546 iiEPORT — 18U2.- 



American tribes — the only basis, indeed, which is of any value. The 

 efforts which have been heretofore made to erect a geographic classifica- 

 tion, with reference to certain areas, political or physical ; or a cranio- 

 logical one, with reference to skull forma ; or a cultural one, with 

 reference to stages of savagery and civilisation, have all proved worth- 

 less. I select, therefore,' he concludes, ' the linguistic classification of 

 the American race as the only one of any scientific value, and, therefore, 

 that which alone merits consideration.' 



The ' introductory chapter ' of Dr. Brinton's work contains many 

 valuable data and interesting suggestions. But I am disposed to think 

 that his view of the general resemblance pervading the American tribes 

 in their social institutions is rather a reflex of earlier opinions than a 

 deduction from the facts collected with judicial and impartial accuracy 

 in the subsequent chapters. Thus, while holding that Mr. Morgan's 

 assertions on this subject were too sweeping, he yet remarks (p. 45) 

 that ' Morgan was the first to point out clearly that ancient American 

 society was founded, not upon the family, but upon the gens, totem, or 

 clan, as the social unit.' In the next page, however, further considera- 

 tion leads him to observe that this ' gentile system ' is by no means 

 universal, and that ' it is an error of theorists to make it appear so. 

 Subsequently (on p. 99), in treating of the Dakotas, he states that 

 some of the tribes of this stock had no geute.9, while others possessed 

 them with, widely differing systems of descent ; and he then adds his 

 final decision on this point in terms which completely dispose of the 

 elaborate theories of Morgan and his disciples. He holds that, accord- 

 ing to the evidence we possess, ' the gentile system is by no means a 

 fixed stadium of even American ancient society, but is variable — present 

 or absent as circumstances may dictate.' 



Another recent publication of great importance is the paper of Major 

 J. W. Powell, the distinguished Director of the U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, 

 on ' The Linguistic Families of America north of Mexico,' which appears 

 in the ' Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau,' nominally for 1885-86, but 

 published in 1891, and actually coming down to that date in its informa- 

 tion. The terms ' linguistic families ' and ' stocks ' are used by the author 

 as synonymous. He finds the total number of such stocks on the conti* 

 nent north of Mexico to be fifty-eight ; and while he thinks it if) not im- 

 probable that this number may on further study be reduced by the fusion 

 of some of these stocks, it is equally likely, in his opinion, that the num- 

 ber in the list will be made good by the discovery of new stocks in 

 portions of the region which have not yet been fully explored. A cata- 

 logue as complete as can now be obtained is given, not only of thefamilies^ 

 but of their tribes and dialectical subdivisions, with their leading names 

 and the various synonyms by which they have been known. Major Powell 

 does not think it necessary to give a reason for adopting the linguistia 

 classification. He evidently regards the question as settled since the 

 appearance of Gallatin's great work, the well-known ' Synopsis of Indian 

 Tribes ' (1836), by the general acquiescence of ethnologists. His pre- 

 liminary remarks are chiefly, but not entirely, devoted to linguistic 

 Bubjects, and present many facts and conclusions — the result of twenty 

 years' study — which students of ethnology will find of special value and 

 interest. It should, of course, be kept in view that in reminding his 

 readers that, ' after all, the Indian is a savage, with the characteristics of a 

 savage,' he must be regarded as referring in strictness only to the tribes- 



