WISSLER— ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURE AREAS 



possible, and some maize, tobacco, and cotton. There was also some 

 weaving, particularly of hammocks. 



As to the interior of the Amazon country, we have poor data, but 

 what we have suggest that the whole should be apportioned among 

 the surrounding contiguous areas, whose cultures seem to fade out 

 to vacuity as one goes farther and farther into the wilds. 



Thus, on both continents there is a very close general agreement 

 between the localities occupied by the historic cultures and the 

 archeological areas. 



The reader is no doubt quite familiar with the idea of no correla- 

 tions between culture and linguistic type, which is regarded as a kind 

 of truism. But when we look carefully into the case it is not clear that 

 every kind of correlation is absent. Our attention so far has been 

 fixed on the conventional stock grouping, but it is now becoming 

 clear that this is not the only possible classification. In California, 

 positive similarities between a large number of stocks have been 

 worked out and a new grouping proposed. Thus Kroeber and Dixon 

 consider the five stocks Copehan (Wintun), Pujunan (Maidu), Mari- 

 posan (Yokuts), Moquelumnan (Miwok), and Costanoan, occupying 

 the greater part of the typical central area, to be genetically related 

 and hence as constituting a single stock. While there is a conservative 

 disposition on the part of others to hold to the Powell stocks in this 

 and all other cases, it is conceded that these California languages are 

 members of a group. Likewise, there is a similarity between some of 

 the languages of the North Pacific area, and some students are be- 

 ginning to recognize common bonds between the languages of the 

 lower Mississippi. Lehmann has called attention to striking similar- 

 ities between the accepted stocks of Central America. In all this 

 there appears a definite tendency for languages to correlate in some 

 ways with the culture grouping. Yet this correlation may be an ex- 

 pression of tribal contact rather than genetic relationship in speech. 



It is scarcely necessary to go into a discussion of the limitations 

 and exceptions, because these have been commented upon by lin- 

 guistic students. The mere mention of one or two points will suffice. 

 Thus, it is conceded that language resists change more effectually 

 than culture, and that the presence of different stocks in a culture 

 area presupposes a migration on the part of one or the other. For 

 example, we find the Algonkin stock represented in five of our 

 archeological areas and possibly in a sixth (California). The only 

 possible conclusion is that these culture differences were developed 

 after the dispersion, whereas the language survived. 



Such widely dispersed stocks give us a chance to compare degrees 



[483] 



