BRITISH COLUMBIA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY Published by the Archives of British Columbia in Co-Operation with the British Columbia Historical Association
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY * OCTOBER, 1942 BRITISH COLUMBIA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY Published by the Archives of British Columbia in co-operation with the British Columbia Historical Association. EDITOR. W. KAYB LAMB. Library, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. ASSOCIATE EDITOR. WnLA1w E. IRELAND. Proi.thwial Archives, Victoria, B.C. ADVISORY BOARD. J. C. GooDrELLow, Prznceton. F. W. HowAy, New Westminster. ROBIE L. REID, Vancouver. T. A. RIcKARD, Victoria. W. N. SAGE, Vancouver. Editorial communications may be addressed either to the Editor or to the Associate Editor. Subscriptions should be sent to the Provincial Archives, Parliament :.•. Buildings, Victoria, B.C. Price, 50c. the copy, or $2 the year. Members of the British Columbia Historical Association in good standing receive the Quarterly without further charge. Neither the Provincial Archives nor the British Columbia Historical Association assumes any responsibility for statements made by contributors to the magazine. BRITISH COLUMBIA HISTORICAL QUARTERLY “Any country worthy of a future should be interested in its past.” VOL. VI. VICTORIA, B.C., OcToBER, 1942. No. 4 CONTENTS. ARTICLES: PAGE. The Origin of the Chinook Jargon. By F. W. Howay 225 How One Slave became Free. By Robie L. Reid 251 Some Pioneers of the Cattle Industry. ByF.W. Laing 257 DOcuMENTS: Correspondence relating to the Establishment of a, Naval Base at Esquima,lt, 1851—57 277 NOTES AND COMMENTS: The “Kornagata Maru” and the Central Powers. A letter from Stephen E. Raymer, with an introductory note by Robie L. Reid_ 297 Some Archives Accessions, 1941—42. By Madge Wolfenden 299 British Columbia Historical Association 304 WillardE. Ireland 305 Contributors to this Issue. 305 THE NoRTHwEST BOOKSHELF: Jeffreys: The Picture Gallery of Canadian History. By Helen R. Boutilier _ 306 Wiedemann: Cheechako into Sourdough. By T. A. Rickard_ — 307 Morris: Captain William Oliver. By J. C. Goodfeflow 309 INDEX — 311 THE ORIGIN OF THE CHINOOK JARGON. The article by Dr. R. L. Reid, K.C., in the January number of this Quarterly on “The Chinook Jargon and British Columbia” makes opportune a discussion of its origin; and this paper is intended as a sort of postscript to that article. Dr. Reid men tions two theories and a tradition of the origin of the jargon. The tradition—that it was invented by the Hudson’s Bay Com pany—has only to be mentioned to be laughed out of court. The theories are: first, that it grew up naturally out of the condi tions on the Coast in the early days of the maritime fur-trade; second, that it was a prehistoric inter-tribal language already in existence when the explorers and traders arrived. The prehistoric inter-tribal view is found in the Handbook of American Indians (Washington, 1911), where it is stated in these words :— There can be no doubt that the jargon existed as an inter-tribal medium of communication long before the advent of the whites, having its parallel in the so-called “Mobilian language” of the Gulf tribes and the sign language of the plains, all three being the outcome of an extensive aboriginal system of inter.tribal trade and travel.1 This view has been repeated in the reprint entitled Handbook of Indians of Canada (Ottawa, 1913), and it has also been adopted in the Encyclopdia of Canada (Toronto, 1935), in practically the same words.2 Parallels are always dangerous arguments unless they are parallels. It is doubted whether there ever was on the Pacific Coast such a “system of inter-tribal trade and travel” as is alleged to have existed amongst the wandering, horse-riding aborigines of the plains.3 Inter-tribal trade amongst the Coast Indians, it is believed, was rare; and travel from tribe to tribe rarer. Like our primitive ancestors in England, the Coast Indians stayed at home. True, Alexander Mackenzie in July, (1) F. W. Hodge (ed.), Handbook of American Indians, Washington, 1911 (Bureau of American Ethnology, bulletin 30), I., pp. 274—5. (2) See Handbook of Indians of Canada, Ottawa, 1913, p. 94; Encyclo padia of Canada, Toronto, 1935, II., p. 50. (3) Compare Washington Irving, Astoria, Philadelphia, 1836, I., pp. 133 if., 167. British Columbia Historical Quarterly, VoL VI., No. 4. 225 226 F. W. HowAy. October 1793, met an Indian on the Bella Coola River who had jour neyed, about ten years befOre, in a canoe with forty of his people “a considerable distance towards the mid-day sun” and had seen two ships with white people in them.4 Curiosity probably lay at the root of this adventure. Sometimes, too, the Coast Indians travelled with letters of the land fur-traders; the Fort Langley Journal gives an instance, and others will be found in Harmon’s Journal.5 Sometimes they travelled to obtain food or even to obtain a wife. But travelling for pleasure—just for the sake of travelling, or of making a friendly visit—was unknown, or, at any rate, so unusual as not to furnish a plausible necessity for an inter-tribal language. It could not be in such an atmosphere of suspicion and enmity as existed amongst the Coast tribes. The evidence of the explorers and maritime traders makes it clear that wars, rumours of wars, war forays, enmity, and sus picion were the normal condition.6 The journal of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s post at Fort Langley, for example, contains many illuminating entries showing the constant fear in one tribe of attack by some other, the coming of war parties, the maraud ing expeditions, especially of the Yucultas.7 These circumstances have not deterred the various exponents of the theory that the Chinook jargon was a prehistoric inter- tribal language — a sort of lingua franca — amongst the Coast Indians. But when their statements are examined it will be observed that in no solitary instance are any facts offered to sustain it; in every instance it is simply taken for granted. This alleged inter-tribal origin is put forward rather lamely and inferentially in the preface to John Gill’s Dictionary of the (4) Alexander Mackenzie, Voyages ... to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans, London, 1801, p. 335. (5) Fort Langley Journal, MS., Provincial Archives, October 7, Novem ber 15, December 24, 1827; January 25, June 14, July 11, 1828. (6) See Henry R. Wagner, Spanish Explorations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Santa Ana, 1933, p. 6; Ingraham’s Journal of the Hope, MS., July 7, 1792; G. M. Dawson, Report on Queen Charlotte Islands, Montreal, 1878, p. 132; A. P. Niblack, Report of the National Museum, 1888, P. 340; Robert Brown (ed.), Adventures of John Jewitt, London, 1896, pp. 17, 21, 22, 191 If.; Jewitt’s Journal, reprint, Boston, 1931, p. 46. (7) Fort Langley Journal, MS., August 11, September 7, 24, October 9, 11, 18, 23, 28, 1827, etc. 1942 THE ORIGIN OF THE CHINOOK JARGON. 227 Chinook Jargon, published in 1902. It is found in good com pany, for the preface is filled with errors. Gill there says that there are five different languages in the territory between the mouth of the Willamette and the ocean. He continues :— But in voyages along the rivers or in hunting parties in the mountains, the Wasco Indian who happened to meet the Clatsop—one from the mouth of the Columbia and the other from central Oregon, made himself perfectly understood in this accommodating jargon, which was in use from the Cas cade Mountains to the Pacific as a trading language, and widely known along the coast.8 From the context it is plain that the author is dealing with an imaginary Indian on an imaginary journey at a time antecedent to the coming of the white man. Yet he produces no evidence in support of his assumption that the jargon existed at that time. Obviously it would have been a most convenient medium if it had existed; but the question is: Did it exist? Supporters of the prehistoric lingua frctnea must, surely, be required to offer some evidence of its existence before the advent of the white man. But, as already noted, no believer in this inter-tribal language produces any facts in support, or even any from which its probable existence may be inferred. They draw the theory from the blue. It is a case of wishful thinking. Such evidence as we have points unmistakably to the non existence of any such inter-tribal language. For instance when the two Indian women from Spokane House, garbed as men, reached Astoria, June 25, 1811, Franchère says:— We put questions to them in various Indian dialects; but they did not under stand us. They showed us a letter addressed to “Mr. John Stuart, Fort Estekatadene, New Caledonia.” Mr. Pillet then addressing them in the Knisteneaux language, they answered, although they appeared not to under stand it perfectly.9 This event occurred three months after the Astorians had arrived. In that time they should have picked up a smattering of the inter-tribal prehistoric language, if it had existed, for they had been constantly in contact with the Indians. Why, after they had tried the Indian dialects on the strangers, did they (8) John Gill, Dictionary of the Chinook Jargon, Portland, Ore., 1902, p. 4. (9) Gabriel Franchère, Narrative of a Voyage . .. , New York, 1854, p. 118. 228 F. W. HowAy. October not use the lingua franca? Why did they resort to Cree, which is a language known to most Indian tribes east of the Rockies? Is not the answer to these questions, that there was no inter- tribal language? Nor is this experience unique. Nowhere in the first contacts of the civilized with the savage on the Coast do we find any evi dence of a prehistoric inter-tribal language.