years at least), there is no parallel, perhaps, on the face of the globe. After noticing a few
trifling modifications, which distinguish modern from ancient Greek, he states, as a fact,
that in three columns of a Greek newspaper of the year 1852, there do not certainly occur
three words that are not pure native Greek — so very slightly has it been corrupted from
foreign sources.” 365
Although the nations of Europe and Western Asia have been in
constant turmoil for thousands of years, and their languages torn to
pieces, yet they have been moulded into the great heterogeneous
Indo-European mass, everywhere showing affinities among its own
fragments, hut no resemblance to American languages. The subjoined
extract from a paper of Prof. Agassiz admirably expresses new and
most interesting views upon the natural origin of speech: —
“ As for languages, their common structure, and even the analogy in the sounds of different
languages, far from indicating a derivation of one from another, seem to us rather the
necessary result of that similarity in the organs of speech which causes them naturally to
produce the same sound. Who would now deny that it is as natural for men to speak as
it is for a dog to bark, for an ass to bray, for a lion to roar, for a wolf to howl, when we
see that no nations are so barbarous, so deprived of all human character, as to be unable
to express in language their desires, their fears, their hopes ? And if a unity of language,
any analogy in spund and structure between the languages of the white races, indicate a
closer connection between the different nations of that race, would not the difference which
has been observed in the structure of the languages of the wild races — would not the
power the American Indians have naturally to utter gutturals which the white can hardly
imitate, afford additional evidence that these races did not originate from a common stock,
but are only closely allied as men, endowed equally with the same intellectual powers, the
same organs of speech, the same sympathies, only developed in slightly different ways in
the different races, precisely as we observe the fact between closely allied species of the
same genus among birds ?
“ There is no ornithologist who ever watched the natural habits of birds and their notes,
who has not been surprised at the similarity of intonation of the notes of closely allied
species, and the greater difference between the notes of birds belonging to different genera
and families. The cry of the birds of prey, are alike unpleasant and rough in ail; the
song of all the thrushes is equally sweet and harmonious, and modulated upon similar
rhythms, and combined in similar melodies; the chit of all titmice is loquacious and hard;
the quack of the duck is alike nasal in all. But who ever thought that the robin learned
his melody from the mocking-bird, or the mocking-bird from any other species of thrush ?
Who ever fancied that the field-crow learned his cawing from the raven or jackdaw? Certainly,
no one at all acquainted with the natural history of birds. And why should it be
different with men ? Why should not the different races of men have originally spoken
distinct languages, as they do at present, differing in the same proportions as their organs
of speech are variously modified ? And why should not these modifications in their turn
be indicative of primitive differences among them ? It were giving up. all induction, all
power of arguing from sound premises, if the force of such evidence were to be denied.” 366
To.which may he added the familiar instance, that, although the
Negro has been domiciliated in the United States for many generations
among white people, he nevertheless, whether speaking English,
French, or Spanish/preserves that peculiar, unmistakeahly-A«^ro, intonation,
which no culture can eradicate. So, again, who ever h eard the
♦
voice of an Indian uttering English, and could not instantly detect
the articulations of the Red man ?
A review of the preceding facts shows conclusively, we think, that
the Natural History of the American aborigines runs a close parallel
with that of 'races in other countries. We have made hut two divisions;
hut it is more than probable that each of these families, instead of
springing from a single pair, have originated in many. But we have
discussed this point elsewhere, and need not reopen it here.
Let us now glance at the history of those aboriginal races which
made the only approach towards civilization. It is true that our materials
are very defective in many particulars, yet enough remain to
lead ethnologists to some important results.
No trace of an alphabet existed at the time of the conquest of the
continent of America; but some tribes possessed an imperfect sort of
picture-writing, from which a little archaeological aid can be derived;
though we are compelled to look chiefly to traditions, which are
often vague, and to the light which emanates from the physical characters,
antiquities, religibns, arts, sciences, languages, or agriculture.
The decided structural connection which exists among the various
Indian languages has been regarded as sufficient evidence', not only
of the common origin of these languages, but of the races speaking
them. The venerable Albert Gallatin, who devoted much time and
talent to American ethnography, says: —
“All those who have investigated the subject appear to have agreed in the opinion that,
however differing in their vocabularies, there is ah evident similarity in the structure of all
the American languages, bespeaking a common origin.” 367
Now, we are not disposed to deny the close affinity of these languages,
but we cannot agree that this affords any satisfactory proof
of unity of their linguistic derivation. The conclusion, to our minds,
is a non sequitur.
Let us assume, with Agassiz and Morton, that all mankind do not
spring from one pair, nor even each race from distinct pairs; but that
men were created in nations, in the different zoological provinces where
history first finds them. The Caucasians, Mongols, Indians, Negroes,
were, for example, created in large numbers, or in scattered tribes.
What, let us ask, would necessarily be the result as regards types and
languages ? Various individuals of these tribes, having no language,
would soon come in contact, either through proximity, or early wanderings.
Unions would soon take place, and there would be a fusion
of types, so as perhaps to change, more or less, each original; just as
amalgamations have taken place among all historical nations, and are
now going on in every country of the globe.
So with languages. As soofr as individuals came in contact, they