabal E Kiowa-Tanoan 6 Kalapuya 2 Serrano 1 Kiowa 7 Takelma 3 Luiseno F Uto-Aztecan C Wakashan 4 Cupeno 1 Commanche 1 Kwakiutl 5 Cahuilla G Tonkawan 2 Nootka VII THE SOUTHWEST 1 Tonkawa D Salishan A Hokan X THE NORTHEAST 1 Coast Salish 1 Yuman A Algonquian E Chemakuan a Yuma 1 Eastern Abnaki 1 Chemakum b Yavapai 2 Western Abnaki 2 Quileute c Mohave 3 Delaware V THE PLATEAU d Walapai 4 Fox A Kutenaian e Havasupai 5 Malecite-Passamaquoddy 1 Kutenai B Uto-Aztecan 6 Menomini B Salishan 1 Papago 7 Miami 1 Kalispel 2 Hopi 8 Potawatomi 2 Coeur d' Alene C Athabaskan 9 Shawnee 3 Colville 1 Apachean B Iroquoian 4 Spokane a Navajo 1 Huron 5 Shuswap b Western Apache 2 Mohawk 6 Lillooet c Chiricahua Apache 3 Onondaga 7 Thompson d Jicarilla 4 Oneida 8 Columbian D Zuni 5 Seneca C Penutian E Keresan C Siouan 1 Nez Perce 1 Acoma 1 Winnebago 2 Sahaptin F Kiowa-Tanoan XI THE SOUTHEAST 3 Cayuse 1 Tanoan A Siouan 4 Upper Chinook a Towa 1 Tutelo 5 Molala b Tewa 2 Catawba 6 Klamath c Tiwa 3 Ofo VI CALIFORNIA G Coahuiltecan 4 Biloxi A Algic 1 Coahuilteco B Iroquoian 1 Yurok VIII THE GREAT BASIN 1 Tuscarora 2 Wiyot A Hokan 2 Cherokee B Athabaskan 1 Washo C Yuchi 1 Hupa B Uto-Aztecan D Timucua 2 Mattole 1 Northern Paiute E Gulf 3 Wailaki 2 Shoshone 1 Muskogean 4 Kato 3 Southern Paiute 2 Tunica C Yukian IX THE PLAINS 3 Natchez 1 Yuki A Athabaskan 4 Chitimacha 2 Wappo 1 Sarsi 5 Atakapa

APPENDIX E

1 ESKIMO-ALEUT B Astugewi 2 Tewa A Aleut 23 YANA 3 Towa B Eskimo 24 POMOAN 38 ZUNI 2 EYAK-ATHABASKAN 25 WASHO 39 SIOUAN A Eyak 26 ESSELEN A Catawban B Athabaskan 27 SALINAN B Core Siouan 1 Northern Athabaskan 28 CHUMASHAN 1 Mississippi Valley Siouan 2 Pacific Coast Athabaskan A Obispeno a Southeastern Siouan 3 Apachean B Central Chumash b Mississippi Valley Siouan 3 TLINGIT C Island 2 Missouri River Siouan 4 HAIDA 29 COCHIMI-YUMAN 3 Mandan 5 TSIMSHIAN A Yuman 40 CADDOAN 6 WAKASHAN B Cochimi 41 ADAI 7 CHIMAKUAN 30 WINTUAN 42 TONKAWA 8 SALISH A Wintun 43 KARANKAWA A Bella Coola B Patwin 44 COAHUILTECO B Central Salish 31 MAIDUAN 45 COTONAME C Tsamosan 32 MIWOK-COSTANOAN 46 ARANAMA-TAMIQUE D Tillamook A Miwokan 47 SOLANO E Interior Division B Costanoan 48 COMECRUDAN 9 KUTENAI 33 YOKUTSAN 49 ATAKAPAN 10 CHINOOKAN A Palewyami 50 CHITIMACHA A Lower Chinookan B General Yokuts 51 TUNICA B Upper Chinookan 34 YUKIAN 52 NATCHEZ 11 ALSEA A Wappo 53 MUSKOGEAN 12 SIUSLAW B Core Yukian A Western Muskogean 13 COOSAN 35 UTO-AZTECAN 1 Choctaw 14 TAKELMAN A Northern Uto-Aztecan 2 Chickasaw A Takelma 1 Numic B Eastern Muskogean B Kalapuyan 2 Tubatulabal 1 Central Muskogean 15 SAHAPTIAN 3 Takic 2 Creek-Seminole A Nez Perce 4 Hopi 54 TIMUCUA B Sahaptin B Southern Uto-Aztecan 55 YUCHI 16 KLAMATH-MODOC 1 Pimic 56 IROQUOIAN 17 MOLALA 2 Taracahitic A Cherokee 18 CAYUSE 3 Corachol-Aztecan B Northern Iroquoian 19 SHASTA 36 KERESAN 57 ALGIC 20 KARUK 37 KIOWA-TANOAN A Ritwan 21 CHIMARIKO A Kiowa B Algonquian 22 PALAIHNIHAN B Tanoan 58 BEOTHUK A Achomawi 1 Tiwa

APPENDIX F

I ESKIMO-ALEUT f Tsimshian A Aleut g Yuki-Gulf B Eskimo (1) Atakapa 1 Yuit (2) Chitimacha 2 Inuit (3) Muskogean II NA-DENE (4) Natchez A Haida (5) Tunica B Continental Na-Dene h Zuni 1 Tlingit 3 Hokan 2 Athabaskan-Eyak a Nuclear Hokan III AMERIND (1) Northern A Northern Amerind (a) Karok-Shasta 1 Almosan-Keresiouan (b) Yana a Almosan (c) Pomo (1) Algic (2) Washo (2) Kutenai (3) Esselen-Yuman (3) Mosan (4) Salinan-Seri b Keresiouan (5) Waicuri (1) Caddoan (6) Maratino (2) Iroquoian (7) Quinigua (3) Keresan (8) Tequistlatec (4) Siouan-Yuchi b Coahuiltecan 2 Penutian (1) Tonkawa a California (2) Nuclear Coahuiltecan (1) Maidu (3) Karankawa (2) Miwok-Costanoan c Subtiaba (3) Wintun d Jicaque (4) Yokuts e Yurumangui b Chinook B Central Amerind c Mexican 1 Kiowa-Tanoan (1) Huave 2 Oto-Mangue (2) Mayan 3 Uto-Aztecan (3) Mixe-Zoque C Chibchan-Paezan (4) Totonac D Andean d Oregon E Equatorial-Tucanoan e Plateau F Ge-Pano-Carib

APPENDIX G Question 1

C(n=5) 4%

B(n=54) A(n=67) 43% 53%

Question 1 N=126

Question 1 Response Chart

If your tribe (band, rancheria, etc.) does not have an official policy on human remains, does your tribe have an informal, unofficial policy concerning the reburial of human remains? a)yes b)no c)don’t know

Question 2

E(n=18) A(n=19) 23% 23%

B(n=7) 9% D(n=30) 37% C(n=6) 8% Question 2 N=80

Question 2 Response Chart

How many years have you had an informal reburial policy? a) 0 to 5 years b) 6 to 10 years c) 11 to 15 years d) 16 years or longer e) don’t know

62 Question 3

C(n=3) D(n=2) 4% 3%

B(n=19) 24%

A(n=55) 69%

Question 3 N=79

Question 3 Response Chart

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your tribe’s unofficial policy on reburial of human remains? a) We support reburial of tribal human remains in all situations. b) We support reburial much of the time, but prefer to make decisions on a case by case basis. c) We do not support the reburial of human remains. d) Don’t know.

Question 4

C(n=18) 22%

A(n=46) 56% B(n=18) 22%

Question 4 N=82

Question 4 Response Chart

Does your tribe use the existing legislation in your surrounding state(s) concerning reburial when it applies? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

63 Question 5

C(n=2) D(n=11) 2% 14%

B(n=18) A(n=50) 22% 62%

Question 5 N=81

Question 5 Response Chart

Does your tribe support the reburial of items placed into graves with the deceased? a) in all situations b) in some situations, with decisions made on a case by case basis c) not in any instances d) don’t know

Question 6

D(n=9) 11%

C(n=10) 12% A(n=39) 46%

B(n=25) 31%

Question 6 N=83

Question 6 Response Chart

In a reburial situation, would your tribe prefer to place the remains; a) as near as possible to the original burial location. b) near a present day tribal burial area. c) at another location to be decided at the time. d) don’t know.

64 Question 7

F(n=1) D(n=13) E(n=6) 1% 16% 7%

A(n=10.5) 13% C(n=33) 40% B(n=18.5) 23%

Question 7 N=82

Question 7 Response Chart

In a reburial situation, who would decide how and where a reburial would occur? a) tribal spiritual leaders b) elected tribal officials c) both tribal spiritual leaders and elected officials d) others (for example: relative of deceased, etc.) e) don’t know Question 8

C(n=2) 3% D(n=6) 8%

A(n=38) B(n=29) 50% 39%

Question 8 N=75

Question 8 Response Chart

Which of the following comes closest to describing your tribe’s unofficial policies on non-destructive, in- the-field analysis of tribal human remains? a) We do not support this kind of analysis in any situation. b) We support this kind of analysis if it is followed by reburial. c) We support this kind of analysis in all situations. d) We support all kinds of analysis.

65 Question 9

C(n=2) 3%

B(n=24.5) D(n=2) 33% 3%

A(n=45.5) 61%

Question 9 N=74

Question 9 Response Chart

Which statement best describes your tribe’s informal policies concerning non-destructive analysis of human remains conducted in the laboratory? a) We do not support this kind of analysis in any situation. b) We support this kind of analysis if it is followed by reburial. c) We support this kind of analysis in all situations. d) We support all kinds of analysis .

Question 10

C(n=6) 7%

B(n=24) 28% A(n=55) 65%

Question 10 N=85

Question 10 Response Chart

Does your tribe have a system, either formal or informal, for maintaining information on tribal burial locations? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

66 Question 11

C(n=12) 15% A(n=21) 26%

B(n=49) 59%

Question 11 N=82

Question 11 Response Chart

Does your tribe have established penalties for those found disturbing a tribal grave site without permission? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

Question 12

C(n=8) 10% A(n=16) 19%

B(n=59) 71%

Question 12 N=83

Question 12 Response Chart

Has your tribe ever been involved in litigation concerning the reburial of tribal human remains and/or grave items? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

67 Question 13

C(n=6) 5%

A(n=6) 5%

B(n=109) 90% Question 13 N=121

Question 13 Response Chart

Does your tribe traditionally cremate the dead, so there has been no need for a reburial policy? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

Question 14

C(n=8.5) 7%

B(n=72) 60%

A(n=40.5) 33%

Question 14 N=121

Question 14 Response Chart

Is your tribe currently working to set up a formal policy on the reburial of tribal human remains? a) yes b) no c) don’t know

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bloomfield, L. 1933 Langauge. Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson, New York.

Boas, F. 1911 Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages. In Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages by Franz Boas and Indian linguistic families of America, north of Mexico, by J.W. Powell, edited by P. Holder, pp. 1- 83. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

1929 Classification of American Indian Languages. Language 5:1-7.

Bohannan, P. and M. Glazer (editors) 1988 High Points in Anthropology. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

Bright, W. 1984 American Indian Linguistics and Literature. Mouton, Berlin.

1990 The Collected Works of Edward Sapir: American Indian Languages. 5. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Brinton, D. 1891 The American Race. Hodges Publisher, New York.

Brown, C. H. 1999 Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 20. Oxford University Press, New York.

Campbell, L. 1997 American Indian Languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 4. Oxford University Press, New York.

Campbell, L. and M. Mithun (editors) 1979 The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cutler, C. 1994 O Brave New Words: Native American Loanwords in Current English. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

69 Darnell, R. 1971 The Powell classification of American Indian languages. Papers in Linguistics 4:71-110.

1992 Anthropological linguistics: early history in North America. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by W. Bright, pp. 69-71. vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York.

2001 Invisible Genealogies: A History of Americanist Anthropology. Critical Studies in the History of Anthropology 1. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Darnell, R. and J. Sherzer 1971 Areal linguistic studies in North America: a historical process. International Journal of American Linguistics 37:20-28.

Driver, H. E. 1961 Indians of North America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Duranti, A. 1997 Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Durr, M., E. Renner and W. Oleschinski (editors) 1995 Language and Culture in Native North America: Studies in Honor of Heinz-Jurgen Pinnow. Lincom, Munchen.

Gray, E. and N. Fiering (editors) 2000 The Language Encounter in the Americas, 1492-1800: A Collection of Essays. Berghahn Books, New York.

Greenberg, J. H. 1960 General Classification of Central and South American Languages. In Men and Cultures: Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, edited by A. Wallace, pp. 791-94. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

1996 In Defense of Amerind. International Journal of American Linguistics 62(2):131-164.

Greenberg, J. H. and M. Ruhlen 1992 Linguistic origins of Native Americans. Scientific American 267(5):94-99.

Greenberg, J. H., C. G. Turner and S. L. Zegura 1986 The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-497.

Heckewelder, J. 1876(1819) History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States. Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Hodge, F. (editor) 1907 Handbook of American Indians north of Mexico. 2 vols. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Hoenigswald, H. and L. F. Weiner (editors) 1987 Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kaufman, T. 1990 Language History in South America: What we know and how to know more. In Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in lowland South American Languages, edited by D. Payne, pp. 13-67. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1994 The Native Languages of South America. In Atlas of the World's Languages, edited by C. M. a. R. E. Asher, pp. 46-76. Routledge, London.

Kehoe, A. B. 1992 North American Indians: A Comprehensive Account. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

1963 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of Chicago Press, Berkeley.

Leslie, D. 1991 Preliminary Report on Native American Reburial Policy Survey. Paper presented at the National Association of State Archaeologists, New Orleans.

Loukotka, C. 1968 Classification of South American Indian Languages. Latin American Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lounsbury, F. G. 1968 One Hundred Years of Anthropological Linguistics. In One Hundred Years of Anthropology, edited by J. O. Brew, pp. 153-225. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

71 Matteson, E., A. Wheeler, F. L. Jackson, N. E. Waltz and D. R. Christian 1972 Comparative Studies in Amerindian Languages. Mouton, The Hague.

McWhorter, J. H. 2001 The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language. Henry Holt, New York.

Mithun, M. 1999 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nichols, J. 1990 Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of the New World. Language 66:475-521.

Paolucci, A. and H. Paolucci (editors) 1995 Justin Winsor: Native American Antiquities and Linguistics. 19. Griffon House, New York.

Powell, J. W. 1966 Indian linguistic families of America north of Mexico. In Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages by Franz Boas and Indian linguistic families of America, north of Mexico, by J.W. Powell, edited by P. Holder. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Radin, P. 1919 The genetic relationship of the North American Indian languages. University of California publications in American archaeology and ethnology 14(5):489-502.

Sapir, E. 1921 A bird's-eye view of American langauges north of Mexico. Science 54:408.

Sherzer, J. 1973 Areal Linguistics in North America. In Linguistics in North America, edited by T. A. Sebeok, pp. 749-795. Mouton, The Hague.

1976 An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

1992 A Richness of Voices. In America in 1492, edited by J. Alvin Josephy, pp. 251-276. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

72 Sherzer, J. and R. Bauman 1972 Areal studies and culture history: language as a key to the study of cultural contact. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28:131-152.

Shipley, W. (editor) 1988 In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference of Native American Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.

Silver, S. and W. R. Miller 1997 American Indian Languages: Cultural and Social Contexts. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Suarez, J. 1974 South American Indian Languages. Encycolpedia Britannica 17:105-112.

Swadesh, M. 1959 Mapas de clasificacion linguistica de Mexico y las Americas. Instituto de Historia Publicacion no. 51, Mexico City.

Thornton, R. (editor) 1998 Studying Native America: Problems and Perspectives. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Valentine, J. R. 1998 Linguistics and Languages in Native American Studies. In Studying Native America: Problems and Prospects, edited by R. Thornton, pp. 152-181. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin 1965 Classification of American Indian languages. Anthropological Linguistics 7(7):121-150.

1985 From comparative method to phylum linguistics and back again. International Journal of American Linguistics 51:608-617.

Williams, R. 1643 A Key into the Language of America. Gregory Dexter, London.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ryan Pendleton was born in Miami, Florida in 1974. He graduated from Leon High School, Tallahassee, FL in 1992 and went on to get a Bachelors Degree in Anthropology from the University of Florida in 1996. Ryan started his graduate career at Florida State University in Fall 1996 studying applied cultural anthropology through the Department of Anthropology. While at FSU, Ryan served as Collections manager where he acted as the departmental liaison with tribal governments and federal agencies for NAGPRA related and collection issues. In 1999, Ryan became involved with the Program in Underwater Archaeology, where he has served as the full time Program Manger since. In addition to his Masters in Anthropology, Ryan has achieved a Museum Studies Certificate while at Florida State. Ryan, son of Denise Loomis and Larry Pendleton, has 5 siblings, John, Amy, Matthew, Marc, and Michael. Ryan’s hobbies include golf, football, basketball, tennis, fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, etc., etc. Ryan is a Libra which are characterized as easy going and balanced. Ryan eventually wants to go into politics, where he aspires one day to become President of the United States of America. So, you better watch out!!!!! And remember VOTE PENDLETON.