Untitled - Smithsonian Institution

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 Further examination of this point will be found in the notes relating to the Seri. Reference to the supposed tribes or subtribes Albino (or Aivino), Movas (or Mobas), Comuripa (or Comoripa), Onavas (or Onabas), Tecoripa, and Nuri is again made in order to give briefly the reasons for omitting them from the map. As stated above, they are considered by Orozco y Berra as merely pueblos in which the Pima language was spoken without such dialectic differences as to justify considering them distinct. As a rule, all dialects referred to by early authors writing of this section are spoken of as "distinct" or "par- ticular" languages, though the writers recognized their affinities. In regard to the Onava and Tecoripa, it seems to be fairly inferred from the statements byCancio (155-156) that they spoke the Piman language. This agrees with the statement by Zapata (358-361) that the language spoken at Tecoripa, Cumuripa, and Onava was Pima, and that at Mova the language was partly Pima and partly Egue (Eudeve), and hence not distinct. Velarde (399) calls the- Indians of Tecoripa, and also the Albino, Pima. Ribas (370) includes the pueblos Comoripa, Tecoripa, and Albino among those of the Lower Pima. The last-named author (299, 358) speaks of the Nuri as Nebome (Pima) and on the latter page connects them with the Upper Pima, but on page 369 says they are a nation of a language different from that of the Upper Pima, though not very distant from them. However, according to Orozco y Berra (1:351) they inhabited the pueblo of Nuri, which was certainly Lower Pima. It seems from Ribas (lib. vi, cap. vi) that the Nuri he refers to as belonging to or adjoining the Upper Pima were a different people from those occupying the Nuri pueblo. Although Hamy places these names (except Tecoripa) on his map heretofore referred to, and notwithstanding the fact that they are spoken of as "naciones," there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that they spoke distinct dialects. Ribas (373-374), speaking of the Aivino and other pueblos of that immediate section (en todaesta tierra adetro), says two languages were current through- out, and that Padre Olinano, who preached to them, understood well the two languages of these nations. However, he fails to state what languages these were. By turnmg to Zapata's Relacion, heretofore referred to, some light on this point may be obtained. Speaking of the Mobas (361), he says their language, as mentioned above, was partly Pima and partly Egue (Eudeve), which so far agrees with Ribas's statement and indicates the two languages to which the latter refers.
thomas] indian languages of mexico and centeal amekica 7 Opata {Synonym: Tegiiima) The Opata lived chiefly about the headwaters of the Yaqui and Hermosillo rivers, the Apache being on the northeast, the Tarahumare on the southeast, the Lower Pima on the south, and the Seri on the west. There were two subtribes which spoke dialects of the mother language—the Eudeve (Heve or Dohema) and the Jova (Jobal or Ova). (Doc. Hist.Mex., 3d s., iv, 552-553.) Orozco y Berra says (1:343-344) that according to D. Francisco Velasco the Opata "nacion" was subdivided into the Opatas Teguis, Opatas Teguimas, and Opatas Coguinachis. His quotation is not strictly exact, as Velasco, in the article referred to (2:705), gives as divisions Jovas, Segiiis (Teguis), Teguimas, and Coguinachis. But as the last three names do not appear to have had any linguistic signification, and are not otherwise referred to as those of subtribes, they may be dismissed from consideration. The Eudeve (Heve, Dohme, or Dohema), forming the chief subtribe, inhabited the headwaters of the Eio Hermosillo. Their location is given in Orozco y Berra's work by pueblos in the region mentioned. The dialect of this subtribe shows considerable difference from that of the Opata proper (Pimentel, ii, 153), but not sufficient to consider it otherwise than as a dialect. An anonymous author (Doc. Hist. Mex., 3d s., IV, 494, 534) even says the difference is not greater than that between Portuguese and Castilian, or between French and Provencal. Alegre (ii, 216) seems also to have considered the dialects as not widely different. The Jova (Jobal or Ova) formed another subtribe speaking a language dialectically different from Opata and Eudeve, though more closely related to the former than was Eudeve. xilthough the location of this subtribe seems to be pretty clearly indicated by the his- torical evidence as being in the eastern part of the Opata territory, as laid down in Orozco y Berra's map, Hamy, in his map heretofore referred to, locates them in the central portion of the Tarahumare territory as drawn by him and Orozco y Berra. This appears to be based on the statement of the latter author that one of the Jova pueblos was Santo Tomas, which he locates about the place where Hamy places the Jovas on his map. However, Orozco y Berra also names as Jova pueblos San Jose Teopari, Los Dolores, wSahuaripa, Ponida, Arivetzi, and San Mateo Malzura, all of which are in the southeast- ern part of the Opata territory as given in his map, which, as before indicated, Hamy has followed in marking the tribal boundaries. If the Jova territory extended to and included Santo Tomas, then the Opata territory, if this pueblo is correctly laid down, should be extended moro to the southeast than it is on Oroz(io y Berra's map.
Page 9: SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF A
Page 13 and 14: CONTENTS Introduction 1 Mexico 2 Co
Page 15: CONTENTS Central America—Continue
Page 18 and 19: 2 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bul
Page 26 and 27: " 10 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [
Page 28 and 29: 12 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 36 and 37: 20 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bo
Page 46 and 47: 30 BUKEAU OF AMEKICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 48 and 49: 32 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bd
Page 50 and 51: 34 BUREAU OP AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 52 and 53: 36 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 62 and 63: 46 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 64 and 65: 48 BUEEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bo
Page 68 and 69: 52 BUREAU OF AMEKICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 70 and 71: . 54 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [
Page 72 and 73:
56 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bd
Page 74 and 75:
58 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 76 and 77:
60 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
: 70 BUREAU OP AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [
Page 88 and 89:
72 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bo
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
8^ BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 100 and 101:
84 BUEEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
Page 102 and 103:
— 86 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
90 BUREAU OF AMERICA:^r ETHNOLOGY [
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
98 BIBLIOGRAPHY [b. a. e. Cancio, D
Page 116 and 117:
100 BIBLIOGRAPHY [B. A. E. Proceedi
Page 118 and 119:
102 Page Cazcanes Chichimecas 24 Ce
Page 120 and 121:
104 INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES I'
Page 122 and 123:
106 INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES Sa
Page 124:
108 INDEX OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES Pa
show all

Untitled - Smithsonian Institution

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?