﻿Vol.2] 
  THE 
  ARAUCANIANS 
  — 
  COOPER 
  695 
  

  

  early 
  period 
  reduced 
  greatly. 
  Marino 
  de 
  Lovera 
  remarked 
  (1865, 
  

   p. 
  448) 
  that 
  after 
  50 
  years 
  of 
  warfare, 
  where 
  formerly 
  the 
  Indians 
  had 
  

   been 
  counted 
  in 
  thousands, 
  they 
  were 
  then 
  (circa 
  1594) 
  to 
  be 
  reckoned 
  

   in 
  fifties. 
  Hard 
  labor 
  under 
  the 
  encomienda 
  system 
  in 
  the 
  fields 
  and 
  

   mines 
  and 
  towns 
  also 
  took 
  its 
  toll 
  as 
  did 
  likewise, 
  it 
  would 
  seem, 
  dis- 
  

   ease 
  (Gonzalez 
  de 
  Najera, 
  1889, 
  p. 
  200) 
  and 
  social 
  disorganization. 
  

  

  The 
  Chilotans, 
  who 
  at 
  first 
  contact 
  are 
  estimated 
  to 
  have 
  exceeded 
  

   50,000, 
  had 
  a 
  little 
  over 
  two 
  centuries 
  later 
  dwindled 
  to 
  11,000 
  (Oli- 
  

   vares, 
  1864, 
  p. 
  61; 
  1874, 
  p. 
  365); 
  great 
  numbers 
  of 
  them 
  were 
  in 
  the 
  

   early 
  17th 
  century 
  captured, 
  taken 
  away, 
  and 
  sold 
  as 
  slaves. 
  

  

  Estimates 
  of 
  present-day 
  Araucanian 
  numbers 
  will 
  depend 
  a 
  good 
  

   deal 
  upon 
  what 
  we 
  understand 
  by 
  "Araucanians." 
  The 
  Chilean 
  cen- 
  

   sus 
  of 
  1907 
  listed 
  101,118, 
  that 
  of 
  1920, 
  105,162, 
  all 
  between 
  the 
  Bio- 
  

   Bio 
  Kiver 
  and 
  the 
  Canal 
  of 
  Chacao. 
  Brand 
  (1941 
  a, 
  p. 
  23) 
  was 
  in- 
  

   formed 
  that 
  the 
  Chilean 
  Government 
  recognized 
  the 
  existence 
  of 
  some 
  

   187,000 
  Araucanians. 
  He 
  was 
  also 
  told 
  by 
  an 
  Araucanian 
  leader, 
  

   Martin 
  Colli6 
  Huaiquillaf, 
  that 
  a 
  population 
  of 
  300,000 
  was 
  claimed 
  iu 
  

   1941. 
  "If 
  we 
  count 
  as 
  'Indian' 
  anyone 
  who 
  physically 
  seems 
  to 
  be 
  

   Indian, 
  and 
  all 
  who 
  linguistically 
  or 
  socially 
  are 
  considered 
  Indian, 
  

   then 
  the 
  estimate 
  of 
  300,000 
  Araucanians 
  probably 
  is 
  not 
  too 
  high" 
  

   (Brand, 
  1941 
  a, 
  p. 
  24; 
  cf. 
  1941 
  c, 
  p. 
  83). 
  This 
  estimate, 
  and 
  Brand's 
  

   estimate 
  of 
  200,000 
  Indians 
  speaking 
  Araucanian 
  dialects, 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  

   our 
  best 
  ones. 
  

  

  The 
  Araucanian-speakmg 
  Indians 
  in 
  Argentine 
  territory 
  are 
  vari- 
  

   ously 
  estimated 
  to 
  number 
  from 
  a 
  few 
  hundred 
  to 
  3,000 
  or 
  4,000 
  

   (Brand, 
  1941 
  a, 
  p. 
  24). 
  In 
  Mansilla's 
  time, 
  1870, 
  the 
  Ranquel 
  alone 
  

   were 
  estimated 
  by 
  him 
  to 
  number 
  8,000 
  to 
  10,000 
  (1877, 
  2:274). 
  

   Fasulo, 
  in 
  1925, 
  estimated 
  the 
  total 
  Indian 
  population 
  of 
  the 
  Pampa 
  

   and 
  Patagonia, 
  including 
  the 
  Araucanian 
  elements, 
  at 
  about 
  7,000 
  

   (1925, 
  p. 
  161). 
  

  

  From 
  the 
  middle 
  to 
  the 
  end 
  of 
  the 
  last 
  century 
  great 
  reductions 
  in 
  

   the 
  native 
  population 
  from 
  the 
  Bio-Bio 
  Eiver 
  to 
  the 
  Canal 
  of 
  Chacao 
  

   took 
  place 
  as 
  a 
  result 
  of 
  wars 
  and 
  feuds, 
  of 
  smallpox 
  and 
  cholera 
  epi- 
  

   demics, 
  and, 
  apparently, 
  of 
  alcoholism. 
  Since 
  the 
  beginning 
  of 
  the 
  

   present 
  century, 
  however, 
  the 
  Araucanian 
  population 
  of 
  Chile 
  appears 
  

   to 
  have 
  been 
  steadily 
  increasing. 
  

  

  LANGUAGE 
  

  

  Araucanian 
  is 
  an 
  independent 
  linguistic 
  family. 
  Each 
  region 
  

   and 
  tribal 
  subdivision 
  has 
  its 
  dialectic 
  differences, 
  but 
  these 
  are 
  

   mostly 
  relatively 
  minor 
  ones, 
  consisting 
  of 
  phonetic 
  shifts 
  (such 
  as, 
  

   e. 
  g., 
  r=s=d, 
  n=n, 
  t—tr—ch) 
  } 
  different 
  meanings 
  for 
  the 
  same 
  word, 
  

   different 
  words 
  for 
  same 
  meaning, 
  slight 
  differences 
  in 
  formation 
  of 
  

   plural 
  of 
  substantives, 
  etc. 
  The 
  dialects 
  are 
  mutually 
  intelligible, 
  

   but 
  in 
  some 
  cases 
  only 
  with 
  considerable 
  or 
  very 
  great 
  difficulty 
  

  

  