646 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 



much as muddy water within its banks, that I can recall ; and I have travelled 

 quite extensively in Minnesota, and have noted very particularly its superficial 

 and topographical features. The small stream which gives outlet to the waters 

 of Lake Minne-tonka is the one which gives rise to the Falls of Minne-ha-ha, its 

 waters falling over that cascade, and although there is an underlying bed or 

 stratum of red clay throughout the region of the lake, and creek, and yet it does 

 in no way give a tinge to the waters of the lake nor to its outlet stream. 



It is a well attested fact that throughout the region of Dakota Territory and 

 the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa, there are several underlying 

 strata of red clay, and of red sandstones, yet in no instance known to the writer 

 do these red materials tinge the waters red, nor are they reddish in any instance 

 where they approximate the surface of the ground. Now this being true, what 

 becomes of Mr. Moore's statement to the effect that the waters of this region are 

 so tinged as to readily suggest such names as Red Lake, Red River, etc? The 

 Sioux words Minne-ha-ha signify waterfalls, not "water holding red clay. "^ 

 The Sioux words signifying Red Water River are Wak-pa (river), Minne (water), 

 Sha (red) ; Minne always signifies water in that language. Then how can this 

 word come from, or be derived from the Latin word mtnio ? (red). The Sioux 

 word Ton-ka signifies big or great. How then can it be derived from the Latin 

 word tons (thundering), and again, if Governor Ramsey invented the name of 

 the lake, using two Indian words which signify Water Big, or Big Water, how, I 

 ask, is Mr. Moore to derive it from the Latin to thunder, thundering, etc.? It 

 is plain, I think, from all that I have discussed of Mr. Moore's paper, that he is 

 entirely wrong iu his statements of fact, and in his deductions. He evidently 

 believes that all the Indian languages of the western continent are but dialects 

 of one original mother tongue, a belief very far from the truth. Fortunately for 

 the archaeologist, the Indian tongues come to him in their purity, not having that 

 dilution of terms and phrases which characterized the languages of the eastern 

 continent centuries before an attempt to systematically study them was made. I 

 will say here that not only Mr. Moore, but many others, have been greatly mis- 

 led in attempts to study and to account for the peculiarities of Indian languages, 

 manners, and customs, by the assumption in the outset, that not only the human 

 family, but all spoken languages, have had the same point of origin. Of these 

 students Mr. Moore shoots the widest of the mark. For if he has either willfully 

 or unwittingly made the misstatements and errors in regard to words belonging 

 to the Sioux or Dakota, and the Algonquin languages, as I have pointed out, then 

 we must believe that he has been equally faulty in his investigations into the 

 meaning of all the words which he quotes from the various American Indian 

 tongues in his paper. 



I therefore come to the conclusion that as far as Mr. Moore's researches are 

 concerned, we have no reUable proof that any known Indian language has been 

 derived from the Latin, or in fact from any other known tongue of the Eastern 

 Hemisphere, and I further conclude for the same reasons that the Romans did 

 not colonize America: . 



Iowa City, Iowa, February, 1885. 



