Untitled - Smithsonian Institution

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 44 necessary to give in this preliminary sketch. It may be stated, however, that Ribas (145) says the language of the Ahome was the same as that of the Guazave, and different from that of the Zoe (which is referred to farther on). Hervas (320) says the Ahome spoke a dialect of Hiaqui (he uses this name Hiaqui as equivalent to Cinaloa; see Orozco y Berra, 1: 34), and the same as that spoken by the Guazave. Ribas (153) says the Comopori spoke the same language as the Ahome. Brinton is therefore in error in uniting the Ahome with the Pima, as they and the other pueblos mentioned in this connection, except Zuaque, spoke the Vacoregue dialect. The names Oguera (Ohuera), Cahuimeto, and Nio, denoting three dialects marked by Orozco y Berra on his map, along the southern border of the Cahita territory, near the Vacoregue, are placed in his list of extinct idioms (1:61). Comopori indicates a supposed subtribe, but is not represented on his map. Chicorata and Basopa are given in his list of languages, and are mentioned (1:334) as on the Sinaloa river 7 leagues east of Ohuera; their languages are distinct and the two peoples speak "el Mexicano." Of the Comopori, Orozco y Berra speaks as follows (1:35): About the embouchure of the Rio del Fuerte live the Ahomes, and thence toward the south along the coast the Vacoregues, Batucaris, Comoporis, and the Guazaves; of the same family of the Cahitas, the idiom, the dialect of the principal one, named the Guazave or Vacoregue. Balbi conjectures that the Ahome and the Comopori are very diverse dialects or sister languages of the Guazave. This is not correct; all the pueblos spoke the same idiom, and there was no particular Ahome or Comopori. This disposes of Comopori. As the Ahome spoke the same language as the Vacoregue and Guazave, the last two, so far as language is concerned, are, in fact, synonymous terms. Cahuimeto and Ohuera are placed by Orozco y Berra in his list of extinct languages. His evidence for considering these as distinct and as once spoken in the area he has marked on his map appears to have been obtained chiefly from Zapata (407). However, Orozco y Berra makes a mistake in his notes (1:334), referring to Ribas. It is there stated that six or seven leagues southeast of the pueblo of Sinaloa was the pueblo of Ohuera, in which and in the vicinity thereof were spoken two languages, "distintas," called Cahuimeto and Ohuera, though at the time Zapata wrote (1678) the Mexican (Aztec) language had already come into general use, ultimately, as we may suppose, displacing them, as they appear to have been extinct when Orozco y Berra wrote his Geografia (1857-1863), and also probably when Alegre wrote his Historia (1766-1773), as he makes no mention of them, though he speaks of missions and Indians of the region referred to. As they resided on the Sinaloa (not Rio del Fuerte, but Sinaloa of modern maps) and along the southeastern border of the Cahita 1 The pages he cites are those of Doc. Hist. Mex., 4th ser., lu. ^
THOMAS] INDIAN LANGUAGES OP MEXICO AND CENTKAL AMERICA 17 territory of Orozco y Berra's map, where it abuts on the Mexican (Aztec) territory, the two languages, which seem to have been cog- nate, may have been, and in all probability were, idioms of the Yaqui group. Although the evidence on this point is not positive, they were probably in the territory of the Yaqui group. Orozco y Berra seems to be justified by the evidence in placing Nio on his map as a distinct idiom, though extinct. It is stated by Zapata (404-405) that a league and a half northeast of San Pedro Guazave w^as the pueblo of San Ignacio de Nio, in which the language spoken was "particular," called Nio, though Mexican was also in common use. The only. subsequent mention found is that by Alegre (i, 294), who states that Padre Mendez commended the pueblos and languages of the Ocoroiri [Ocoroni], Nio, and some others which he had held, to the charge of Padre Tapia. This evidence, though direct, is somewhat slender, yet the name has been placed within the Cahita territory on the map accompanying this volume, surrounded, however, with a narrow line. The evidence in regard to Basopa, which Orozco y Berra places in his list of languages, is very meager, the only notice, so far as known, being the statement by Zapata (408) to the effect that five leagues to the north [of Concepcion de Chicorato] is the pueblo of San Ignacio deChicuris. ''The language is in part Tepehuana and in part Basopa, which is that which is commonly spoken." Zapata says, further, (407) that in Concepcion de Chicorato the natives are divided into two parties which speak distinct languages, "the Chicurata, and the Basopa." This appears to be the only authority on which Orozco y Berra bases the introduction of these two names into his list of languages. Both are extinct. ZOE AND TePAHUE Zoe and Baimena, both extinct languages, can best be considered together, as it seems they were related. The Zoe occupied a limited region on the eastern border of the territory of the Yaqui group, on the headwaters of the Rio del Fuerte adjoining the Tubar area. The tribe was a small one, speaking a language of its own. The Baimena, w^ho joined them on the south, probably spoke a dialect of the same tongue. Ribas (208) says the Zoe were mountain Indians, residing about the headwaters of the Rio Sinaloa (del Fuerte) in the skirts of the sierra, and spoke a language different from that of the Sinaloas. He also states, page 145 ("tienen tambien amistad los Ahomes, y parentesco, y son de la misma lengua con los Guapaues"), that they maintained friendly relations with the Ahome, and were related to and spoke the same language as the Guazave, who, as has been shown above, were related to the Yaqui group and spoke a dialect of their Ian-
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 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 82 and 83:
66 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bu
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?