Search form

Blog Icon Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Tumblr Icon Instagram Icon Flickr Icon YouTube Icon RSS Icon Email Icon

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press Smithsonian Institution Libraries
Displaying 1 - 10 from the 60 total records
Previous | Next 10

Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador: The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases
Betty J. Meggers, Clifford Evans and Emilio Estrada
234 pages, Vol. 1, 115 figures, 196 plates, 30
1965 (Date of Issue: 20 December 1965)
Vol. 1, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.1.1
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (158,941 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (47,836 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


The publication of this report is a monument to the importance of international cooperation in scientific endeavor. The archeological sites and complexes were discovered by Ecuadorians, detailed analysis of the developmental sequences was furnished by North Americans, invaluable information for comparative study was provided by Japanese, and a Chilean prepared the report on skeletal remains. To those of us who are listed as authors, working with all of these people has been a memorable experience not only because the scientific results have been so exciting, but because the context in which they have been derived has been so rewarding.

The largest contribution has been made by the many Ecuadorians who have assisted with fieldwork and preparation of the bulk of material for analysis over the years. Some should be singled out for special mention. Dr. Carlos Zevallos Menéndez, then President of the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, Núcleo del Guayas, arranged for permission under the Ecuadorian antiquity laws to conduct the archeological field research. Félix Martínez and later Julio Viteri served as foremen during much of the excavation at G-31. During two seasons of work by Meggers and Evans at G-31 and G-54, Francisco Salcedo generously made available a comfortable house near the site as field headquarters. Washing and preliminary sorting of material from G-84 and G-31, Cut J was done by Walter Molina, part-time aide in the Museo “Víctor Emilio Estrada.”

Staff members of the former Division of Archeology, Museum of Natural History, U.S. National Museum who have over the years assisted in the laborious job of washing, numbering and classifying Valdivia and Machalilla Phase materials, are Mr. George Metcalf, Mr. Robert C. Jenkins, and Mrs. Willie Mae Pelham. We are indebted to personnel of other divisions for identification of stone, bone and shell remains, including Dr. Harald A. Rehder, Division of Mollusks; Dr. Henry Setzer, Division of Mammals; Dr. E. P. Henderson, Division of Meteorites; Dr. Leonard P. Schultz and Dr. William R. Taylor, Division of Fishes. Mr. Henry Wright assisted one summer with sorting of rocks from G-31: Valdivia into possible and impossible artifacts.

Carbon-14 determinations, which confirm the early chronological placement of the Valdivia complex, were made over several years at three different laboratories: the United States Geological Survey Low Frequency Radiation Laboratory, the University of Michigan Laboratory, and the Smithsonian Institution Carbon-Dating Laboratory. We would like to thank Dr. Meyer Rubin of the United States Geological Survey for his willingness to accept shell samples for dating at a time when this material was considered unsuitable in many quarters, and Dr. Austin Long of the Department of Radiation and Organisms, Smithsonian Institution Carbon-Dating Laboratory for consultation and advice in the evaluation of the entire series of dates, which led to several of the interpretations in the section on dating.

Our inferences about the origin of Valdivia Phase pottery would have been poorly supported had it not been for the opportunity to visit Japan during March and April, 1963 to examine collections and talk with experts on the Early and Middle Jomon Period. Initial communication with Japanese archeologists was facilitated by advice and introductions from Dr. Chester Chard, University of Wisconsin; Dr. Richard K. Beardsley, University of Michigan, and Dr. Edward Norbeck, William Marsh Rice University. Informed in advance of our general problem, members of the staff of the Institute of Cultural Anthropology, University of Tokyo, headed by Prof. Seiichi Izumi, laid out a tentative schedule of visits that permitted us to make best use of our limited time. Our ability to accomplish so much was largely because of this generous unsolicited aid by Prof. Izumi and his colleagues, Prof. Shozo Masuda and Prof. Toshihiko Sono. Through their advice, we were accompanied on trips outside the Tokyo area by one of their senior graduate students, Mr. Hiroaki Okada, who served as an efficient guide and interpreter, and an amused informant on Japanese inns and outs. Our search for Valdivia-like pottery led up a few blind alleys and into several productive fields, and we gratefully acknowledge guidance and information from the following individuals: Prof. Sugao Yamanouchi, and Prof. N. Watanabe, Department of Physical Anthropology, University of Tokyo; Prof. Sosuke Sugihara, Department of Archeology, Meiji University; Prof. Teruya Esaka, Department of Archeology, Keio University; Mr. Chosuke Serizawa, Tokyo; Prof. J. Edward Kidder, Jr., Archeology Laboratory, International Christian University; Prof. Kyoichi Arimitsu, Department of Archeology, University of Kyoto; Mr. Fukuhara and Mr. and Mrs. Shirakiba, Department of Archeology, Tenri Museum; Mr. Yoshimasa Kamaki and Mr. and Mrs. T. Macabe, Kurashiki Archeological Museum; Prof. Teigo Yoshida, Institute of Comparative Education and Culture, University of Kyushu; Prof. Morimitsu Ushijima and Mr. Mitsuhiko Higashi, Kumamoto Municipal Museum; Prof. Matsumoto, Department of History, University of Kumamoto; Prof. Sadanori Kawaguchi, Goyokuryu High School, Kagoshima; and Mr. M. Furuta of Shimabara. Prof. Ichiro Yawata, Archaeological Laboratory, Tokyo University of Education, led us on a memorable visit to an inland Middle Jomon site near the town of Oomiyama. The warm welcome and open generosity of all these people in providing us with advice, assistance and freedom to take notes and photographs of anything and everything is beyond the power of words to acknowledge. We hope that they will receive some satisfaction from seeing how significant has been their contribution to the conclusions in this report.

Financial support for the research has come from a number of different organizations, whose contribution we gratefully record: the American Philosophical Society for Penrose Fund Grants 2012 and 2370; the National Science Foundation for Grants G-9055 and G-15641 to the Institute of Andean Research for a three-year program entitled “Interrelationships of New World Cultures”, under which we were included as Project J: Coastal Ecuador; and the National Science Foundation Cooperative International Science Activities Program (supplemental funds to Grant GS-37), for sponsoring the trip to Japan. Throughout the various periods of field investigation from 1957-1961, a large portion of the field expense was borne by the Museo “Víctor Emilio Estrada”.

Individuals who deserve special thanks for aid in preparation of the monograph are Miss Judith Hill, Secretary of the former Division of Archeology, United States National Museum, who skillfully and uncomplainingly deciphered the rough drafts, improved the consistency of the style and format, and typed rapidly, neatly and efficiently the final copy of the manuscript; Mr. George Robert Lewis, Scientific Illustrator, of the former Department of Anthropology, United States National Museum, who produced the beautiful and accurate line drawings; Mr. Jack Scott, Head, Museum of Natural History Photo Lab, for production of excellent enlargements from negatives taken under varying conditions over several years; and Prof. Kazuo Terada, University of Tokyo, who translated statements from Japanese publications.

As the first of a new format, this volume presented special problems to the Editorial and Publications Division, Smithsonian Institution. We wish to express our gratitude to Mrs. Joan Horn and Mr. John S. Lea for their constructive suggestions, careful editing for consistency and accuracy, and forebearance with our many demands. To the Government Printing Office, we offer a word of admiration for the remarkably error-free setting of the text and tables, their speed of execution of each phase of the work, and their high quality reproduction of a wide variety of photographs into excellent plates.

We have left until last the recording of our indebtedness to those Ecuadorian colleagues with whom we shared the excitement of discovering the early Formative cultures of coastal Ecuador and of reconstructing from fragments of pottery, stone and shell, long forgotten historical events: Francisco Huerta Rendón, Carlos Zevallos Menéndez and Olaf Holm. The years we worked together under the leadership of Emilio Estrada are treasured memories to all of us—golden years beyond repetition or recall. The unexpected death of Estrada in November 1961, shortly following the final season of fieldwork, brought an end to many dreams, but one at least has developed in a manner he would have loved to see—the verification of his correlation, timidly proposed many years ago, between Valdivia and Jomon. His co-authorship of this report is not simply a tribute—it is a position fully earned.



Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C.

June 22, 1964

Early Skeletons from Tranquillity, California
J. Lawrence Angel
1–19 pages, Vol. 2, 1–4 plates, 3 tables
1966 (Date of Issue: 25 November 1966)
Vol. 2,Number 1, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.2.1
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (10,524 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (1,852 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


From these speculations one can draw three conclusions, differing in certainty.

The most certain one is that the first invaders from Asia, the Palaeamericans, migrating southward over a timespan of 5-10,000 years after the height of the last glaciation (Willey, 1961), split up into many slightly differing breeding isolates, whose divergences occurred more through sampling accidents (drift) than through selection. The kind of variability of the Tranquillity sample, especially the extreme in Burial 5, supports this picture.

The least certain, conclusion concerns evolutionary selective pressures resulting from a tough meat diet and hard living conditions leading to a short lifespan. These pressures would put a high premium on the fertility of a few women, especially those having massive teeth to resist wear (cf. Brace, 1962). Possibly Mongoloid features are a result of such pressures. The source for this extra tooth and face size not yet fully developed in late Pleistocene East Asia might be a recombination of genes from a tropical Negritoid population (contributing canine plus incisor breadth and prognathism) with genes from Sinanthropus descendants like Mapa (Woo, 1959 b; Coon, 1962) contributing shovel incisors and face massiveness, and perhaps also with Upper Paleolithic “White” genes. Evolution from such a proto-Mongoloid blend in a Mongoloid direction would have occurred in both Asia and America after 20,000 B.C. Apparently this evolution went much further in Asia.

The third conclusion concerns this difference in speeds of microevolution. The Tranquillity group in particular is still proto-Mongoloid and modern Hill Yokuts, Southern Miwok, and Western Mono appear to have changed little from it. Until very recently the tule-swamp character of the region had changed very little, except for the gradual (and late ?) extinction of most larger game mammals other than deer, and the ensuing wet phase. Regions of climatic and ecologic stability during the retreat of the last glaciation would probably be influenced by maritime climate and separated from the North or Plains areas.

In contrast to this, Northeast Asia, the Bering Strait region, and northern North America underwent a series of climatic and sea level changes comparable to those of Europe and the Mediterranean. Here there took place an evolutionary change to a big-faced, large-headed fully Mongoloid norm, equivalent to the Upper Paleolithic to Alpine and Mediterranean change in Europe and the Near East. A little of this Mongoloid change was plausibly injected into America in early Mesolithic times, and again to form the Aleut-Eskimo people (Laughlin, 1963) before 6,000 B.C. Until we have more data on frequencies of key traits and complexes, it is hard to guess whether the American Indian in general has absorbed Asiatic genes to any extent in post-Pleistocene times: the probable relation of Diego blood type to a Palaeamerican distribution and the lack of type B in the New World suggest that there was little addition from Asia after the end of the Pleistocene. In that case we are faced with an interesting parallelism in evolution in a Mongoloid direction, with the slower rate of change in America partly explained by relative climatic stability of southern coastal, island, mountain, jungle, and woodland ecologic zones as opposed to northern coastal, plateau, and plains areas, even though the variety of American ecologic zones is wide.

New Zealand Artifacts from the United States “Transit of Venus Expedition,” 1874-1875
Ian W. Keyes
21–27 pages, Vol. 2, 5–8 plates
1967 (Date of Issue: 6 March 1967)
Vol. 2,Number 2, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Display: PDF Hi-Res (5,319 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (1,191 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


On Monday, June 8, 1874, just over 90 years ago, the U.S. steamer Swatara, under Comdr. Ralph Chandler, U.S. Navy, sailed from New York Harbor—her destination, the remote sub-Antarctic Crozet and Kerguelen Islands, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the Chatham Islands.

Three years previously, in 1871, a committee that had been established under the authorization of the U.S. Congress (U.S. Navy, 1875, p. 16; Newcomb, 1880, p. 9) had completed earlier plans whereby a series of astronomical observatories would be established in various parts of the world during 1874, to conduct scientific observations on the “transit of Venus” scheduled to take place during December 9th of that year. Other countries also had formulated plans to send expeditions to suitable localities where that celestial event could most effectively be followed, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. In addition to the five scientific parties which the U.S. Government planned to send into southern waters, three stations were scheduled for the Northern Hemisphere; at Nagasaki, Peking, and Vladivostok (Newcomb, 1880, p. 12-13). The Swatara, with its complement of 26 astronomers and photographers, comprising the Southern Hemisphere contingent of the “Transit of Venus Expedition” along with stores, instruments, and equipment for establishing five observatories, set sail from New York for the 46° south latitude.

The first call was at “Bahia” (Salvador, Brazil) on Friday, July 10 (Chandler, MS. a) from which the vessel proceeded to Cape Town where she arrived at Table Bay on Wednesday, August 5th. From here, on August 17th, she rounded the Cape of Good Hope heading east-southeastwards for the Crozet Islands where the first observation party was to be landed. However, the high winds and heavy seas that were encountered on August 31st when the islands were reached, precluded a landing, so the Swatara continued on her easterly course towards the Kerguelen group, the site selected for the next observatory. Three Island Harbor was reached on Monday, September 7th. A camp was established at the northern end of Royal Sound and the scientific party landed, equipped for a long stay both to carry out the astronomical observations and to conduct additional biotic studies of the island (Kidder, 1875, 1876). On September 13th, the Swatara departed and headed for Hobart, Tasmania, where the next observatory was due to be sited. At Hobart, on October 3d, equipment and stores were unloaded for establishing this station and the instruments and personnel of the Crozet party were landed so that an additional observatory might be established at Campbelltown (Newcomb, 1880, p. 18).

Bluff Harbor, Southland, New Zealand, was reached on Friday, October 16th, and the New Zealand party under Prof. C. H. F. Peters was met by Lieut. E. H. Bass (assistant astronomer to the New Zealand party), who had spent 2 weeks in the country selecting the most suitable site for the Transit observatory. The Swatara sailed from Bluff Harbor on Saturday, October 17th, and after a brief stop off the Tairua Heads at the entrance to Port Chalmers, headed for the Chatham Islands. Chatham Island was reached on Monday, October 19th, and the final party of nine under Edwin Smith, the chief astronomer, disembarked at Port Hutt (northwest shore of Petre Bay), where a station was established on rising ground to the west of Whangaroa Bay. The Swatara sailed from Petre Bay on Monday, October 26th, for New Zealand, then to Hobart, where she remained until after the Transit.

Muskogean Charm Songs Among the Oklahoma Cherokees
Jack Frederick Kilpatrick and Anna Gritts Kilpatrick
29–40 pages, Vol. 2, 10 figures
1967 (Date of Issue: 6 March 1967)
Vol. 2,Number 3, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.2.3
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (4,875 kb) | PDF Lo-Res ( 676 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


Manuscript works on medicine and magic among the Oklahoma Cherokees sometimes contain idi:gawé:sdi (to be said, them, by one) or the texts of charm songs that, although written or partially written in the Sequoyah syllabary, are not in the Cherokee language. Cherokee din(a)da:hnvwi:sg(i) (those who cure them=medicine men), who as a rule know no Indian language other than their own, are aware that such writings, in some instances handed down to them through several generations, are in either Creek or Natchez. But only rarely does one encounter a medicine man who thinks that he knows the meaning of a specific word here or there. More commonly he will not know even the general drift of what is written, and is not quite sure which particular grouping of syllables constitutes a word. But he does know that his saying or song is powerful—‘alive,’ as he expresses it—and there the matter rests.

Since some of the phonemes of Muskogean languages are not found in Cherokee, a certain amount of ingenuity had to be exerted in representing them in the Sequoyah syllabary. The Sequoyan symbol for gwa, for example, may have been chosen to stand for pa. We have seen examples wherein new symbols had been created, or standard symbols reversed or inverted. We have also seen examples in which recourse to the English alphabet had been made in order to compensate for specific deficiencies in the Sequoyah syllabary.

In addition to these Muskogean materials in the possession of din (a)da:hnvwi:sg(i), there is a corpus of charms, chiefly pertaining to hunting, that was once, and perhaps to a certain extent still is, employed by the laity. As pointed out in Kilpatrick and Kilpatrick (1967) for some reason as yet undetermined the aboriginal Cherokee hunting charms were largely supplanted by those of Muskogean origin.

As one might expect, Muskogean medicomagic is most commonly encountered in the southern part of the territory of the Oklahoma Cherokees, a region containing several clearly defined and long-established Muskogean enclaves.

Land Tenure of the Rainy Lake Chippewa at the Beginning of the 19th Century
Harold Hickerson
41–63 pages, Vol. 2, 1 map
1967 (Date of Issue: 6 March 1967)
Vol. 2,Number 4, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.2.4
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (12,434 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (1,145 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


The land tenure of northeastern Algonkians has been the subject of discussion and controversy over the past 50 years, since Speck first began describing family hunting territory systems among Algonquin and Chippewa of the Ottowa River valley (1914-15; 1915 a; 1915 b). The issue has boiled down to whether division of land among families or heads of families maintaining them in more or less permanent usufruct, and involving sanctions against trespass, was an aboriginal or postcontact form. I believe consensus now would hold that tenure based on small patrilocal family usufruct (the classic, but by no means universal form) is postcontact (cf. Driver, 1961, pp. 249-250), but the precise form of tenure in aboriginal times would be a matter of doubt. Leacock (1954) quite conclusively demonstrated that family holdings came into existence as a result in subarctic cultures of emphasis on trapping fur for the European fur trade. Such emphasis, in brief, led to the husbanding of beaver and other sedentary game on an individual basis, replacing old communal large-game hunting patterns.

The controversy over the aboriginality of the family tenure system relates to questions concerning the organization of primitives generally, and particularly to the question of the universality of primitive communism. This was recognized quite early in the discussion (Lowie, 1920, p. 211; Speck, 1922, pp. 83-84), and has been a tacit and at times explicit part of it ever since. I have discussed this at length in a review article (Hickerson, 1967).

More recently, Rogers has argued that the question of land tenure should be separated from that of the constitution of social units (1963, pp. 77 ff.). On the basis of his assessment of ecological and socioreligious factors operating among the Mistassini Montagnais and other eastern subarctic peoples he has observed, Rogers suggests that a “hunting group” unit consisting of five or so linked biological families comprised the basic social unit for the area. The fur trade had the effect of tying such units to specific territories due to such factors as the need to conserve fur and fuel, ensure a game supply in a region of limited transportation facilities, provide mutual assistance in times of need, have available the counsel of respected elders, etc. Territorial stability for such units developed from the reliance on fur game, the supply of which had to be regulated and conserved by trapper-proprietors. If I understand Rogers correctly, in pretrade times when fur was not the chief object of the chase, the hunting groups were free to utilize range over which they held no exclusive rights. Without an allotment system, the bands were nevertheless restricted to roughly defined areas without set boundaries.

Notes on the History and Material Culture of the Tonkawa Indians
William K. Jones
65–81 pages, Vol. 2, 19 figures, 3 maps
1969 (Date of Issue: 31 December 1969)
Vol. 2,Number 5, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.2.5
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (11,136 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (2,001 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


One of the little-known tribes of central Texas was the Tonkawa. Few objects made and used by the Tonkawa are preserved in museum collections, and no description of traditional Tonkawa material culture, based upon a study of actual specimens, has appeared in the literature. Nevertheless, a small but unique collection of Tonkawa materials has been a part of the ethnological collections of the Smithsonian Institution for a century. It is unique, not only because it is the earliest known Tonkawa collection, antedating the extermination of the bison on the Southern Plains, but also because the time, place, and conditions under which the collection was made in the field are well documented. In order to place this collection in a meaningful cultural and chronological context I have prefaced my description of the specimens with a brief historical sketch of the Tonkawa, with particular emphasis upon the years immediately preceding the acquisition of these materials by Dr. McElderry at Fort Griffin, Texas, in 1868.

Although the Tonkawa call themselves Títskan wátitch, “the most human people,” the tribal name is derived from the Waco name for these people, Tonkaweya, meaning “they all stay together.” The Comanche and Kiowa, northwestern neighbors and longtime enemies of the Tonkawa, knew them by names which, in translation, meant “man-eating men” or “maneaters.” The Tonkawan language apparently was affiliated with Karankawa, Comecrudo, and Cotoname through the common Coahuiltecan stock, although too little is known of the languages of those extinct tribes to establish with certainty the closeness of their relationship to Tonkawan.

Available data on Tonkawa population, covering a period of nearly 200 years, indicate that the Tonkawa were not a large tribe. A Spanish estimate in 1778 gives 300 warriors. Sibley estimated the Tonkawa at but 200 men in 1805, and the tribal population continued to decline thereafter. Heavy war losses, epidemics, and loss of tribal identity through marriages outside the tribe, as well as other factors, contributed to this decline. Of the sixty-two Tonkawa Indians on the tribal rolls in 1961, only three individuals were believed to be fullblood Tonkawa. (Swanton, 1952, p. 327; Hasskarl, 1962, p. 228.)

If archeological evidence of the Tonkawa exists, it may be represented in the Toyah Focus of the Central Texas Aspect. Dr. Edward B. Jelks states that if the Toyah Focus material excavated at the Kyle Site, located on the Brazos River just above Whitney Dam in Hill County, Texas, can be related to a historic group, it is probably Tonkawa and/or Jumano. But he also believes that this focus may have come to an end in the late prehistoric period and another, yet undescribed, group may have taken its place. This later group, represented by triangular arrow points, Goliad Plain pottery, and other artifact styles, “may represent the archeological remains of the historic and protohistoric Tonkawa ….” Radiocarbon dates from the Toyah Focus at the Kyle Site range from A.D. 1276±165 years to A.D. 1561±130 years. (Jelks, 1962, p. 99.)

Notebook of a Cherokee Shaman
Jack Frederick Kilpatrick and Anna Gritts Kilpatrick
83–125 pages, Vol. 2
1970 (Date of Issue: 6 May 1970)
Vol. 2,Number 6, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.2.6
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (15,209 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (2,028 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya Ga:n(i)sgawi1 was the exemplification of a type institutional in Cherokee culture for well over a hundred years: the medicine man who was also a Christian preacher; who in tribal affairs led in the manner traditionally most acceptable to his people—through precept, persuasion, and selfless activity within the framework of a sanctioned group. Almost his entire existence was expended in the social milieu in which he was born. In the hill-country community in which he resided during most of the years of his maturity, he is remembered with affection. “He was an honest man,” say his old acquaintances—and Cherokees know no higher praise than that resident in the various connotations of the word “honest.”

Ade:lv (var. ade:la), originally a term for “bead(s)” is the presently employed word for “money”; agh(a)dhí:ya signifies “he (she) watches over it”: hence Ade:lagh(a)dhi:ya=“he (she) watches over the bead(s) 'money'.” In contemporary usage the term equates with “treasurer.” The disagreement as to precisely what bird in Oklahoma should be called ga:n(i)sgawi is evidence that the avian called thusly is not native to the country of the Western Cherokee. The true ga:n(i)sgawi is undoubtedly an aquatic bird of the bittern type.

He was born near Jay, Delaware County, Oklahoma about 1896. We have no information as to the identity of his principal master in shamanism. We do know that he was a student of his art when he went into military service during World War I; the notebook under consideration here went with him into battle, and some of the most interesting entries in it pertain to his experiences as a Private in Company I, 358th Infantry. Something of the elemental cast of the man's mind is revealed in such laconic jottings, as: “… o:gahlil:gi tsoí:ne igá:i Duli:sdi ghal:i li vgiyo:hlv:gi (… we fought the third day. On September 11th I was shot).” He never fully recovered from the abdominal wound that he received in France. To the end of his days he walked with a limp, and his wound was a contributing factor to his rather early demise on 3 July 1938.

Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya must always have been something of an idealist. Early in life he became identified with the nativistic Redbird Smith movement2 and was active in its A:mó:hi Fire near his home. It is said that Redbird Smith himself persuaded Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya to take up residence in the southern part of the Cherokee country in order to be closer to the nerve center of the organization which was (and still is) a few miles northeast of Gore, in Sequoyah County.

See Thomas, 1961.

For some reason, Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya came to lose faith in the Redbird Smith movement and removed a few miles north to the Indian community of Gwagwó:hi, in the vicinity of the post office of Barber, in Cherokee County, where he spent the remainder of his life. Here he married and reared a family of eight or nine children, and here he affiliated himself with the Sycamore Tree Cherokee Baptist Church in which he rose to leadership, becoming church secretary, deacon, and a licensed minister. We possess a number of manuscripts in Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya's precise Sequoyan that pertain to the affairs of the church he served.

Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya was a medicine man before he became a Christian, and he continued to practice his profession after his conversion. We have examined a letter of his to another shaman which is a powerful apologia for the Christian religion. Ade:lagh(a)dhí:ya appears to have been known for no particular specialties. He was a full-fledged dida:hnvwi:sg(i);3 a general practitioner, so to speak. While his reputation was not awesome, it was solid. His medicine was “live,” as the Cherokees say. As such collections go, his library of medicomagical manuscripts must have been rather sizable, but it was dispersed at his demise. Although we have managed to recover a part of it, much of it is no doubt irretrievably lost, and that which exists is in a poor state of preservation.

“One who cures (m.a.) them, he (she).”

Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal Guatemala
Michael D. Coe and Kent V. Flannery
136 pages, Vol. 3, 50 figures, 2–32 plates, 15
1967 (Date of Issue: 24 February 1967)
Vol. 3, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.3.1
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (71,081 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (12,540 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


The present report is concerned with investigations carried out on the Pacific coast of Guatemala, in a region very close to the Mexican border, during the months of January through March of 1962 (see maps, figs. 1 and 2). This research centered on Salinas La Blanca, a small village site of the Formative period, situated on the east bank of the Naranjo River, about 1.5 km. north of Ocós (Department of San Marcos). It was our intention to throw further light on the earliest village-farming occupation of this region, as a followup to investigations carried out at the nearby site of La Victoria during 1958 (Coe, 1961).

Seneca Morphology and Dictionary
Wallace L. Chafe
126 pages, Vol. 4
1967 (Date of Issue: 28 June 1967)
Vol. 4, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
DOI: 10.5479/si.00810223.4.1
Go to : Article in digital repository (repository url is stable, and repository may include .pdf of the article and additional related files)
Display: PDF Hi-Res (63,005 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (8,028 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


This work is an extended description of the structure of words in the Seneca language. A description of the grammar of Seneca words has already been published in the International Journal of American Linguistics (Chafe, 1960, 1961 a). A major omission from that work, however, was a comprehensive list of the verb roots, noun roots, and particles of the language, with specification of their grammatical peculiarities and examples of their use. The present work is designed to fill that gap. Its chief purpose is to make available a Seneca dictionary, or lexicon. Since, however, the dictionary contains many references to paragraphs in the Seneca Morphology mentioned above, it was thought useful to republish that work as part of this volume. Republication seems all the more useful in view of the fact that the original Seneca Morphology is scattered through eight numbers of two different volumes of the journal. Minor revisions and corrections have been made, but extensive changes, however desirable they might have been, were out of the question because the references in the dictionary were already keyed to paragraph numbers in the original version, as were the references given in the Grammatical Commentary of Seneca Thanksgiving Rituals (Chafe, 1961 b).

Seneca is at present the native language of a few thousand persons, most of whom live on the Allegany, Cattaraugus, and Tonawanda Reservations in western New York State and on the Grand River Reserve in Ontario, Canada. There are few if any speakers now under 30 years of age. Seneca is historically important as the language of the Five (now Six) Nations of the Iroquois and as the language of Handsome Lake, the Iroquois prophet (Parker, 1913; for a history of the Seneca see Parker, 1926). Within the Iroquoian language family, Seneca is a member of the Northern Iroquoian subgroup, which includes also Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora among the languages still spoken. Seneca is most closely related to Cayuga, but the two are different enough to be considered separate languages. The dialect differentiation within Seneca itself is minor. Earlier works on Seneca include several brief grammatical sketches (Voegelin and Preston, 1949, and Holmer, 1952, 1953, 1954) and texts (Hewitt, 1903, 1918). A list of still earlier sources is available in Pilling (1888).

The material on which this work is based was obtained during four summers of fieldwork, 1956-59, on the three New York reservations. It consists of an extensive corpus of Seneca words and texts, including formal speeches, legends, historical accounts, and conversations. I am deeply grateful for the assistance provided by numerous speakers of Seneca, above all by Solon Jones and Leroy Button of the Cattaraugus Reservation, Lena P. Snow, Tessie Snow, and Edward Curry of the Allegany Reservation, and Corbett Sundown and Betsy Carpenter of the Tonawanda Reservation. Appreciation is also due to William N. Fenton, Floyd G. Lounsbury, the Smithsonian Institution, Yale University, and especially to the New York State Museum and Science Service, under whose auspices the fieldwork was conducted. Both the Smithsonian Institution and the University of California provided support for the completion of the manuscript, and thanks are due to Karlena Glemser, Myra Rothenberg, and Aura Cuevas for their help in this regard.

The lexicon of a language is a vast terrain which no one could hope to explore fully during a few scattered field trips. Although grammatical analysis can perhaps lead to a point of diminishing returns after a reasonable period of investigation, I doubt that such a point has even been approached for the vocabularies of any languages except those few which have a long tradition of lexicography. Certainly the experience which I and others have had with American Indian languages refutes the ethnocentric myth that such languages are poor in their means of expression. What is given in the dictionary of this work is simply what I was able to obtain in a period that was totally inadequate for the purpose.

In making this lexical material available, I have had several possible uses of it in mind. I should say first that I have not intended that anyone should use it for learning to speak the Seneca language, although I would be very happy if someone were to find it helpful for that purpose. Above all I have wanted to provide data that can be used in comparative Iroquoian studies. Such work is stymied, as it is in most American Indian language families, by the absence of detailed lexical material. This is the first modern dictionary of any Iroquoian language, and I fervently hope that other and better ones will follow. Reconstruction, subgrouping, and the possible establishment of relationships outside the family cannot proceed without them. Second, the listing of roots with examples of their use will serve to elucidate the morphological patterns of the language beyond the few examples provided in the morphology, and to show something of the scope and frequency of constructions mentioned there. I regret the absence of syntactic examples; this compilation is a byproduct of a preoccupation with morphology. Examples of syntactic patterns as well as further morphological examples may be culled from my “Seneca Thanksgiving Rituals” and from Hewitt's texts. Finally, this material may prove useful in “language and culture” studies of various kinds.

The Artist of “Isleta Paintings” in Pueblo Society
Ester S. Goldfrank
227 pages, Vol. 5, 3 figures
1967 (Date of Issue: 4 August 1967)
Vol. 5, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Display: PDF Hi-Res (57,940 kb) | PDF Lo-Res (14,532 kb) | Plain Text |
Full Description (from SIRIS)


Pueblo society places a very considerable emphasis on knowledge, but it also dictates how this knowledge is to be acquired and used. Joe Lente was a rebel. In a society where, as one anthropologist put it, “disobedience is a sacrilege and heresy as well as treason” (White, 1932, p. 11), he obviously was not attracted by the Pueblo road to recognition and power—a priestly vocation—and this despite his early involvement with “ceremonial members” (especially his father and grandfather) and ceremonial activities. Indeed he used his abilities in the very way that from his earliest years he had learned would surely bring dire punishment—even death: he disclosed the most sacred and secret teachings of his society to an outsider. The wonder is that while he breached a basic principle of his society, that while his anxiety over this action never abated, he nevertheless chose to remain in Isleta, outwardly conforming, except when he was drunk, to its authoritarian mode of life.

Displaying 1 - 10 from the 60 total records

Previous | Next 10