OP THE HUMAN FAMILY. 177 



known to Europeans occupied the banks of the Missouri Eiver from the moutli of 

 the Funka on the north, to the junction of the INlissouri and Mississippi, and thence 

 down the hxtter river to the mouth of the Arkansas on the south. In their dialects 

 they arrange themselves into three classes, as follows: 1. Punka and Omaha; 2. 

 Iowa, Otoe, and Missouri ; and 3. Kaw, Osage, and Quappa. The system of relation- 

 ship of all these nations is given in the Table, with the exception of the Quappa, 

 which is believed to be identical with the Osage. The remains of the Missouri 

 nation are now intermingled Avith the Otoes, and the system of the latter nation 

 represents both. These nations were originally three, as their dialects still demon- 

 strate, and were afterwards increased to eight by subdivision. It is not now ascer- 

 tainable whether the three were one when they separated from the parent stem, 

 or broke off at three different times. The fact that the eight dialects are now 

 nearer to each other than either is to the Dakota proper, favors the former supposi- 

 tion. It is at least clear that they broke off in one body, or quite near the same 

 epoch in separate bodies. The Dakota dialects including the Asiniboine, are very 

 much nearer to each other than the dialects of the Missouri nations are among 

 themselves, as will be seen by consulting the Table. It would seem, therefore, 

 that unless we assume the existence of some intermediate nation from which both 

 were derived, and which has since disappeared, the greater relative age must be 

 assigned to the Missouri Nations. There is, however, a serious philological diffi- 

 culty encountered in deriving the Dakotas from the Missouri Nations, or the 

 reverse. It must be considered, as a part of the problem, that the latter nations 

 were scattered along the banks of the Missouri, and below on the Mississippi, for 

 more than a thousand miles, which would tend to increase the amount of dialec- 

 tical variation ; whilst the- former occupied a compact area upon the head waters 

 of the Mississippi, and from thence across a narrow belt of country to the Missouri, 

 which Avould tend in the first instance to prevent the formation of dialects and 

 afterwards to repress the amount of dialectical variation.^ On comparing their 

 respective systems of relationship it will be found that the Missouri form deviates 

 in one important particular, from that of the Dakota nations, in which respect it is 

 the rudest, and therefore the oldest. But this fact does not yield any evidence 

 with respect to relative age, since the supposition intervenes that the Dakota form 



• A comparison of the Punka and Yankton vocables reveals a large amount of variation, although 

 the identity of many of the words is obvious on mere inspection. These dialects were geographi- 

 cally contiguous. The Punka is one of the rudest dialects of the Dakotan stock language. It would 

 scarcely be supposed from the vocables that a Punka and Yankton native could understand each 

 other, and yet the contrary is the fact. While on the Punka reservation in Nebraska in 1862, I 

 obtained the Punka system of relationship from a native, with the assistance of a Yankton half blood 

 girl, who spoke English and Yankton fluently, but could not speak the Punka. Neither could the 

 Punka Indian speak the Yankton. With some difficulty they were able to understand each other while 

 using their respective dialects. They were undoubtedly able to detect and follow common root 

 forms, however much disguised. The actual amount of dialectical change is, in reality, much less 

 than the vocabularies seem to show. 

 23 February, 1870. 



