HOLMES ANNIVERSARY VOLUME 



of divergence. If we take Michelson's classification of Algonkin 

 languages we find that his Eastern group (Micmac, Malecite, etc.) 

 occupied archeological Area I, while the Central group (Ojibway, 

 Shawnee, Menomini, etc.) occupied a large part of Area IV. In Area 

 V we find the mutually divergent languages spoken by Blackfoot, 

 Cheyenne, and Arapaho, all of which seem to be farther apart than 

 the two preceding groups. Now, if we consider culture areas only, we 

 have a curious correspondence between the relative degrees of lin- 

 guistic divergence and culture difference. Thus, the cultures of the 

 Central and Eastern groups seem to have far more in common than 

 have they with the Plains group. Further, if we admit Sapir's classi- 

 fication of Wiyot we have a still greater divergence both in language 

 and culture. In this connection it is interesting to note that by a 

 detailed analysis of Area I, Dixon finds a close agreement between 

 archeological, culture, and dialectic sub-area, particularly in New 

 England. Yet, the peculiarity of the Plains group must not be over- 

 looked, for here we have three languages, Blackfoot, Arapaho, and 

 Cheyenne, which are very divergent from each other but between 

 whose cultures there are many close similarities. 



Again, if we take the Siouan stock we have the following divisions: 

 Dakota, Assiniboin, Dhegiha, Chiwere, Mandan, Hidatsa-Crow, 

 Biloxi-Ofo, and Catawba. Here also we find that of the two scattered 

 groups the Biloxi appear less divergent than the Catawba, but it does 

 not appear that one is farther removed culturally than the other. 

 The main body is rather compact and each of the five linguistic 

 divisions comprises contiguous tribes, but as a whole shows a tendency 

 to correlate with cultural differences. The exceptions are the Hidatsa 

 and Crow, the former being very like the Mandan. 



Thus, when we attempt to correlate the degrees of convergence, 

 we get somewhat contradictory results, but the exceptions fall largely 

 in the Plains area, while Areas I, III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI, 

 each show more or less inter-area linguistic similarities. As Dr Sapir 

 has contended in his recent discussion of "Time Perspective in 

 Aboriginal American Culture," there is more often some kind of an 

 agreement than not. Finally, the curious similarities that have been 

 noted among the stocks within recognized geographical areas, suggest 

 that languages have a grouping similar to and largely coincident with 

 the culture grouping. This similarity may or may not be the result 

 of genetic relations, but only of long social contact. Our point is that 

 the languages of a culture area, even when regarded as of indepen- 

 dent stocks, still show a grouping that tends to be coincident with 

 that for cultural characters. It is a reasonable expectation that a 



[484] 



