_> I oox-o
Co to .^
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
U S BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY
BULLETIN 143
HANDBOOK
OF
SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
Julian H. Steward, Editor
Volume 6
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, LINGUISTICS
AND CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTH
AMERICAN INDIANS
Prepared in Cooperation With the United States Department of State as a Project
of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural
Cooperation
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1950
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing 0£Gice, Washington 25, D. C
Price $5.00

7M^ ^
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology,
Washington, D. C, June 15, 1948.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled
"Handbookof South American Indians. Volume 6. Physical Anthro-
pology, Linguistics, and Cultural Geography of South American
Indians," edited by Julian H. Steward, and to recommend that it
be published as a bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology.
Very respectfully yours,
M. W. Stirling, Chief.
Dr. Alexander Wetmore,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
lU

CONTENTS
FAQB
Preface, by Julian H. Steward x
Acknowledgments xii
Contributors to Volume 6 xiii
Part 1. Ancient man 1
The antiquity of man in South America, by Theodore D. McCown__ 1
Bibliography 8
The present status of the theories concerning primitive man in Argen-
tina, by Joaquin Frenguelli 11
Bibliography 17
Part 2. Physical anthropology 19
Skeletal remains of South American Indians 19
Anthropometry of South American Indian skeletal remains, by
T. D. Stewart and Marshall T. Newman 19
Bibliography 41
Deformity, trephining, and mutilation in South American Indian
skeletal remains, by T. D. Stewart 43
Bibliography 48
Pathological changes in South American Indian skeletal remains,
by T. D. Stewart ._ 49
Bibliography 52
Cephalic deformations of the Indians in Argentina, by Jos6 Im-
belloni 53
Bibliography 55
The living South American Indians 57
Anthropometry of South American Indians, by Morris Steggerda. 57
Bibliography 69
Anthropometry of the Indians of Brazil, by Jos6 Bastos d'Avila. 71
Introduction 71
The distribution of anthropometric types 72
Bibliography 84
The pigmentation and hair of South American Indiana, by Morris
Steggerda 85
Skin color. , 85
Eye color and form 88
Hair color and form 89
Bibliography 90
Blood groups of South American Indians, by William C. Boyd._ 91
Bibliography 95
The basal metabolic rates of South American Indians, by Elsie A.
Wilson 97
Bibliography
__ 104
South American Mestizos 105
Mestizos of South America, by Morris Steggerda 105
Bibliography 109
Brazilian Mestizo types, by Maria Julia Pourchet 111
Bibliography 120
VI CONTENTS
Part 2 Physical anthropology—Continued page
The physical anthropology of Chile 121
The anthropometry of the Indians of Chile, by Carlos HenckeL. 121
The Ona (Shelknam) 121
The Yahgan (Yamana) 124
The Alacaluf (Halakwulup) 127
Natives of the southern provinces 129
The Indians of North Chile 133
Bibliography 135
The geographical pathology of Chile, by Ernesto Herzog 137
Bibliography 144
The physical anthropology of the internal organs among the races
of Chile, by Carlos Henckel 145
Introduction 145
Digestive apparatus 145
Respiratory system 147
Circulatory system 148
Endocrine system 150
Urogenital system 150
Nervous system 151
Blood groups 151
Bibliography 152
Glossary 152
Paet 3. The languages of South American Indians, by J. Alden Mason L_ 157
Part 4. Geography and plant and animal resources 319
Geography of South America, by Carl O. Sauer 319
ReUef 319
The eastern highlands 319
The continental lowlands 323
The Patagonian Plateau 325
The western cordilleras and lowlands 325
Climate and vegetation 331
Tropical rain forest (^/ and Am climates) 331
The Montana (border of A and C chmates in the Andes)— 333
Tropical savanna {AW) 334
Steppes and deserts 336
Andean climate and vegetation 338
Humid temperate lands of the south 340
Fauna and ethnozoology of South America, by Raymond M. Gilmore. 345
Introduction 345
Purpose and scope 345
Definition of Neotropical region 348
General fauna of Neotropica 349
History of Neotropical fauna 350
Ecologic and zoogeographic divisions of Neotropica 353
Fauna of Neotropica 363
General 363
Mammals (MammaUa) 363
Birds (Aves) 383
Reptiles (Reptilia) 400
Amphibians (Amphibia) 407
> For detailed contents of this paper, see p. 157.
CONTENTS Vn
Part 4. Geography and plant and animal resources—Continued
Fauna and ethnozoology of South America, by Raymond M. Gilmore—Con.
Fauna of Neotropica—Continued page
Fishes (Pisces) 408
Arthropods (Arthropoda) : Crustaceans, insects, arachnids. _ 415
Mollusks (MoUusca) 422
Echinoderms (Echinodermata) 423
Domesticated animals 423
Llama, alpaca, guanaco, vicuna (South American camelids)__ 429
The domesticated cavy, "guinea pig" (Cavia porcellus) 454
The Muscovy duck {Cairina moschata) 460
Summary 462
Acknowledgments and sources 463
Bibliography 463
The use of wild plants in tropical South America, by Claude L6vi-
Strauss 465
Introduction 465
The palms 469
Timber wood 473
Fibers 474
Miscellaneous 475
Gums and resins 476
Oils and unguents 477
Pigments and dyes 477
Shampoos 479
Rubber 479
Foods 479
Drinks 482
Condiments 482
Poisons 483
Medicines 484
Bibliography 486
Cultivated plants of South and Central America, by Carl O. Sauer 487
Introduction 487
Maize 489
Lesser seed crops 495
Beans 498
The cucurbits 504
Tropical root crops 507
Root crops of temperate lands 512
Root crops of cool lands 513
Garden plants of the nightshade family 519
Cultivated fruits and nuts 524
Cotton _ 533
Miscellaneous plants 538
Bibliography 543
Bibliography 545
ILLUSTRATIONS
PLATES
1. The Ecuadorean Punfn skull (frontalis and lateralis) 2
2. The Brazilian Confins skull (frontalis and lateralis) 2
3. Bolas and human teeth from Argentina 18
4. Stone and bone points from Miramar, Buenos Aires 18
5. Skull from Cerro Tablayo, Colombia (lateralis and frontalis) 34
6. Skull from Patagonia, Argentina (lateralis and frontalis) 34
7. Skull from Tiahuanaco, Bolivia (lateralis and frontalis) 34
8. Skull from Lake Tacarigua, near Maracay, Venezuela (lateralis and
verticalis) 34
9. Trephined skulls from Peru 50
10. Surgical and dental use of gold 50
11. Deformed skulls from Chicama Valley, Perd 50
12. Pelvis and femora from Chimu region, Perd, showing arthritus de-
formans 50
13. Types of Argentine cranial deformation 54
14. Apparatus for cranial deformation, Argentina 54
15. Central American, Guiana, and Upper Xingii physical types 66
16. Indians of the Upper Xingu and the Chaco 66
17. Indians of the Guianas, Montafia, Upper Xingii, and northwest
Amazon 66
18. Indians cf the northwest Amazon and the Chaco 66
19. Indians of the Mato Grosso and the Ecuadorean Montana 66
20. Andean and Chaco physical types 66
21 . Patagonian and Fuegian physical types 66
22. Patagonian and Fuegian physical types 66
23. Lagoa Santa skull (lateralis and frontalis) 82
24. Physical types of Tierra del Fuego 130
25. Ona skulls, Tierra del Fuego 130
26. Skulls from southern Chile 130
27. Physical types from southern Chile 130
28. Southern Chile 338
29. Northern Chile 338
30. The Chilean Atacama and the Bolivian altiplano 338
31. The Chilean Atacama, I^ake Titicaca, and Arequipa 338
32. The Peruvian Andes 338
33. The Peruvian and Chilean Coastal desert 338
34. Andean vegetation types 338
35. Peruvian and Ecuadorean landscapes 338
36. Monkeys, rodents, and deer 434
37. Giant anteater and ocelot 434
38. Rodents and peccaries -- 434
39. Manatee, tapir, and felids 434
40. Rodent 434
41. Rodents and fish 434
42. Mammals, reptile, and bird 434
43. Llama and alpacas 434
vin
CONTENTS IX
PLATES PAGB
44. Vicufia and huanaco 434
45. Birds 434
46. Birds 434
47. Turtle, fishes, and snake 434
FIGURES
1. Diagram of geological column of the Argentine Pampa 16
2. Diagram showing the application of head-flattening apparatus, the
Quebrada de Humahuaca 54
3. Lung and aorta 148
MAPS
1. Base map of South America showing locations of cranial series listed
in table 1 20
2. Generalized distribution of the extremes of the mean height index in
South America 23
3. Generalized distribution of the extremes of the cranial module in South
America 25
4. Distribution of stature among South American Indians 59
5. Distribution of cephalic index among South American Indians 60
6. Apparent blood-group distribution among South American Indiana. _ 92
7. Relief map of South America 322
8. Geognostic map of South America 322
9. Climates of South America 332
10. Vegetation of South America 338
11. Zoogeographic subregions of Neotropica 359
12. Distribution of the llama 434
13. Distribution of the alpaca 443
14. Distribution of the guanaco 448
15. Distribution of the vicufia 452
16. Distribution of wild Cavia and Galea 456
17. Distribution of the wild Muscovy duck 461
18. Tribal and linguistic distributions of South America. (Color map
in pocket.)
PREFACE
The plan and scope of the Handbook of South American Indians
and explanations of previous volumes have been given in each vol-
ume. This, the sixth and last volume, was originally planned as a
part of Volume 5, but had to be held for later publication because of
rising printing costs; the index to all six volumes will be published
separately.
Like Volume 5, which was devoted to the ethnology of the South
American Indians, the articles in this volume are arranged topically
and deal with all of South America; but, unlike Volume 5, they cover
fields of anthropological research not presented in the preceding vol-
umes or only touched on lightly.
The articles on ancient man in South America in Part 1 give excellent
summaries of this little-known subject. McCo\vn's resume deals with
the entire continent, while Frenguelli's discusses Argentina, whose
able archeologists have long taken a deep interest in the subject. The
somewhat different conclusions reached by these authors show the
need for more research on this important subject and for a common
understanding on methodology.
Data on physical anthropology were excluded from the first four
volumes of the Handbook and will be found in Part 2 of the present
volume. The articles on anthropometry by Stewart, Newman, Steg-
gerda, Bastos d'Avila, and Henckel; on deformities, trephining, and
mutilations by Stewart; on cephalic deformations by Imbelloni; on
pathological changes by Stewart; on pigmentation and hair by Steg-
gerda; and on Mestizos by Steggerda and by Pourchet are standard
summaries of available laiowledge on these subjects. The articles on
blood groups by Boyd and on basal metabolic rates by Wilson sum-
marize the meager work heretofore done on these topics. Many other
subjects, though coming within the scope of physical anthropology in
recent years, have been omitted for lack of sufficient research. Ar-
ticles by two Chilenos, however, "Tbe Geographical Pathology of
Chile," by Ernesto Herzog, and "The Physical Anthropology of the
Internal Organs Among the Races of Chile," by Carlos Henckel, repre-
sent new approaches. Some day these subjects may be treated on a
continental scale. The bibliographic references additional to those
cited by the authors of articles on physical anthropology and the
antiquity of man in South America have been added by Dr. T. D.
Stewart, editor of Part 2.
The field of South American linguistics is particularly difficult, not
only because of the great diversity of Indian languages but because
PREFACE XI
many languages are already extinct and but few of those which sur-
vive have been adequately recorded. Previous classifications, such
as those of Schmidt, Chamberlain, Rivet, and Loukotka, are in serious
disagreement with one another as to the classification of many import-
ant groups. In Part 3 of the present volume, J. Alden Mason has
done a monumental job of ascertaining the best modern opinion on
the linguistic affiliation of each South American tribe and preparing
an up-to-date classification. Time permitted very little original re-
search on the relationship between groups which now appear to be
linguistically isolated. The 75 or more now isolated languages will
undoubtedly be reduced in the future, and affiliations with Central
and North American languages will certainly be established. Such
regroupings, however, will require years of research in comparative
studies, which in turn must rest upon adequate field material gathered
from surviving linguistic groups.
The tribal map (map 18), on which the linguistic map is superim-
posed, was compiled by the editor from the data contained in the
first four volumes of the Handbook. The tribes are located where
they were first reported by the Whites. In the Antilles and coastal
areas of South America, their whereabouts was recorded during the
first half century of the Conquest; in some of the more remote areas,
such as parts of Mato Grosso, the tribes were unlaiown until the past
50 years. In order to combine tribes and languages on a single map,
it was necessary to draw tribal boundaries. In most cases, these
boundaries are fairly arbitrary; in some, where tribes were intermixed
or had interlocking distributions, the lines drawn on the map falsify
the picture. It is necessary, however, to simplify such detail and to
have definite boundaries at which the language colors stop.
On the whole, map 18 agrees with those published in previous
volumes; but, as certain conflicts between the other maps had to be
reconciled and as many locations had to be plotted on the American
Geographical Society millionth maps, the editor takes full responsi-
bility for the present tribal map.
Both the linguistic classification and the tribal map are deeply
indebted to the late Dr. Curt Nimuendajii. Dr. Nimuendajii went
to Brazil in 1906, and, though he first explored the tropical forests
as an engineer and cartographer, his deep interest in and sympathy
for the Indian soon led him to make anthropological studies. During
the past 40 years, his contributions to the anthropology of Brazil
have surpassed those of Koch-Griinberg, Von den Steinen, and the
few other ethnologists who have done serious work in South America.
As a linguist, he furnished data for many new classifications; as a
cartographer and ethnologist, he provided the basic tribal maps for
most of eastern Brazil,
XII PREFACE
Part 4, Geography and Plant and Animal Resources, provides a
background for the cultural articles. Carl Sauer's article on "The
Geography of South America" describes the natural landscape.
Raymond M. Gilmore's "Fauna and Ethnozoology of South America"
is an entirely original work, giving taxonomic and ecological data on
both the wild and domesticated animal resources of native South
America, It also provides an excellent summary of the problem of
domestication of the llama, alpaca, guanaco, vicuna, guinea pig, and
Muscovy duck. Claude Levi-Strauss' appraisal of the wild plants of
value to the Indian in tropical South America is a very original and
highly useful summary of the considerable plant resources, many of
which are of great importance also to the modern population of the
coimtry.
Carl Sauer's article on the South American native domesticated
plants is the most complete summary of this subject yet published.
Sauer includes the findings of plant geneticists, whose work is not only
placing taxonomy on a more sure basis but is providing important clues
to crop origins and history. For example, the genetic connection of
such a plant as Peruvian cotton with Old World species throws new
light on theories of transoceanic influences on New World cultures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For supplying the illustrations contained in tliis volume, we are
indebted to the following individuals and institutions: Carlos Henckel,
Joaquin Frenguelli, Jos6 Imbelloni, R. M. Gilmore, Clark Yeager,
Sulo Sihvonen, Joao Moojen de Oliveira, RoUo H. Beck, Jonathan
Sauer, J. B. Lippencott Co., the United States National Museum,
the National Zoological Park, Washington, D. C, and the New York
Zoological Society.
As in previous volumes, our gratitude must be expressed to the
Strategic Index of the Americas, Yale University, and to the Trans-
lating Bureau, United States Department of State, for translating
several of the articles. The editors translated others of the articles.
We are particularly grateful to Senhora Maria Alice Mom^a Pessoa
of the Museu Nacional de Rio de Janeiro for performing the tremen-
dous task of preparing the linguistic map, under the general direction
of Dr. J. Alden Mason. Special thanks are also due Dr. Mason for
classifying and tabulating the languages of South America, a task of
inconceivable magnitude, and to Dr. T. D. Stewart for serving as
editor of the section on physical anthropology. We are also grateful
to Mr. John Buoncristiani, for preparing the base map used for the
geographical, linguistic, and other principal maps, and to Dr. Robert
West for helping assemble the geographic data entered on the geo-
graphical maps.
Julian H. Steward, Editor.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 6
OF THE
HANDBOOK OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
Jos£ Bastos d'Avila, Centra de Pesquisas Educacionais, Bio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
William C. Boyd, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston,
Massachusetts.
JoAQufN Frenguelli, Instituto del Museo, TJniversidad Nacional de
La Plata, La Plata, Argentina.
Raymond M. Gilmore, United States National Museum, Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, D. G.
Carlos Henckel, Instituto de Histologia y Embriologia, Universidad
de Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile.
Ernesto Herzog, Instituto de Anatomia Patologico, Universidad de
Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile.
Josifi Imbelloni, Museo Argentina de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Claude L:£vi-Strauss, iScole Libre des Hautes Etudes, New School for
Social Eesearch, New York, New York.
J. Alden Mason, The University Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Theodore D. McCown, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Berkeley, California.
Marshall T. Newman, United States National Museum, Smithsqnian
Institution, Washington^ D. C.
Julia Maria Pourchet, Centro de Pesquisas Educacionais, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Carl O. Sauer, Department of Geography, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
Morris Steggerda,^ Hartford Seminary Foundation, Hartford, Con-
necticut.
T. Dale Stewart, United States National Museum, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D. C.
Elsie A. Wilson, Nutritional Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Boston, Massachusetts.
' Deceased.
xni

VOLUME 6. PHYSICAL ANTHEOPOLOGY,
LINGUISTICS, AND CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY
OE SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
Part l. Ancient Man
THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN SOUTH AMERICA
By Theodore D. McCown
A hundred years of collecting and laboratory research concerning
the problem of the antiquity of man in South America has provided
no incontestable published evidence of high antiquity for any manner
of hominid on that continent. This is not an opinion; it is the result
of methodically testing the alleged evidence in the form of discoveries
of human skulls or bones or the products of human workmanship
against a set of standards that in other parts of the world have proved
their merit and utility by repeated and successful use in the fields of
geology and human paleontology in separating the genuine facts from
the spurious or imaginary ones. The unimpeachable occurrence, or
especially a succession of occurrences, of human bones or human
artifacts in a geological formation concerning whose several parts
geologists are agreed upon as to their time relations affords the most
secure evidence upon which the investigator of paleoanthropological
problems may work. Where the foregoing type of geological evidence
of antiquity fails, the comparative analysis of well excavated verte-
brate faunas, especially mammaUan ones, provides the next best
evidence of the age of the deposits yielding human remains. The
validity of the method of interfaunal analysis needs no defense, but
it can have no secure basis unless one member of the items compared
is datable in terms of an accepted geological succession, and it too
often fails to provide as definite chronological information as does the
data of geology. Use of the same method involving the study of the
morphology of the human remains, or the comparative analysis of
artifact assemblages, provides another category of evidence. This
must take third position, however, because it is too frequently the
outcome of uncritical or biased use, or misunderstanding, of the
methodology which produces it, not because it is of less intrinsic
value.
2 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
The osseous human remains and the artifacts of human manufac-
ture which we have to examine have been accumulated mainly by
Eiu-opean and South American scientists over a period of about 100
years. Two principal areas have provided the greater part of the
material. The first and the most important from the standpoint of
quantity of material is the Argentine one with Buenos Aires Province
in first position. New specimens continue to appear, particularly
from the formations which form the south coast of the province,
while the growth of the educational centers in the cities of Rosario,
Santa Fe, Tucumdn, C6rdoba, and Mendoza seems directly related
to the increasing number of discoveries of "fossil" man or his culture
in the Argentine hinterland. The bulk of this paleoanthropological
material, however, was collected in the years between 1875 and 1915,
either through the efforts of Florentino and Carlos Ameghino or as a
result of the world-wide interest they aroused in the question of man's
antiquity in Ai'gentina. Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego perhaps
should form a special zone to the South of the Argentine one proper.
Among recent investigations in this area, Bird's (1938 a, 1938 b)
careful work in habitation sites deserves close attention. The modesty
with which his conclusions have been presented rather obscm'es the
importance of the data.
The second region is more compact geogi'aphically and lies in the
highlands of Minas Gerais Province in Brazil about 250 miles north
and a little west of Rio de Janeiro. The Danish explorer Lund col-
lected extensively in the caves of the Lagoa Santa district of Minas
Gerais between 1835 and 1844. The human material recovered by
Lund was, with the exception of one skull which is in Rio de Janeiro
(Lacerda and Peixoto, 1876), transported to Europe, where the
larger part was acquired by the Zoological Museum of the University
of Copenhagen. Eighty-five years later, in 1926, further investiga-
tions of the caves were initiated by the Museu Nacional of Rio de
Janeiro (Walter et al., 1937) and have since been continued by the
Academy of Sciences of Minas Gerais situated at Bello Horizonte,
The remaining paleoanthropological material from South America
is scattered and possesses unity only insofar as it is putatively
ancient.
The literature, both special and general, which is concerned with
the antiquity of man and his artifacts in South America is voluminous.
No attempt has been made to present an inclusive bibliography.
The older literature up to 1910-11 is fully presented by IIrdli6ka
et al. (1912), while Quenstedt and Quenstedt (1936) cover both the
older and the newer literature through 1934. The bibliography ac-
companying Simpson's paper (1940 b) should be consulted for the
geological and nonhuman paleontological literature. Vignati (1941)
Plate 1.—The Ecuadorean Punin skull (frontalis and lateralis). (Courtesy
American Museum of Natural History.)
Plate 2.—The Brazilian Confins skull (frontalis and lateralis). (From "Early
Man," 1937, courtesy The Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, and
J. B. Lippincott Company.)
Vol.6] ANTIQUITY OF MAN—McCOWN 3
gives a useful critical bibliography mainly concerned with the dis-
coveries at Miramar (Buenos Aires Province) but also includes a large
number of other fundamental papers. Hrdli^ka (1935 b) presents an
excellent bibliography in the general field of native American racial
origins. Unless otherwise indicated, the citations included in the
above papers or memoirs are not listed in the bibliography which
accompanies this study. The "Bibliography of Fossil Vertebrates"
(Camp and Vanderhoof, 1940; Camp et al., 1942), Sellards' papers
(1940, 1947), and the "Bibliographic Americaniste" published an-
nually in the Journal de la Societe des Americanistes de Paris have
proved valuable sources.
A sober and disinterested consideration of the many publications
describing the original material demonstrates that little real progress
in reaching positive answers to the basic problems has been made in
the last 35 years. Especially in Argentina, the status of the problem
as of the year 1910 and the lines along which further work might be
done were fully and fairly set forth by HrdliCka, Holmes, Wright,
Fenner, and Willis (1912) and their conclusions need be but briefly
recapitulated here. It is only in a negative sense that progress can
be described. The Ameghinian scheme of human evolution based
upon hominid material derived from Miocene and later strata is not
now generally accepted by any serious student. The Tetraprothomo
atlas and femur came from what Ameghino regarded as the base of
the Upper Miocene. When subjected to critical examination, the
atlas proved to be inseparable morphologically from the same bone
among modern races and more particularly the native American ones.
The femur is indisputably nonhominid and may reasonably be con-
sidered as derived from a member of the Procyonidae (Bordas, 1942;
Cabrera, 1936). Ameghino's views concerning the human remains
of Pliocene age have suffered a variety of revisions. The most im-
portant is the clear demonstration, principally by Hrdlicka, of their
unquestioned inclusion well within the limits of variation among the
modern types of man, particidarly American Indians. This is now
generally admitted by modern workers although there persists a
strong tendency to emphasize the "primitive" features of the morphol-
ogy of new human osseous specimens. In large part, this tendency
is a natural consequence of the assumed geological antiquity of the
material.
The age of the Pampean and post-Pampean formations has been
generally revised upward. A recent review by Simpson (1940 b) is
concerned primarily with the Tertiary formations and is essential to
an understanding of what seems to me to be the primary test of
antiquity: agreement as to the geological succession and the time rela-
tions of the respective units. On Kraglievich's scheme, specimens
79477—50 2
4 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ranging from the Monte Hermosan to the lower Pampean are of
PHocene age. FrenguelH, on the other hand, seems to resolve the
improbabilities of Pliocene forms of Homo sapiens by regarding the
Monte Hermosan, Chapadmalalan, and the whole of the Pampean
formations as Pleistocene in time. The addition to these uncertain-
ties of the fact that the conditions under which both the older and
the newer specimens occur are usually susceptible of more than one
interpretation leads to the same negative and pessimistic conclusions
which Hrdli6ka and others reached over 30 years ago.
As specific examples let us examine two instances, both described by
Professor Vignati (1931 a, 1934, 1941) with technical ability and a
wealth of detail. The first concerns the fossil man of Esperanza, an
incomplete skull and skeleton found casually in 1919 in the bank of
the Rio Salado north of Santa Fe. It is not apparent that any trained
investigator was responsible for the original removal of the remains
before they were translated to Buenos Aires. The deposit from which
the skeleton was obtained is considered to be equivalent to the Lujanan
and of Late Pleistocene age by FrenguelH (Vignati, 1934, p. 12, note
2). The Lujanan is usually regarded as post-Pampean (Recent) by
other workers. Dr. FrenguelH discovered in the same region, but at
a different locality, an "arrow point" formed from a cervid antler tip.
The original publication concerning this artifact (Vignati, 1931 a) de-
scribes it as coming from the Ensenadan (basal Pleistocene according
to Simpson), but it is included in the report on the human fossil (Vig-
nati, 1934 a) as a sample of Esperanza man's handicraft and is, in con-
sequence, assigned a Late Pleistocene date. The possibilities of a
burial having been made in an older deposit are never considered.
The mere presence in the same horizon of some extinct mammals is
not decisive as to age. The initial assumptions that a human skeleton
was in some fashion naturally incorporated in a Late Pleistocene stra-
tum can readily be seen to rest on not one solid piece of evidence.
The second instance concerns the two "fossil" human teeth from
Miramar (Vignati, 1941); really an occasion which Professor Vignati
has taken to review the finds from the Chapadmalalan (Chapal-
malense) horizon along the seacoast of Buenos Aires Province. Fol-
lowing FrenguelH, this formation is considered to be of Pleistocene age,
although there is better evidence for regarding it as Late Pliocene.
There is no reason to doubt that the two human molars came from the
Chapadmalalan stratum but the assumption is made that they were
incorporated in the deposit by natural processes in the course of its
formation. Too easily is it forgotten that for at least 50 miUenia men
have lavished varying degrees of ingenuity on the problem of disposing
of their dead. Interment in the earth has few analogies among normal
geological processes; rather it seems to be at complete variance with
Vol.6] ANTIQUITY OF MAN—^McCOWN 5
them and at the same time the results are not always easy to distin-
guish. The long controversy over the East African Oldoway skeleton
is one well-known instance which is now happily settled.
Bailey Willis (Hrdlicka et al., 1912) four decades ago made a
series of suggestions concerning further investigation of the various
parts of the Pampean. These envisaged a combination of strati-
graphic, petrographic, and climatic studies that in their essentials
are similar to the studies made by Wayland (1934), Nilsson (1932),
and others in East Africa.^ The paleoanthropological literature con-
cerned with ancient man in South America gives no evidence that
either anthropologists or geologists have systematically undertaken
such studies. Granting that the evidences of man's handiwork and
his own bones have not been adventitiously introduced into the
Chapadmalalan, we still have no convincing explanation of how they
were incorporated in the deposit. Whether one considers the Chap-
admalalan Pliocene or Pleistocene is of minor import in this connection,
for the haman remains would still be the earliest known evidence of
hominids from any part of the world, and yet not archaic members of
the Hominidae but quite positively Homo sapiens. The accumulating
evidence with regard to man's evolution obtained in the Old World
makes the above situation improbable in the extreme. Consequently,
the extended comparisons of the two molar teeth leading to the con-
clusion that they represent a species of man distinct from Homo
sapiens and attributed to the Homo neogaeus of Lehmann-Nitsche
seems a labor of doubtful value.
Recent years show some slackening in the rush to describe new
"Paleolithic" industries. Perhaps in this field, more than any other,
greater abuses were made of translating the data of form and function
of implements into evidence for time relationships with the Old World,
Sellards' fine paper (1940) gives evidence of what has been accom-
plished as it relates to the same problem in North America.
The Brazilian discoveries of ancient man which include the Lagoa
Santa crania and skeletal parts and the Confins man (pi. 2) (Walter
et al., 1937) have a putative antiquity based not on pure geological
evidence but on their association with certain Pleistocene "type"
mammals. Hrdlicka (Hrdlicka et al., 1912) has gone fully and criti-
cally into the question of the fossil-manamal associations with the
human remains. The undoubted association of man with certain
mammals that are more characteristic of the Pleistocene period than
of the present-day fauna is no longer a matter of serious dispute
(Sellards, 1940, 1947). Colbert's review (1942) of these associations in
the New World as a whole underlines this proposition, but he succinctly
' For a brief introduction to the African literature, see Leakey (1926), especially the bibliography to
Chapter I. Outstanding work along the same lines has been done in north India and China.
6 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
points out that the paleontologist's current view holds this to mean
that some Pleistocene "type" elements of the fauna survived into
Holocene times, not that man, especially Homo sapiens, was neces-
sarily ancient in any part of the New World. Bird's evidence (1938 b)
and Uhle's (1930) report on the Alangasi mastodon also incline one
to this view. Both Simpson and Colbert in the previously mentioned
papers indicate what any reflective student knows: the concept of a
Pleistocene-Holocene "boundary" is primarily a classificatory one and
not a physical reality. The attempts to give chronological precision
to the several and regionally varying phases of the transition from
Pleistocene to recent times and their indifferent success again em-
phasizes the desirability of working backward from the known to the
unknown when the time units are centuries and not scores of millennia.
The above considerations do not affect the importance of the Lagoa
Santa skulls ^ as anthropological documents but they do raise serious
questions, not yet settled, as to the imputed antiquity. Yet the
presumptive antiquity of these specimens has played an important
part in causing them to become the cornerstone of the most curious
kind of intellectual edifice. That able and clever partisan, Paul
Rivet, promoted them to racial status in 1908 ^ in connection with a
description of 17 crania from rock shelters near Paltacalo in Ecuador.
The suggestion that the Lagoa Santa crania represented a special
type, long and high headed, was not original with Rivet, but to him
belongs the distinction of presenting what has since passed as proof
of the racial status of the type. The 17 Ecuadorean crania represent
the 17 longest and highest-headed skulls of 78 undeformed and
measurable crania collected from several sites of indeterminate age
in southern Ecuador. Rivet explicitly disavows having "selected"
his 17 skulls but it seems curious that the seriation of the cephalic
indices coincides with the numerical seriation of the specimens. It
is not surprising, therefore, to find a high degree of homogeneity
among the 14 males of the 17 specimens. The metrical and indicial
comparisons with the Lagoa Santa series (maximum size of series, 18
specimens, both male and female) is precisely set forth, and particu-
larly in vault dimensions and indices the correspondences are quite
close. The Paltacalo skulls have thus acquired a fuzzy aura of
antiquity and the Lagoa Santa crania have become the homotypes of a
new "race" consisting of about 35 examples.
2 The Conflns discovery needs full and detailed publication. The brief reports (Walter et al., 1937) gave
promise of resolving in part the lacunae in Lund's evidence (HrdliSka et al., 1912) but there appears to be
some difference of opinion in Brazil with regard to the significance of the Conflns specimen (Serrano, 1938,
p. 86).
' HrdliCka (1935 b) gives a full bibliography on this matter, while the earlier studies of the Lagoa Santa
material is covered exhaustively in "Early Man in South America" (HrdliCka, Holmes, et al., 1912).
Rivet expounds his views fully and with no essential modifications in "Los origines del Hombre Ameri-
cano" (1943 b).
Vol.6] ANTIQUITY OF MAN—McCOWN 7
The next step is a reexamination and revision of the racial position
of the Pericue skulls and osteological material from Baja California
which Rivet published in 1909. The Pericue series, 18 crania, are put
through their paces and shown to be unquestionably one branch of the
Lagoa Santa race, but they also have resemblances to the narrow,
high, and small-headed "race" of Melanesia and Australia. The
implication is that the racial relationship is an ancient one ; here again
the Lagoa Santa material extends its inferred high antiquity to still
another situation, this time in North America.
The further developments in this interesting intellectual construc-
tion are faithfully set forth by Hrdli6ka (1935 b). These involve linguis-
tic and cultural evidence of intercourse across the Pacific, published
from 1924 onward. There is further racial evidence: a recent Tunebo
skull serves as the occasion for Professor Verneau (1924) to demon-
strate that some aboriginal Colombians show an Oceanic Negroid
strain. Lebzelter (1925) and Gusinde (see Stewart, 1943 a), both
alone and together, in a series of monographs toy with the idea of
Australoid physical traits among the Fuegians but never fully commit
themselves. The edifice continues to grow: on the physical side new
additions are made by Eickstedt (1934), Imbelloni (1937 b). Count
(1939, 1941); on the cultural side, by a host of authors who ignore
the reasoned judgments of Boas (1925, 1929), Nordenskiold (1931),
and Dixon (1933). Here our concern is with the biological evidence;
when the imposing fagade is stripped away we find the framework to
be the veriest piece of jerry-building. The initial demonstration of
the "race" of Lagoa Santa is based upon material that a properly
trained modern anthropologist cannot but regard as utterly inadequate.
The fewer than 50 crania that served as the cornerstone for the present
construct would scarcely represent an adequate sample, even if we
were to suppose it was derived from a single population with known
cultural characteristics and from a specific timepoint in human
history.
The calvarium from Punin (Sullivan and Helhnan, 1925), assigned
to the Pleistocene of Ecuador, exhibits a complex of morphologically
primitive anatomical features (pi. 1) that have led the authors who
described it not only to note its resemblance to the Lagoa Santa
crania but to raise seriously the possibility of its Australoid-Melane-
soid racial afiinities. They further suggest that the main problem
depends upon which view one accepts with regard to the unity or
possible plurality of origin of the American Lidian. The evident
sterility of results in using this approach seems clearly to show that
it is tackling from the wrong end the matter of achieving a solution
to the question of Indian racial origins. With a single specimen of
exceptional physical conformation it is patently essential to find out
8 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
first what its relations are to the norms, the hmits of variation, and
the internal variability of well-studied series of native American crania
whose temporal and cultural associations are likewise of record. If
the divergence metrically and morphologically is great, then is the
time to seek extra-American relationships. The all too usual procedure
has been to look first for relationships abroad. If all of the "fossil"
men had been as competently, impartially, and speedily investigated
as was the "Cuzco Man" (see HrdliSka, 1918) several hundred speci-
mens would now have no more than a mild antiquarian interest.
The preceding paragraphs have gradually drawn further and further
away from the question with regard to the antiquity of m.an in
South America. This is inevitable because the related but not iden-
tical problems of the earliest traces of human beings in the New World,
and their racial, cultural, and linguistic origins have been interwoven
from the very beginning of both popular and scientific interest in
the Indians. No rigid separation of the two is either needful or
fruitful, but it is essential to bear in mind that the solution of the
problems of the time and the manner of arrival of man must be ante-
cedent to any valid study of origins, be they racial or cultural. Chron-
ological relationships based upon the criteria of form and function,
whether applied to skulls or pots, shinbones or bronze pins, are
notoriously subject to a margin of error that varies with the training
and with the temperament of the individual investigator. Given
quantitatively adequate assemblages of archeological or skeletal ma-
terial whose time relationships to other series are known, the arche-
ologist or physical anthropologist may then have some expectation of
ultimately obtaining valid conclusions concerning origins and ances-
tral connections. The analysis of material whose principal point of
reference is that it occupied or was associated with a given point in
space but whose point on a time scale is unknown is a legitimate
subject for investigation but it falls outside the field of history and
the antiquity of man in South America, and the origins of the native
peoples of that continent are clearly historical problems.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aichel, 1914, 1925, 1929; Ambrosetti, 1913; Ameghino, 1913-36, 1923; Anonymous,
1927 a; Anthony and Rivet, 1908; Aparicio, 1932; Benigar, 1928; Bird, J., 1938 a,
1938 b; Bird, J., and Bird, M., 1937; Bird, M. (see Bird and Bird, 1937); Bluntschli,
1931; Boas, 1925, 1929; Bonarelli, 1918 a, 1918 b; Bordas, 1942; Boule, 1923 a,
1923 b; Branca, 1938; Bryan, 1945; Cabrera, 1936; Camp and Vanderhoof, 1940;
Camp, Taylor, and "Welles, 1942; Capdeville, 1921; Casanoves, 1909; Castellanos,
1917, 1922, 1924, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1926 c, 1926 d, 1928 a, 1928 b, 1930, 1933, 1936,
1938, 1943; Colbert, 1942; Count, 1939, 1941; Cuervo Mdrquez, 1920, 1927; Diniz
Gonsalves, 1928: Dixon, 1933; Eickstedt, 1934; Fenner (see Hrdlicka, Holmes, et
al., 1912); Frenguelli, 1919, 1920, 1928, 1932; Friant, 1933; Gapanovich, 1931;
Vol.6] ANTIQUITY OF MAN—McCOWN 9
Garcia Payon, 1934; Goldbaum (see Branca, 1938); Gusinde (see Stewart, 1943 a);
Hellman (see Sullivan and Hellman, 1925); Holmes (see Hrdlicka, Holmes, etal.,
1912); Hooton, 1937; Hrdlicka, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1935 b; Hrdlicka, Holmes, Willis,
Wright, and Fenner,1912;Ihering,H. v., 1914;Imbelloni, 1923 a, 1923 b, 1924, 1937
a, 1937 b; Kate, 1924; Keith, 1925, 1931; Lacerda and Peixoto, 1876; Latcham,
1915 a, 1915 b, 1928; Lauria, 1922; Leakey, 1926; Lebzelter, 1925; Lund (see Mat-
tes, 1935); Martinez del Rio, 1936; Mattos, 1935; Mendes-Correa, 1928, 1941-46;
Meyer, 1930; Milice, 1922; Montandon, 1929 a, 1929 b; Moura, 1928; Nelson,
1936; Nilsson, 1932; Nordenskiold, 1931; Oetteking, 1932; Osborn, 1936; Oyarziin,
1916 a, 1916 b, 1917, 1927 a; Palavecino, 1921; Peixoto (see Lacerda and Peixoto,
1876); Pericot y Garcia, 1936; Poch, 1938; Rivet, 1908, 1909, 1937, 1943 b (also see
Anthony and Rivet, 1908); Rusconi, 1928, 1932, 1935 a, 1935 b, 1937-38; Sarasin,
1928; Schneider, 1926, 1936; Sellards, 1940, 1947; Serrano, 1930, 1931, 1938; Simp-
son, 1940 b; SpiUman, 1928, 1936; Steinman, 1924; Stewart, 1943 a, 1943 b;
Stolyhwo, 1934 b; Sullivan and Hellman, 1925; Tapia, A., 1937; Taylor (see
Camp, Taylor, and Welles, 1942); Torres, L. M., 1913; Trombetti, 1928; Uhle,
1916, 1922, 1930; Urquiza, 1912; Vallois, 1938; Vanderhoof (see Camp and Vander-
hoof, 1940); Verneau, 1924, 1927; Vignati, 1920, 1923 a, 1923 b, 1923 c, 1924 b
(1925), 1928 a, 1931 a, 1931 b, 1932, 1934, 1941; Vignaud, 1913; Walter et al,
1937; Wayland, 1934; Welles (see Camp, Taylor, and Welles, 1942); Willis (see
Hrdlicka, Holmes, et al.,*vl912); Wolff (see Imbelloni, 1923 b); Wright (see
Hrdlicka, Holmes, et al., 1912).
See also the following: Imbelloni, 1939 c; Lutkin, 1884, 1888; Nehring, 1895 a,
1895 b; Quenstedt and Quenstedt, 1936; Rusconi, 1938; Sullivan and Hellman,
1938; Ten Kate, 1885; Vignati, 1925 e, 1928 b.

THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE THEORIES CONCERNING
PRIMITIVE MAN IN ARGENTINA
By Joaquin Frenguelli
The problem of "fossil man" in Argentina was stated a centm-y ago
when A. d'Orbigny (1835-47, vol. 3) maintained that at least part of
the mud layers on the pampas dated from the same period as the de-
posits in the caves of Brazil where Lund and Clauser had found human
skeletons mingled with the remains of Platyonyx, Hoplophorus,
Megatherium and Smilodon.
The question was raised in a more direct manner, years later, when
F. Seguin (1863) found, in excavations near the abutments of a bridge
over the river Carcarafid, human remains associated with the Arcto-
therium bones and other typical forms of extinct animal life of the
pampas.
In both cases, there was doubt as to the authenticity of the rela-
tionship. In support of Seguin's discoveries, for the first time H.
Burmeister (1866) maintained that it was a case of accidental
commingling of more recent vestiges of indigenous life with the re-
mains of diluvian mammals. This gave rise to an endless controversy
which stiU continues without producing any definite results, much less
a reasonable harmony of opinions.
The central and most prominent figure in this long dispute was,
without any doabt, F. Ameghino. This famous paleontologist made
his fu"st discoveries in 1870; from then on he continued to repeat them
in various places and at different times almost to the very end of his
arduous life in 1911. The Ameghinian theory is well known in every
detail. Preceded by Patagonian ancestors of the lower (Pitheculites)
,
middle (Homunculus) , and upper (Anthropops) Eocene period, the
first Hominidae had appeared in the southern region of the pampas
during the Miocene (Hermosense) with Tetraprothomo argentinus
(atlas of Monte Hermoso), the first link in an evolutionary chain
which doubtless continued in the upper Miocene with Tripothomo
(hypothetical), in the lower Pliocene (pre-Ensenadense) with Dipro-
thomo platensis (skuU from the harbor of Buenos Aires), and in the
middle and upper Pliocene (Ensensadense-Lujanense) with the series
Prothomo and Homo pampaeus (crania from Miramar and Necochea,
Baradero and Fontezuela, Arrecifes and Ovejero, etc.), now endowed
u
12 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
with well-developed psychic and morphological human characteris-
tics. Finally, at the dawn of the Quaternary era (post-Lujanense
hiatus), Homo sapiens probably reached his full development in the
vicinity of Buenos Aires and from there spread through the rest of
America and the world.
Today no one shares the Ameghinian theory in its entirety. It is
no longer believed that the Patagonian Homumculideo of the Tertiary
era represent the direct ancestors of the pampan Hominidae. The
evolutionary chain of earlier plain dwellers has been broken in as
much as both partisans and opponents recognize that human remains
unearthed from the strata of the pampas belong in theh- entirety
to the genus Homo. Finally, no one now admits that the soft clay
on the pampas belongs completely to the Tertiary era. Nevertheless,
Ameghino's theory cannot be forgotten, not only because of its his-
toric value as an achievement which in Argentina and elsewhere
greatly stimulated scientific investigation and so stirred the opinions
of his time, but also because of the influence it exercised on the later
unfolding of the problem.
In truth, up to the present, the question of primitive man in Ar-
gentina has always stemmed from the Ameghinian idea, only to de-
velop in two opposite directions and to arrive at antagonistic conclu-
sions. On the one hand, it is admitted that the American aborigine
could have been native and that his ancestors, while not so far remote
as Ameghino claimed, evolved during the pampas age, totally or
partially Quaternary, along with the mammals which were so char-
acteristic of the same geological period. On the other hand, it is
argued that the Argentine aborigines, like their kin throughout
America, are more or less recent immigrants and that, consequently,
the antlu-opological remains dug from the pampas belong to these
immigrants who were accidentally (tlu-ough removal or burial) in-
terred with the remains of Typotherium, Toxodon, Mastodon, Mega-
therium, Megalonix, Glyptodon, etc.
Within this second trend of ideas the opposite extreme was reached
by reducing all the American peoples to one race and searching for the
origin of their stock among the Egyptians, Sumerians, Chaldeans,
Phoenicians, Trojans, Basques, Tartars, Chinese, etc. According to
A. Hrdlicka, for example, his "American homotype" was probably
derived from Mongoloids who, moving from the extreme east of Asia,
reached the far west of America through Bermg Strait and from there
no doubt scattered as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. Elliot
Smith, however, held that a "heliolithic civilization" leaving Egypt
crossed Asia and the Pacific, and then, moving from island to island,
reached America and, in its spread toward the south, was deterred
only by the inhospitable barrier of the Antarctic ice sheets.
Vol.6] PRIMITIVE MAN—FRENGUELLI 13
Along the same trend of thought but on a more logical basis, other
authors maintained that the peopling of America could have been
accomplished only by successive waves of anthropologically and
ethnographically diverse elements, in different periods of time and
from many different regions. Among those who upheld this idea we
may name Griffith Taylor, R. B. Dixon, Von Eickstedt, E. W. Count,
and others. However, in order to keep within hypotheses which have
more direct bearing on the problem in Argentina, it is more appropriate
to mention P. Eivet and J. Imbelloni.
The theory of P. Rivet (1924 e, 1926 a, 1926 b) derives from an old
idea of G. d'Eichthal concerning the predominance of the "Oceanic
races" in the peopling of America, and of the ties between "Oceanics"
and Americans, which have been verified by well-known ethnographers
and corroborated by his own investigations in the fields of anthropol-
ogy, ethnography (archeology), and linguistics. On this basis he claims
that the peopling of America was effected through Pacific water routes,
in different eras and by countless waves of ethnically different elements,
whose origin must be sought in the extreme southeast of Asia and in
the Indo-Malayan Archipelago. Furthermore, he declares that the
first arrivals of these elements on the coasts of America occurred in
an epoch no earlier than the end of the Quaternary, i. e., when the
continent's present contours had already become fixed.
With this theory Rivet denies the authenticity of the discoveries
attributed to paleolithic man in America in general and in Argentina
in particular; further, he does not accept any route from hypothetical
Atlantic and Pacific continents of pre-Quaternary times. Again the
complete ignorance throughout all of pre-Columbian America of the
use of iron and writing, as well as of no less fundamental elements,
such as the wheel, glass, wheat, etc., enable him to deny flatly any
theory which , for the populating of America, resorts to ancient inhab-
itants of the Mediterranean area and to direct influences from civilized
peoples of eastern Asia.
According to Rivet, the principal groups which contributed succes-
sively to forming the primitive population of America were, in the
order of their arrival, the following: An Australian element ; an element
of Malayo-Polynesian speech resemblmg in physical characteristics the
Melanesian group; an Asiatic element in which can be distinguished a
Uralian (Eskimo) admixture; and a Sino-Tibetan (Na-Dene) element.
Rivet does not fix the dates of the successive arrivals; but, on the
suggestion of A. Mendes-Correa, supposes that the first inhabitants,
the Australians, landed in the extreme south of South America and
wandered along the borders of the Antarctic during the recession of
the ice sheets, at the time of the postglacial optimum approximately
6,000 years ago.
14 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Along similar ideas, Imbelloni's theory also considers the peopling
of America as the result of countless migratory waves in different
epochs from the Pacific and near-Pacific regions. He disagrees, how-
ever, on essential points. Like Rivet, he denies both the "American
homotype" of Hrdlicka's pan-Mongoloidism and Ameghino's mono-
genism; but he explains the great number of American races by new
arguments, including serology, and he admits, although vaguely,
that America, like the rest of the habitable world, might have shel-
tered human life from the time of the Pleistocene age. He contem-
plates a primitive Australoid prototype, but conceives it as evolving
from an archaic human creature which dominated the Asia-Pacific
world and which spread through America from north to south, to the
very limits of Tierra del Fuego. He accepts a Malayo-Polynesian
contingent, but separated into numerous elements of very dissimilar
type. And he adds another migratory element: the Indonesian,
source of the Mayan civilization (and its derivatives).
Imbelloni's theory is that with the passing of time these different
groups appeared in succession with the following physical character-
istics: Short dolicoids, Tasmanian in appearance and culture, from
whom evolved the Fueguido and Ldguido; tall dolicoids, Australoids,
nomadic hunters from whom the Pldnido and Pdmpido developed;
ultra-dolichocephalics of short stature, Melanesoids, hunters and
gatherers, together with less pronounced dolicoid elements of the
proto-Indonesian type, weavers and agriculturists, from whom ori-
ginated the Amazonido) brachycephalics of medium height. Mon-
goloids, bringers of higher forms of agriculture and of patrilineal
institutions, represented by the Pueblo-Andino ; ultra-brachycephaUcs
and brachycephalics artistically endowed and the creators of states,
from whom stemmed the Istmido and their metastases; finally, the
last contingents, Columbido and Eskimo.
Since 1919 the author of this paper has tried to establish certain
concepts which he believes fundamental for the future solution of
the problems dealing with primitive man in America, at least in
Argentina. By studying the upper soils on the pampas and discover-
ing human remains in various levels of the series which they composed
and in different localities in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Cdrdoba,
and Santa Fe, he thought to have proved that here actually lived an
ancient human race, from the beginning of the sedimentation of this
series, together with the more representative mammals of its fauna.
But in contrast with F. Ameghino and on the firm basis of geological,
paleontological, and climatological arguments, he tried to show that
the different levels of the loess series in Argentina (Pampeano) belong
as a whole to the Quaternary era; i. e., the Chapalmalense, the En-
senadense, the Bonaerence, and the Lujanense to the Pleistocene age,
Vol.6] PRIMITIVE MAN—^FRENGUELLI 15
and the Platense, the Cordobense, and the Aimarense to the Holo-
cene (fig. 1). He denied, however, the existence in Argentina of re-
mains of Hominidae in the Tertiary era. He declared, on the other
hand, that the fauna contemporary with primitive man of the pam-
pas is, in spite of its archaic appearance, relatively recent, and that
its last vestiges became extinct during the course of our era. He
proved, in truth, that since the Chapalmalense period, at the base
of the stratigraphical series, this native fauna, formed by remains of
Tertiary mammals, was mingled with numerous representatives of an
immigrant fauna which is certainly of the Quaternary era.
In his opinion, up to the present there are very few human skeletal
remains which belong to the lower and middle Pampian period: they
are restricted to the two molars of the Chapalmalense, which Vignati
(1941) has recently described at length. They appear somewhat more
frequently at the end of the Pleistocene (Lujanense), showing those
Australoid characteristics recognized in the so-called "Lagoa Santa
Race." They become more numerous in the Holocene (Platense-
Cordobense) with the brachycephalics of the "race of llama-raisers."
Finally, they occur in great numbers in the Aimarense period, at the
threshold of our time, with the modern polymorphs.
By contrast, industrial remains appear with relative frequency from
the base of the series (Chapalmalense period) and continue in almost
uninterrupted succession to the present, especially in some levels
(Ensenadense, Lujanense, and Aimarense) of the Atlantic coast.
Judging by technolithic methods, the different industries do not indi-
cate successive links in an unbroken chain, but rather expressions of
independent cultiu-es. In all of them, however, Mousterian types are
dominant, from the crudest to the most highly developed forms, which
perhaps indicate a single source of successive migratory waves. But at
the same time, evident admixtures of ethnically different elements
probably resulted, especially during the Ensenadense period, in which
there appear articles of bone, and during the Aimarense period (the
uppermost of the series), wherein for the first time appear microliths,
bifacial implements, crude pottery, and, subsequently, a limited use
of copper.
The beginning of this last phase would seem to mark the start of
new ages and of recent migratory currents, which may well be those
which Imbelloni considered, at least, the departure of his Melanesian
and proto-Indonesian contingents. In any event, it would seem
certain that there was a Paleolithic age in the pampas region of
Argentina, whose first forms appeared in the Chapalmalense period,
i. e., in an epoch probably contemporary with the Sanmeniense period
and the site where the Sinanthropus was found in Asia. Otherwise, it
would seem strange that so vast and favorable a continent as America
16 SOUTH. AMERICAN INDIANS
[B. A. B. BuU. 143
m -
Ep/'-Pluyia/-
P/vi^/a/'
Aimarvnse
Corcfobense
Querancfinense
Lujonense
U -
'/nfer-P/w/a/-—Bonaerense •
P/uy/'a/' '•Ensenadense
'(/pper-
Upper-
/nferensen
LoHrer-
rTTTTrrnTTTTTI
I
>
' 1 1 > I 1 1 1 1
M
!!! I
"'|!j iiili nil
!! 111!'!!'!"!-!"!
I -
'//7fer-P/c/y/a/-
Chapa/ma/ense
/Vut^/a/'
Upper-
loiver-
Epi-Rumpean
Neo-Pampean
Meso-Pampean
Hermosense
Upper Pliocene Puefchense
Upper
Anaucanian
Figure 1.—Diagram of geological column of the Argentine Pampa. (Redrawn
from Frenguelli, 1939, fig. 2.)
Vol.6] PRIMITIVE MAN—FRENGUELLI 17
had remained closed to the Paleolithic Ecumene while an enormous
interchange of mammals was going on between America and Asia
and vice versa.
Vignati shares these beliefs, disagreeing only in details of minor
importance; other authors, however, continue to believe that part of
the deposits on the pampas still belong to the Pliocene period and that,
therefore, Argentina was the cradle of humanity during the Tertiary
era.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ameghino, 1880-81, 1909, 1910; Burmeister, H., 1866, 1876; Count, E. W.,
1941; Eickstedt, 1934; Frenguelli, 1921, 1927, 1934; Gervais, 1867, 1876; HrdlicSka,
1912 a, 1917, 1925; Imbelloni, 1937 b, 1938 a, 1938 b; Mendes-Corrca, 1928,
1941-46; Orbigny, 1835-47; Rivet, 1924 e, 1926 c, 1926 d; Sequin, 1963; Smith,
G. Elliot, 1916, 1916-17; Vignati, 1921, 1936, 1941.

Plate 3.—Bolas and human teeth from Argentina, a, b, Bolas of the recent
Indians, Miramar, Buenos Aires, c, Bolas of quartzite of the Chapalmalense,
Miramar, Buenos Aires, d, e, Bolas of hard, calcareous material and of animal
bone, respectively, of the Ensenadense, Miramar, Buenos Aires. /, g, Lateralis
and verticalis views of a human mandible fragment (note dental caries) of the
Lujanense, Arroyo Cululii, north of Esperanza, Santa Fe. (Courtesy Joaquin
Frenguelli.)
,:^
Plate 4.—Stone and bone points from Miramar, Buenos Aires, a, b, Anterior
and posterior views of triangular and ovate quartzite points of the Chapalma-
lense. c, Anterior and posterior view of a porphyritic point found in a cal-
careous concretion of the Chapalmalense. The dissolution of the concretion
has given the specimen a calcareous patina, d, Point made of a mammal bone,
from the Ensenadense. e, Lance point made of mastodon (Stegomastodon)
tusk, from the Ensenadense. /, Lance point made of glj'ptodont {Sclerocalyp-
tus) rib. (Courtesy Joaquin Frenguelli.)
Part 2. Physical Anthropology
Skeletal Remains of South American Indians
ANTHROPOMETRY OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIAN
SKELETAL REMAINS
By T. D. Stewart and Marshall T. Newman
Any review of the measurements of Indian skeletal remains from
South America should recognize the errors inherent in these measure-
ments. The only data on some series go back to the beginnings of
the present-day techniques; to Virchow and Broca, the founders of
rival schools. Other series have been described by followers of one
or the other of these schools, who, however industrious and conscien-
tious, had no direct training in technique. In addition, some of the
reports fail entirely to indicate how the m.easurements were taken or
give only average indices.
As would be expected also where a multitude of observers have
worked more or less independently, their individual biases in sexing
the specimens and in the identification of artificial deformity have
introduced u-regularities into the data. Pervading all of the records,
therefore, is a certain unreliability, which no amount of statistical
analysis can evaluate or overcome. Unfortunately, South America,
unlike North America, has not had an Hrdlicka to sample the remains
from the different regions and make reliable comparisons both within
the continent and throughout the hemisphere. This is one of the
greatest needs in this field.
Because of these deficiencies in the records and because so many
areas are not represented at all, owing to the practice of cranial
deformity or poor preservation of tlie remains, only the broader dis-
tributions of the main physical traits will be shown here. Skeletal
parts other than the skull have received relatively little attention, so
this review will be restricted to the skull. ^ The cranial series that
have been found suitable for this purpose are listed with their sources
in table 1 and are located by serial number on map 1.
Maximum length cf skulL—This measure usually is taken from
> Th« main references to the skeleton are listed at the end of this article.
19
784711—50 3
20 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Map 1,—Base map of South America showing locations of cranial series listed
in table 1.
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 21
glabella anteriorly to the posterior-most part of the occiput, wherever
this may occur, or in the midline. Occasionally, ophryon is used as
the anterior landmark. (Cf. Flower, W. H., 1907.) Although there
are slight variations resulting from these different techniques, in
general the records of this measure are fairly comparable. Aside
from technique, however, length of the skull is affected (most often
decreased) by artificial deformities.
The selected records are given in table 2 by descending order of size
in the males. It will be observed that the first 6 series—the longest
heads in the absolute sense—are from Argentina or the islands to the
south belonging to Argentina and Chile (Tierra del Fuego). Indeed,
of the first 12 series all but one are from the East and Southeast. On
the other hand, the last 10 series—the shortest heads—are aU from the
"West and Northwest. This distribution can mean a difference either
in the shape of the head (dolichocrany or brachycrany) or in the gen-
eral size of the head in these 2 areas. It will be seen from the other
measurements and from the indices below that these regional dijffer-
ences are due chiefly to size.
Maximum breadth of the skull.—The accuracy of this measure
depends upon obtaining the maximum wherever it occurs above the
temporal ridges. The qualification is not always observed. As in the
case of the length, the breadth is affected (usually increased) by arti-
ficial deformities.
The selected records, arranged as usual in the descending order of
size in the males, are presented in table 3. Again the Argentine and
Tierra del Fuego series predominate among the first series—the abso-
lutely broadest heads (all but 3 of the first 12). And of the last 10
series—the narrowest heads—all but 3 are from the West. The 3
exceptions in the latter distribution are all from Brazil, and these, ac-
cording to table 2, are also long-headed. Here, then, the narrowness
is due to shape and not size.
Skull height from basion.—The records are not always clear as to
how this measure was taken. In the majority of cases, it is clearly
stated to be basion-bregma; but in those in which the methods of the
German school have been followed, it is often either vertical height or
maximum height. The differences are not very great in any of these
methods.
According to the records presented in table 4, the highest heads are
largely in the East and Southeast (9 of the first 11 series), whereas
the lowest heads are in the "West and Northwest (all but 1 of the last
14 series). This distribution is the same as for length and breadth
and hkewise may be due to shape or size. Because aU 3 diameters
are large in the East and Southeast and small in the West and North-
west, it is obvious that there is a corresponding distinction in general
22 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
size of tlie skull in these 2 areas (see cranial module). It will be
shown below, however, in connection with the mean height index that
the distinction regarding height also holds relative to length and
breadth; or in other words, relative to shape.
Cranial index.—The reliability of an index depends upon that of
each of the measures entering into the ratio—in this case length and
breadth. Cranial indices in the upper 80's and above usually indicate
deformity.
Table 5 contains several records (series 29-38) in addition to those
given in the preceding three tables. However, it is apparent that there
is not the same clear geographical segregation of horizontal head shape
as of head size. For instance, the six records for Peruvian males
extend from 75.5 to 80.3; the eight for Argentina proper from 73.7 to
81.0—almost the full range for the continent. The most dolicho-
cranic (71.4) group—also perhaps the most ancient—is that from
Lagoa Santa, Brazil (No. 24). The series from Paltacalo, Ecuador
(No. 8), selected by Rivet for its resemblance to Lagoa Santa, has an
identical average index, but this rises to 75.0 (range 67.4-82.6) for the
total combined undeformed males and females. The fact that the
lowest indices tend to occur in the East, where the practice of de-
formity is very little developed, suggests that there may be an inclu-
sion of slightly deformed skulls in the so-called undeformed series
from the regions where this practice is or has been present.
Mean height index.—The two standard indices of skull height
—
length-height and breadth-height—tend to vary with the cranial index
and, unless considered carefully together, do not give a full expression
of relative height. (Cf. Stewart,. 1942 a.) To overcome this objection
the mean height index of Hrdlicka, which relates height to the mean of
the length and breadth, will be used here. This index has the addi-
tional advantage of saving printing space, since it substitutes one
figure for two.
As already pointed out in connection with absolute height, relative
height shows a clear regional variation (table 6). The lowest heads,
relatively speaking, are localized for the most part in the North
in eastern Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas, and northern Brazil,
with a small extension into eastern Peru. All the rest of the continent,
except the southernmost tip, is occupied by high-heads. This distri-
bution, which is shown on map 2, has been discussed elsewhere (Stewart,
1943 d).
Cranial module.—The mean of the three main cranial diameters
gives a convenient measure of cranial size. The detailed data will
not be given here because they can be calculated from tables 2, 3, and
4. In general the average module ranges from 148.8 to 158.6 mm. in
males and from 140.5 to 150.8 mm. in females. Using 152 in the males
as an arbitrary dividing point between large and small skulls, which
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 23
90
^
60T
45T
15
15
AVERAGE MEAN HEIGHT INDEX
— OVER 83
— UNDER 83
30
45
Map 2.—Generalized distribution of the extremes of the mean height index in
South America. This is based upon the data in table 6 (sexes combined).
24 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
corresponds to about 145 in the females, the distribution shown on
map 3 results. Here the distinct segregation by size already indicated
by the individual measurements is clearly demonstrated.
Capacity.—As usually taken, cranial capacity is subject to a con-
siderable personal error from technique. Although some of this
error tends to cancel out in large series, there is often an accumulating
bias that results in an average that is higher or lower than the true
value. Differences in sexing also influence the results, but deformity
seems to have no effect. These factors are illustrated by the Zavaleta
collection from the Calchaqui region of Northwestern Argentina
(table 7, series Nos. 39 and 39a), the two equal parts of which have
been described independently by Kunike (1911) and Constanz6
(1942 a). According to their respective sexing and methods of taking
capacity, Constanzo averages 50 cc. higher in the males and 90 cc.
higher in the females than does Kunike.
The records in table 7, faulty though they may be, reflect the dis-
tribution of head size already pointed out. Thus, of the first 15
records, 1 1 are from the East and Southeast, whereas of the remaining
11,9 are from the West and Northwest. This distribution of capacity
probably could be anticipated from that of head height, which has a
high correlation with capacity.
Upper face height.—The distance between nasion and prosthion or
alveolar point is not recorded in many of the earlier records. The
chief error that enters into this measure involves the location of the
alveolar point and the estimate of damage thereto from tooth loss.
Of the available records presented in table 8 again the highest
figures are from the East and Southeast (all but one of the first nine)
and the lowest figures are from the West and Northwest (all of the
remaining nine)
.
Maximum face breadth.—There should be little error in obtaining
the bizygomatic diameter, unless it is in locating the maximum.
The records given in table 9 repeat the finding of size distribution:
the highest figures are from the East and Southeast (all but 1 of the
first 12) ; the lowest figures are from the West and Northwest (all but
1 of the remaining 18).
Upper facial index.—The total variation for the averages of this
index is only about 5 or 6 units, as compared to about 10 for the
cranial index and the mean height index. Nearly this whole range is
found within any one area. Thus, of the records listed in table 10,
those from Argentina range in the males from 51.0 to 54.2; those from
Peru from 49.8 to 53.1. This indicates that, although both the meas-
ures entering into this index are larger in the Argentine series than in
those from Peru, each pair of measures varies in about the same ratio.
The geographic segregation so evident for these measures is only
Vol. 6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 25
AVERAGE CRANIAL MODULE
[Q] ABOVE 152
BELOW 152
15
15
30
45
Map 3.—Generalized distribution of the extremes of the cranial module in South
America. This is based upon the data in tables 2 to 4 (males only)
.
26 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
slightly evident in the records of the index, but appears to be in the
same direction.
Orbital height.—The diameter of an opening can be measured
usually with a minimum of error. This is true in the case of the
orbital height, except that the borders of the orbit are not always
sharply defined and practices vary as to whether the height is taken
vertically or at right angles to the long axis.
It will be seen from table 11 that the range of the reliable means is
not very great—about 3 mm. in the males. This small range allows
greater prominence to errors of sampling and technique and hence
may obscure somewhat the geographic distribution of size. It is
perhaps significant, however, that all but one of the figures for Argen-
tina and Tierra del Fuego range from 35.1 to 36.4 in the males, whereas
all but one from Peru range from 33.5 to 34.9.
Orbital breadth.—There are three landmarks on the medial side
of the orbit—lacrymale, dacryon, and maxillofrontale, any one of
which may be used in measiu-ing breadth. Lacrymale gives the
smallest measure and maxillofrontale the largest. Dacryon, sHghtly
more medially placed than lacrymale, is probably most commonly
used, although the records are seldom specific on this point.
Table 12, which has been restricted so far as could be determined to
records of orbital breadth measured from dacryon, shows much the
same narrow range of means as table 11. Here again differences in
technique and in adequacy of samples possibly obscure the true
geographic distribution of size. Comparing the same groups singled
out under orbital height, it will be seen that all but three of the series
from Argentina and Tierra del Fuego range from 39.0 to 41.5 mm. in
the males, and that aU but one from Peru range from 36.8 to 39.5 mm.
There is thus some indication of a geographic segregation of orbit size
similar to that characterizing the larger skull diameters.
Orbital index.—It is difficult to determine how much of the 16-unit
range for the males in table 13 may be due to the variations in tech-
nique pointed out in connection with orbital height and breadth or to
inadequate sampHng. The first three records, being excessively high,
may be due to one or other of these factors; and perhaps the same is
true of the last record, which is unusually low. Omitting these four
records, the total range is cut in half, or to 8 units. Within this range
very little if any geographic segregation is evident. Thus the reliable
male records for Argentina and Tierra del Fuego run from 87.5 to 91.9
and those from Peru run from 86.0 to 91.7.
Nasal height.—The reliability of this measure suffers from the fact
that one of the landmarks, the inferior limit of the nasal aperture, is
not clearly defined. A variation results depending upon whether the
VoTl] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 27
measurement is taken to the floor of the nasal cavity, to the spine,
or—in case a gutter is present—to one of the borders.
The records given in table 14 show a geographic segregation which
is too distinct to be the result of technical differences and which is in
line with the distributions shown by other measurements. Of the
first 15 records—the longest noses in the absolute sense—all but 4 are
from the East and Southeast, whereas of the remaining 16—the
shortest noses—all but 2 are from the West and Northwest.
Nasal breadth.—Since this measure is the diameter of an opening
the edges of which are sharp, it is usually obtained with a minimum
of error.
The total range of the means of the larger series shown in table 15
is very small, probably not over 3-4 mm. Nevertheless, some geo-
graphic segregation is discernible. Thus, of the first 15 records—the
broadest noses in the absolute sense—8 are from the East and South-
east, whereas, of the remaining 16—the narrowest noses—11 are from
the West and Northwest.
Nasal index.—Table 16 shows that, although both of the absolute
measurements of the nose tend to be largest in the East and Southeast
and smallest in the West and Northwest, their ratios tend to be the
opposite; i. e., relatively narrow noses are more common in the East
and Southeast and relatively broad noses in the West and Northwest.
Obviously this is due to the fact that the length differs more than the
breadth in these two areas. As examples of the geographic segrega-
tion of the nasal index, all of the male records from Argentina and
Tierra del Fuego based on adequate numbers, with one exception
(No. 39), range from 46.1 to 47.4, whereas those from Peru range
from 47.5 to 50.1. The exceptional group from Argentina appears to
be similar to the Peruvians in both the absolute and relative dimen-
sions of the nose. (Cf. also tables 14 and 15.) This might be ex-
pected from the intermediate geographic location of this group (map
1). The generalized distribution of the nasal index thus appears to
be much like that for head size shown on map 3.
Summary.—The clearest fact that emerges from this review of skull
measurements is the clear geographic segregation of head size: the
largest heads in the East and Southeast and the smallest heads in
the West and Northwest. The ratios between pairs of measurements
do not show this regional difference so clearly, except the mean height
index and the nasal index. However, the significance of these two
indicial distributions may not be the same in both cases. In South
America the mean height index ranges from about 75 to 89, and the
nasal index from about 46 to 52. The different values of these two
indices reflect the disproportions of the measures from which they are
derived; in other words, nasal length is about twice the size of nasal
28 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
breadth, whereas cranial height is much more nearly equal to the
mean of cranial length and breadth. When two such measures are
quite disproportionate, as in the case of the nose, their ratio changes
more markedly with increase in general skull size. This fact probably
accounts largely for the geographic changes in the nasal index parallel-
ing those of the nasal diameters.
The peculiar geographic localization of low-headedness in the north-
ern part of South America as determined by the mean height index
thus may be significant of something more than a change in general
head size, since the component measurements are more nearly of equal
value. In this connection it is interesting that there seems to be a
more or less continuous distribution of low-headedness from Siberia
through western North America and Central America into northern
South America (Stewart, 1943 d).
Each of the tables given here (tables 2-16) includes standard devia-
tions (sigmas) of series of 25 or more specimens. For each measure-
ment or index there thus results a mean sigma based upon a fair
number of series. In general, as discussed elsewhere (Stewart, 1943 e),
these mean sigmas indicate about the same amount of variability as
in North American series, and somewhat less than that of European
series.
Table 1. -List of undeformed cranial series used in the present study and their
sources
Series
No.
Vol. 6] SKELETAL REMALNTS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 29
Table 1.
—
List of undeformed cranial series used inZihe present study and their
sources—Continued
Series
No.
30 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B, A. H. BuU. 143
Table 3.
—
Cranial measurements {mm.) of South American series: Maximum
breadth
Series
No.
Vol. 6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 31
Table 4.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Basion-bregma
height
Series
No.
32 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Table 5.
—
Cranial indices of South American series: Cranial index
Series
No.
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 33
Table 6.
—
Cranial indices of South American series: Mean height index
34 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. BuU. 143
Table 7.
—
Cranial measurements (cc.) of South American series: Cranial capacity
Plate 5.—Skull from Cerro Tablayo, Colombia (lateralis and frontalis). Com-
pare the small features with those of skull shown in plate 6, and note the low
vault. Mean height index is 73.6. (Courtesy United States National Museum,
skull No. 298,343.)
Plate 6.—Skull from Patagonia, Argentina (lateralis and frontalis). Compare
size of features with those of skull shown in plate 1, and note very high head.
Mean height index is 93.8. (Courtesy United States National Museum, skull
No. 264,112.)
Plate 7.—Skull from Tiaiiuauaco, Bolivia (lateralis and verticalis). Circular
type of artificial deformity, symmetrical and elongated. (Courtesy United
States National Museum, skull No. 311,212.)
Plate 8.—Skull from Lake Tacarigua, near Maracay, Venezuela (lateralis and
verticalis) . Extreme frontal flattening. Note symmetry and roundness in the
vertical view. (Courtesy United States National Museum, skull No. 378,586.)
Vol. 6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 35
Table 9.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Maximum
face breadth
Series
No.
36 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Table 11.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Orbital height
Series
No.
4
3
23b...
9
19
15
10
11
39
13
6
2
18
26
17
39a....
14
5
28
23
8
16
27
1
21
20
25
23a.„.
3a
22
24
Country No.
spec.
Male
Meanip. e. Sigma Kange
Female
No.
spec.
Meanip. e. Sigma
Venezuela
Venezuela
Peru --
Argentina
Tierra del Fuego
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Chile
Colombia-Venezuela -
Colombia-Venezuela
.
Tierra del Fuego
Ecuador .-
Tierra del Fuego
Argentina
Argentina
Venezuela
Chile
Peril
Ecuador
Argentina
Brazil
Colombia-Venezuela
Peru
Perfl
Brazil
Peru
Venezuela
Perti
Brazil
38.0
36.9
36.48±0.25.
36.42±0.34.
36.1
36.0
35.95±0.13.
35.81±0.18_
35.69±0.]2.
35.68±0.22.
35.6
35.5
35.44±0.23.
35.4
35.33±0.23.
35.32±0.13.
35.1
35.0
35.0
34.92±0.10.
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.55±0.18.
34.34±0.13-
34.20±0.12.
34.12±0.26.
33.9
33.8
33.53±0.15.
33.1
1.88
2.81
1.91
2.01
1.94
1.67
1.80
2.01
1.49
1.88
1.77
1.54
1.95
1.65
35-41
34-40
32-41
30-42
34-40
33-39
32-40
31.40
31^0
33-39
32-38
32-40
32-40
31-42
32-39
30-40
32-39
32-38
35-35
29-40
32-38
32-38
32-37
30-38
30-38
31-37
31-40
31-40
31-38
30-37
29-35
56±0.27. 2.09
.4-
5
77±0.16.
64±0.20.
83±0.21.
1.82
2.06
1.99
4
4
3
88±0.14.
3
19±0.14.
1.71
1.78
37.5
33 5
33!76±6."i8."
34.13±0.18-.
33.05±0.16..
33.6
34.09±0.24..
34.0
33.82±0.15_.
32.4
1.38
1.52
1.81
1.99
i."56"
35-38
31-40
30-39
32-40
33-37
31-38
31-39
30-39
34-36
30-37
31-40
32-38
38^0
32-37
31-41
32-37
30-41
37-38
29-39
31-37
28-37
31-37
30-38
32-35
29-37
28-36
Mean sigma. 1 1.90 2 1.79
1 Number of series, 15; number of specimens, 934.
' Number of series, 11; number of specimens, 515.
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 37
Table 12.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Orbital breadth
Series
No.
38 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Table 13.
—
Cranial indices of South American series: Orbital index
Series
No.
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 39
Table 14.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Nasal height
Series
No.
40 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS IB. A. B. Bull. 143
Table 15.
—
Cranial measurements (mm.) of South American series: Nasal breadth
Series
No.
Vol.6] SKELETAL REMAINS—STEWART AND NEWMAN 41
Table 16.
—
Cranial indices of South American series: Nasal index
Series
No.
42 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
1891; Spengel, 1874; Stewart, 1942 a, 1943 a, 1943 d, 1943 e; Ten Kate, 1892,
1904; Torres, L. M., 1911; Turner, 1884; Verneau and De la Vaulx, 1902; Virchow,
1872 a, 1874 a, 1874 b, 1886 b, 1894; Walter, Cathoud, and Mattos, 1937; Wieger,
1884; Zimmermann, 1935.
Skeleton.—Anthony and Rivet, 1908; Chillida, 1943; Genna, 1928; Gusinde,
1939; Hrdlicka, 1938; Jazzetta, 1928; Klimann, 1938; MacCurdy, 1923; Maran-
goni, 1907; Marcano, 1893 a, 1893 b; Martin, 1892, 1893-94; Pastore, 1935-37;
Sabatini, 1933; Sergi, S., 1928; Stewart, 1943 a; Torres, L. M., 1911; Vallois,
1928-32, 1932; Vignati, 1924 a, 1924 b, 1925 a, 1925 b. 1925 c.
Other references on anthropometry not cited in the text.—Antognoli, 1933-34;
Barras de Aragon, 1932; Biasutti, 1910; Blake, 1878; Burmeister, 1873; Busk,
1873; Buxton et al., 1938; Cipriani, L., 1930; Constanz6, 1941, 1942 b, 1942 c;
Davis, 1867, 1873; De la Hitte and Ten Kate, 1897; Dillenius, 1913; Dorsey,
1894; Duerden, 1897; Duhousset, 1873; Ernst, 1870; Giachetti, 1905; GiuflFrida-
Ruggeri, 1906 a; Gusinde, 1928 a; Gusinde and Lebzelter, 1927, 1933; Hacker,
1902; Haddon, 1897; Hamy, 1902; Hartt, 1941; Henckel, 1933 a; Hinrichsen,
1930; Hoyos Sainz, 1911 a, 1911 b; Hrdlicka, 1943; Hultkrantz, 1907, 1936;
Huxley, 1868; Imbelloni, 1942; Klimek, 1929, 1939; Kollmann, 1884; Kunike,
1915; Kupflfer and Bessel-Hagen, 1880; Lebzelter, 1933; Lissauer, 1904 a, 1904 b;
Lorena, 1911; Marelli, 1912; Martin, 1896; M^rejkowsky, 1882; Mies, 1896;
Morton, 1839; Netto, 1942; Outes, 1912; Quatrefages and Hamy, 1882; Rabl-
Ruckhard, 1881-82; Ranke, 1900, 1909; Riccardi, 1886; Rudinger, 1889; Sankas,
1930; Schmidt, E., 1886; Schreiber, 1909; Sera, 1912; Sergi, G., 1887; Sergi, G.,
and Moschen, 1887; Stewart, 1939; Stolyhwo, 1906; Szombathy, 1884; Ten Kate,
1896 a; Torres, L. M., 1907; Turner, 1884; Vergara Flores, 1901, 1903; Virchow,
1872 b, 1874 c, 1884, 1885, 1887, 1892; Vram, 1900 b, 1901, 1904 a; Wilson, 1876;
Wyman, 1871, 1874.
Other general references on skull.—Cobb, 1933; Dixon, 1923; Gosse, 1860-63;
Hrdli6ka, 1911; Martin, 1928; Meigs, 1857, 1866; Mochi, 1912; Oyarzun, 1940;
Ried, 1863; Rochereau, 1938; Sergi, G., 1906; Vignati, 1938; Virchow, 1897 c;
Wilson, 1863.
Other references giving observations on the skull.—Anoutchine, 1878; Collins,
H. B., Jr., 1926, 1927; Dorsey, 1897; Giglioli, 1891; Gosse, 1860; Hrdlicka, 1907 b,
1940 b, 1941; Lacerda, 1876; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1910; Marelli, 1909, 1913 b;
Moodie, 1921, 1928 f, 1929 b; Morales Macedo,|l917 b, 1917 d, 1939; Outes, 1908,
1911-12; Rusconi, 1940, 1941; Sullivan, 1920,11922;\Ten Kate, 1896 b; Thibon,
1903; Vignati, 1925 a; Villagra Cobanera, 1937, 1939; Wright, H. B., 1939, 1940.
Other references giving observations on the skeleton.—Hrdlicka, 1932, 1934 a,
1934 b; Pastore, 1933-34; Ten Kate, 1896 b; Vignati, 1925 d.
Other references dealing especially with mummies.—Barras de Arag6n, 1909;
Bellamy, 1842; Blasio, 1900 b; Dawson, 1927, 1928 a, 1928 b; Manouvrier, 1889;
Sen6ze, 1877; Trotter, 1943; Uhle, 1901; Vram, 1904 b, 1907; Williams, H. U.,
1927.
DEFORMITY, TREPHINING, AND MUTILATION IN SOUTH
AMERICAN INDIAN SKELETAL REMAINS
By T. D, Stewart
Three kinds of artificial changes have been observed frequently in
the skeletons of South American Indians. These are cranial deformity,
trephiniag, and dental mutilation. Bones showing amputations have
been found in Peru but are far from being as common as Mochica
pottery represents.
Deformity.—Intentional shaping of the head in infancy was being
practiced by a number of Indian tribes when they were first seen by
Europeans (Hdk., 2:236; 4:526), but the practice was probably on the
wane and in most places soon was banned. In prehistoric times there
were three general centers of cranial deformity on the continent: (1)
The Caribbean coast, with an extension through the Antilles; (2) the
Pacific Coast in the region of Ecuador, Peru, and North Chile and
extending back into the Highlands; and (3) the Coast of Argentina
in the region of Rio Negro and other Patagonian valleys. It is con-
venient to consider these centers separately, although they are not
altogether discontinuous.
(1) The Caribbean center is limited to Colombia, Venezuela, prob-
ably British Guiana, and all of the inhabitable islands of the Antilles.
Marcano (1893 a, 1893 b) has described some specimens from the upper
reaches of the Orinoco drainage. There is no evidence that the
custom extended much farther inland. Neither is there evidence
that this custom spread from the Antilles into the Southeastern
United States. Also, it is absent from Panam^ and thus there is no
direct connection with the Maya center.
The deformity here is predominantly of one type and should be
classified as parallelo-fronto-occipital (or tabular oblicua of Imbel-
loni); that is, the frontal and occipital parts of the skuU have been
altered by pressure exerted in directly opposite directions. However,
the occiput usually is not flat but is symmetrically rounded, Avhereas
usually the frontal is markedly flattened and even concave. From
this form it is judged that a small board was placed on the frontal
and held in place either by a band passing around the occiput or by
attachment to the ends of a board shaped to the occiput. Some of
43
44 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
the early writers speak of the use of two boards, and yet it is difficult
to visualize such an arrangement in the cases where the frontal is
more extremely distorted than the occiput.
The only evidence of the antiquity of this custom here comes from
Cuba. Harrington found undeformed "Ciboney" skulls that appeared
to antedate the Arawak and Carib who practiced deformity.
(2) The Pacific Coast center begins in Ecuador and includes most
of Peru, Bolivia, Northwest Argentina, and North Chile. There is
no evidence as yet of the presence of this custom in southwestern
Colombia connecting the Pacific and Caribbean centers. For instance,
deformed skulls have not yet been found in association with the San
Agustin culture (Perez de Barradas, 1938). However, at the southern
end of this area there is probably a thin connection with the Patagon-
ian center.
In this great area all the principal types of deformity were present
at different times or in different places. Little is known about the
distribution and types in Ecuador, but at Paltacalo, near the coast,
the parallelo-fronto-occipital type occurs (Rivet; per. com.). In
North Peril, or at least in the Mochica area, the type becomes fronto-
vertico-occipital (or tabular erecta of ImbeUoni); in South Coastal
Peril it is chiefly parallelo-fronto-occipital; in the Highlands of Peru
and Bolivia it is chiefly circular; in Northwest Argentina it is again
fronto-vertico-occipital; and in North Chile it is parallelo-fronto-
occipital, Imbelloni's article in the present volume should be con-
sulted for further details.
Imbelloni (1933) has made the most comprehensive survey of this
region that thus far has been undertaken. Yet he was ignorant of
the types in some places, and this led him to certain erroneous gen-
eralizations. Latcham (1937) has corrected these generalizations as
they apply to North Chile and adjacent areas. Also, the writer
(Stewart, 1943 a, 1943 c) has called attention to other errors in connec-
tion with Coastal Peru. Since the types vary sometimes from site to
site and valley to valley, much work along this line remains to be done.
The different types were produced by various kinds of apparatuses,
some of which, owing to the aridity of parts of this area, have been
found with mummies. The circular type was produced, of course,
by a band of cloth. A pseudocircular type resulted from the use of
a band in combination with a doughnut-shaped pad on the occiput.
When the child was placed in a cradle and the head held in place by
pressure on the forehead, the fronto-vertico-occipital type of flatten-
ing was produced.
These variations in type are closely associated with culture and
thus have chronological as well as geographical distributions. The
oldest skuUs yet found—Cupisnique, Paracas—are deformed. Thus
Vol.6] DEFORMITY, TREPHINING, AND MUTILATION—STEWART 45
the custom may have considerable antiquity here. Late crania are
not so extremely deformed, as a rule.
(3) The Patagonian center comprises mainly Rio Negro, Chubut,
and Santa Cruz Territories of Argentina. A single type of deformity
—
fronto-vertico-occipital, with variations simulating the circular type
is found here. Some of the material showing this deformity is recent,
but a considerable age is claimed for the so-called fossil Man of
Monasterio (Castellanos, 1928 b), which shows marked frontal
flattening. Imbelloni considers this center in more detail on page 54
of the present volume.
A large portion of the literature on the subject of cranial deformity
is devoted to classifications of types. Gosse (1855) was one of the
first to devise a comprehensive classification. His scheme was altered
by Topinard, Virchow, HrdliSka, and other writers, so that today
there is no standard terminology. In addition, those working with
South American materials sometimes applied local names to types.
Thus the terms "Aymara'' and "circular" have become synonymous
when applied to cranial deformity, although there is little justification
for this.
Imbelloni has done more than anyone else to bring order out of this
confusion. His classification is simple; it distinguishes primarily
between the forms produced by small boards or other flattened sur-
faces (tabulares) pressed against the head and the circular form
produced by a constricting band. Both of these forms are subdivided
into vertical or erect and oblique forms, depending upon variations in
the direction of the applied pressure. The reader is referred to
Imbelloni's own statements in this connection on page 53 of the present
volume.
Trephining.—Surgical removal of parts of the cranial vault during
life has been practiced during historic times in Bolivia and Peru. (See
vol. 5, p. 638.) The geographical and chronological distributions of
the custom, as well as variations in technique, on the other hand, are
known chiefly from skeletal remains. Judging from these remains,
the custom rarely occurred outside the above-mentioned countries.
A few specimens have been reported from Northwest Argentina,
and it would not be surprising if others were found in North Chile.
Thus far, a few localities have furnished the majority of the reported
specimens. Except for the Paracas Peninsula, where numerous speci-
mens have been found. Coastal Peru has furnished only scattered
examples. On the other hand, large numbers have been found in the
Peruvian Highlands, particularly around Huarochiri and Cuzco.
The Bolivian remains have come mostly from around La Paz. The
frequency of the trephined skulls in collections from these several
places are as follows: Huarochiri, 2-4 percent; Cuzco (Urubamba
46 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
River region, except Macchu Picchu), 17-21 percent; Bolivia, 5 percent;
Paracas, 40 percent.
The Paracas skulls furnish the earliest record of this custon. Else-
where, the skulls are usually attributed to the Late cultural period.
Of the numerous sites about Cuzco yielding Inca remains, it is note-
worthy that the burials at Macchu Picchu did not include trephined
skulls, perhaps because the majority were females.
Three techniques for removing the trepan are generally recognized
:
(1) cutting or sawing, (2) scraping, and (3) drilling. Cutting was
done in both straight and curved lines. Straight-line cutting, per-
haps better designated sawing, produced angular openings, usually
square or rectangular, with the cuts extending into the bone beyond
the opening. Curved cuts were perhaps slower, but left a neater,
rounded opening. Scraping usually damaged an area larger than the
final opening and probably was slow. Drilling seems to have been
used seldom, and then for small openings. The instruments employed
were chiefly obsidian and quartz flakes.
Straight-line cutting or sawing seems to have been most common in
the central Highlands about Huarochiri. Elsewhere, a combination
of circular cutting and scraping was used. At Paracas some of the
skulls present immense areas in which the bone has been removed by
cutting and scraping down to the thin inner table. There is some
question in these cases whether they may have been done post mortem,
since there are no signs of healing.
The rate of survival from this primitive surgery was surprisingly
high. Tello found advanced healing of the bone in 250 out of 400
cases (62.5 percent); Rogers in 37 out of 59 cases (62.7 percent);
whereas MacCurdy found this stage in only 55.3 percent of 47 cases.
MacCurdy, however, regarded the stage of healing as "partial" in
another 23.4 percent.
The reason for the operation is not always apparent. This absence
of apparent cause in their series of 19 skulls led Muniz and McGee to
suggest thaumaturgy as an explanation. Tello and subsequent
writers have stressed the therapeutic nature of the procedure. Frac-
tures are the principal indication for the operation. The Paracas
skulls, according to Tello, are an exception in this regard, and this is
further reason for believing that many of them may have been tre-
phined after death.
The defect in the skull is said to have been covered in some in-
stances by a disk of shell, metal, or other material. These disks, if
discovered in situ, rarely have been described. Tello found a thin
gold plate over a small trephine opening in one of his Paracas mummies.
Dental mutilation.—Chipping and filing of the teeth was practiced
more commonly in historic than in prehistoric times, owing to the in-
Vol.6] DEFORMITY, TREPHINING, AND MUTILATION—STEWART 47
troduction of the African version of this custom by Negro slaves
(Stewart, 1942 b). Inlaying of the teeth, on the other hand, was
practiced only in Ecuador and in prehistoric times.
The prehistoric skulls with filed teeth thus far found come from
Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina. Mutilation of the teeth by
chipping was not practiced in prehistoric times, having been in-
troduced by the Negroes. In Ecuador the filing was done primarily
to make a bed for the inlay. However, in one case an upper canine
and lateral incisor appear to have a shallow U-shaped groove on the
occlusal border of each.
From the other countries of South America only about 7 specimens
from prehistoric times have been reported. In some of these speci-
mens the upper anterior teeth alone are involved, whereas in others it
is the lower anterior teeth. In none is the full pattern of mutilation
determinable, because of post-mortem loss of various elements. In
most cases there is a single V- or W-shaped notch in the occlusal
border of the tooth, A unique case from Santa Cruz, Argentina,
presents a longitudinal V-shaped groove along the labial surface of the
lower right first premolar. The practice in general was not common
and probably was not old.
The examples of inlay are limited to three specimens, all of which
come from Esmeraldas in Ecuador. Gold is the material inlaid. The
number of teeth involved is variable ; in the three specimens on record
it is two, six, and eight—all upper anterior teeth. In most cases the
inlays are circular but in one it is in the form of a band. Except in
the use of gold, the Ecuadoran examples of dental mutilation resemble
those commonly found in the Maya area.
In addition to these positive forms of mutilation, in which the teeth
bear witness of their maltreatment, there is some evidence that a
negative form known as ablation or the knocking out of a tooth
—
inferred from its absence in the skull—was also practiced in pre-
historic times. Since teeth are lost in life through various causes,
including accident and disease, a subjective element necessarily enters
into the interpretation of the post-mortem dental remains. Hrdli^ka,
who alone has summarized the evidence from crania on ablation, has
examined considerable material from North America and Siberia, but
of South American material only that from Peru. Here he found evi-
dence of the practice in about 4 percent.
In historic times this practice has been separately introduced by
Negro slaves.
48 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DEFORMITY
General references.—Aichel, 1932 a; Dingwall, 1931; Gosse, 1855; Hild^n, 1932;
Hrdlicka, 1912 b; Imbelloni, 1925 a, 1925 c, 1930, 1934 a, 1938 c; Topinard, 1885;
Virchow, 1892.
Caribbean center references.—Broca, 1876; Brooks, 1889; Flower, W. H.,
1891, 1895; Harrington, M. R., 1921; Marcano, 1893 a, 1893 b; P^rez de Barradas,
1937, 1938; Requena, 1932; Stewart, 1939; Verneau, 1901, 1924, 1927.
Pacific center references.—Chervin, 1908; Constanz6, 1942 a; Eaton, 1916;
Falkenburger, FrMeric, 1938; Falkenburger, Fritz, 1913; Hrdlicka, 1911;
ImbeUoni, 1925 b, 1932 b, 1933, 1934 b; Kroeber, 1926, 1930, 1938; Latcham,
1937; Mal^^, 1926; Morales Macedo, 1917 a; Stewart, 1943 a, 1943 c; Weiss, 1932.
Patagonian center references.—Castellanos, 1928 b; ImbeUoni, 1923 a; MareUi,
1913 a; Verneau, 1894; Villagra Cobanera, 1938.
TREPHINING
Bandelier, 1904; Blasio, 1900 a; Broca, 1866-67, 1867; Burton, 1920; Comejo
Bouroncle, 1939; Daland, 1935; Escomel, 1910; Freeman, 1924; Lehmann-
Nitsche, 1898 a, 1900, 1902 c; MacCurdy, 1918; Mantegazza, 1886; Mason, O. T.,
1885; Moodie, 1929 c, 1930; Morales Macedo, 1917 c; Muniz and McGee, 1897;
Pilares Polo, 1939; Posnansky, 1924; Quevedo, A., 1943; Rogers, 1938; Tello, 1913
a; V61ez L6pez, 1940; Wolfel, 1925.
DENTAL MUTILATIONS
Dembo, 1937 a, 1937 b, 1937 c, 1938, 1939; Dembo and Imbelloni, 1938;
Hrdlicka, 1940 c; Ihering, 1882; Lasch, 1901; Linne, 1940; Saville, 1913; Vignati,
1939.
Other references dealing with these subjects.—Blake, C. C, 1869; Broca, 1878;
Dembo and Paulotti, 1942; Jahn, 1932; Larco Hoyle, 1938-39; Lehmann-Nitsche,
1902 b, 1930 c; Maly, 1928; Manrique, 1937; McGee, 1894; Moodie, 1926 a;
Moreno, 1880; Morton, 1846; Pinart, 1892 a; Posnansky, 1925; Puccioni, 1904;
Rippen, 1917, 1918; Schrotter, 1898; Sen^ze, 1877; Stewart, 1942 b; Vergara
Flores, 1894 a, 1894 b, 1894 c, 1895 a; Vignati, 1927 a; Vram, 1900 b.
PATHOLOGICAL CHANGES IN SOUTH AMERICAN INDIAN
SKELETAL REMAINS
By T. D. Stewakt
Relatively few diseases leave their marks on bones, and those that
do so are not always accurately identifiable long after death. The
response of bone to various disease processes is limited, which is the
reason for this lack of differentiation in the end results. Nevertheless,
many osseous lesions in the bones of prehistoric groups give indica-
tions that aid in making historical reconstructions, whereas others give
indications of dietary deficiencies and cultural habits.
The pathological studies made thus far on prehistoric remains from
South America have been directed principally toward the identifica-
tion of (1) chronic infectious diseases, such as syphilis, leprosy, and
tuberculosis; and (2) degenerative changes such as arthritis, dental
decay, and tumors or exostoses. The acute diseases, being much more
rapid in their course, are less likely to leave marks, except when the
bone is directly involved, as in mastoiditis. There were no imique
diseases affecting bone in South America during prehistoric times, ex-
cept possibly verruga and uta.
Chronic infectious diseases.—A controversy took place during the
last decade of the last century, chiefly between Ashmead, Lehmann-
Nitsche, and Virchow, as to whether the mutilations of the nose,
mouth, hands, and feet represented in Mochica pottery should be
attributed to leprosy, syphilis, or some other chronic disease. Virchow
had originally identified the condition as leprosy, which view was
strongly opposed by the others who were more inclined to regard it
as syphilis or uta. Although nothing could be proved, this contro-
versy served to focus attention on the antiquity of these diseases in
the New World.
Since that time large amounts of skeletal material have been col-
lected in South America, especially Peru, and these show remarkably
little evidence of chronic infectious diseases. (Cf. Verneau, 1903;
Hrdli6ka, 1911, 1914.) Much of this material is not accurately dated
and hence included pathological specimens may possibly come from
the historic period.
A determined effort was made by H. U. WiUiams (1932, 1936) to
find evidence of pre-Columbian syphilis in South America. He finally
49
50 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
decided on the basis of personal examination of many collections that
there were only three specimens that would withstand close scrutiny
both as to age and the nature of the disease. Two of these specimens
were from Peru (Paracas and Canete Valley) and the third was from
Argentina (Rio Negro).
As for tuberculosis, both Hrdh^ka (1911) and Moodie (1927 b)
have noted bones from Peru that they believed could be examples
of this disease. The identijfication of tuberculosis is somewhat
more definite than syphilis because of the tendency of the former
to localize in the spinal column and produce kyphosis, the condition
commonly known as hunchback. Garcia Frias (1940) studied three
hunchbacked mummies from Peru believed to be prehistoric and
demonstrated to his satisfaction that the lesions were due to tubercu-
losis.
The evidence in general seems to show that the presence of these
chronic infectious diseases in South America during prehistoric times
is not amply confirmed. Indeed, if they were present there at all, they
were not very common. The evidence is perhaps best in the case of
tuberculosis.
Degenerative changes.—There are certam changes in the skeleton,
often becoming more pronounced with age, that may be characterized
best perhaps as degenerative. Although age is undoubtedly a factor,
there probably are other causal factors, such as nutrition, postural
habits, and hereditary susceptibility, because the incidence of these
changes varies among human groups. In the studies thus far made
on South American Indian skeletal remains attention has been gi"ven
principally to arthritis, dental decay, and tumors or exostoses.
The articular surfaces of bones sometimes present abnormal condi-
tions, especially in advanced age. There is often a growth of bone
about the edge of the joint. This is described usually as lipping.
Also, there may be erosions of the joint surface together with polishing
or eburnation. These conditions are usually termed arthritis de-
formans or hyperthropic arthritis. If, as seems true in the living,
there are several varieties of arthritis, they have not been fully dis-
tinguished in the skeleton.
Hrdlifika (1914) found arthritis to be the most common pathological
condition in the bones of the ancient Peruvians. It occurred in 2 per-
cent of 593 humeri, 2.7 percent of 255 radii, and 5.3 percent of 301
ulnae. Here it was confined almost entirely to the elbow joint. The
knee joint of the femur was involved in 3 percent of 1,210 cases and of
the tibia in 1.5 percent of 781 cases. An unusual feature of this col-
lection was the frequent involvement of the hip joint—3.6 percent of
694 innominata. In these cases the head of the femur was deformed
Plate 9.—Trephined skulls from Peru. Top: Skull from Cuzco with trephined
opening in midfrontal region, interrupting the course of the metopic suture.
Bottom: Skull from Huarochirl with large trephined opening in the right frontal
region. The technique used in this case is that of cutting or sawing. (Courtesy
United States National Museum, skulls Nos. 178,480 and 178,473.)
Plate 10.—Surgical and dental use of gold. Top: Skull of the Paracas Cavernas
culture with gold plate in place on a trephined opening, left frontal region.
(Courtesy J. C. Tello and A. Guillen.) Bottom: Inlaid teeth and gold-covered
teeth, Atacanies, Esmeraldas, Ecuador. (Courtesy Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.)
Plate 11.—Deformed skulls from Chicama Valley, Peru. Top: Lateral view of
skull showing fronto-vertical-occipital deformity. Note ear exostoses. Bot-
tom: Lateral view of deformed skull (tabular erecta of Imbelloni). (Courtesy
United States National Museum, skulls Nos. 264,689 and 264,687.)
Plate 12.—Pelvis and femora from Chimu region, Peru, showing arthritis defor-
mans. Pelvic bone and femur on right from one subject. Femur on left
shows early stage of alterations; that in middle represents a very advanced
case of fiat "mushroom head," that on right a pronounced caput penis condi-
tion. (After Hrdlicka, 1914.)
Vol.6] DEFORMITY, TREPHINING, AND MUTILATION—STEWART 51
correspondingly into shapes that have been termed descriptively
"capit penis" and "mushroom head."
Another collection that has been studied for this condition comes
from the valley of the Rio Chubut in Argentina (Lehmann-Nitsche,
1903 a, 1904 a). Here the humerus (329 cases), radius (234 cases), and
ulna (233 cases) were involved, presumably at the elbow, in 1.8, 1.3,
and 3.0 percent, respectively. The femur and tibia (knee joint?) were
involved in 1.56 percent of 320 cases and 1.85 percent of 323 cases,
respectively. The other joints, including the hip were seldom arthritic.
Data on the vertebral column, which frequently shows arthritic
lipping, are lacking, chiefly because this part rapidly disintegrates
post mortem or is not always collected. Vignati (1931 c) has called
attention to crania from Northwest Argentina with arthritic tem-
poromandibular joints. This is not an unusual finding.
Dental diseases are perhaps a contributing cause of arthritis.
However, Moodie (1928 e) has been the only one to show the asso-
ciation of these two conditions in South American Indian remains.
Most of the studies on the teeth have been made on Peruvian materials
(Leigh, 1937; Moodie, 1928 d; Stewart, 1931), and have been con-
cerned primarily with dental caries. This appears to have been the
chief cause of ante-mortem tooth loss in Peril. Cavities first appeared
in the developmental pits and fissures on the crowns of the molars
and then on the approximo-cervical surfaces of all the teeth. Attri-
tion did not often lead to tooth loss. The caries, however, started
oft' a course of events that frequently led to tooth loss with varying
attendant complications, including abscess and antral fistula.
In view of the widely differing environments in South America and
the different diets of the native peoples that this entails, a broad study
of the dental conditions here in prehistoric times would contribute to
the knowledge of their etiology.
Bone tumors and exostoses may occur in almost any part of the
skeleton although they show a preference for certain sites. Their
cause is unltnown. One of the most common forms occurs in the
auditory meatus and is usually called "ear exostosis." Hrdli6ka
(1935 a) has observed these in 14.3 percent of a large series of Peruvian
skulls (11.7 percent of the ears). As usual, the condition was more
common in males (22.2 percent as compared to 6.3 in females).
Moller-Holst (1932) reports finding ear exostoses present in 16.7
percent of 341 Chilean and Bolivian skulls. On the other hand. Ten
Kate (1896 a) found no exostoses in a series of 110 Calchaqul. The
frequency of this condition in other groups has not yet been reported.
The so-called "third trochanter" of the femur is an exostosis or hy-
perostosis with somewhat of a functional association. HrdliCka (1937)
has found this structure developed to varying degrees in 32.6 percent
794711—50 6
52 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
of a large series of Peruvians, It tends to be more common in females
(36.4 vs. 29.6 percent) and on the right side (males: 30.1 vs. 29.1;
females: 37.9 vs. 34.6 percent). Costa (1890) found it present in
84.4 percent of 45 Fuegian femora, whereas EQimann (1938) found
it in only 16.6 percent of 90 femora from Northwest Argentina
(Diaguita, etc.). Similarly, in the Patagonians Verneau (1903) gives
figures for the third trochanter varying from about 50 to 80 percent
depending on stature (number of femora not stated) , whereas Klimann
(1938) reports it in 20.7 percent of 53 femora. These variations in
figures probably indicate that there is a wide variation in the concepts
of what constitutes the third trochanter as distinguished from the
ordinary gluteal ridge or crest.
Still another hyperostosis occurs at times on the inner side of the
lower jaw in the region of the premolars and molars. This condition
apparently does not occur commonly in the jaws of South American
Indians. Hrdlicka (1940 a), who alone has studied it, but only in
Peruvians, reports slight hyperostoses in 3.8 percent of males and 3.1
percent of females.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General.—Moodie, 1929 a, 1931 b.
Chronic infectious diseases.—Ashmead, 1895 a, 1895 b, 1895 c, 1895 d, 1895 e,
1896, 1897 a, 1897 b, 1899, 1900, 1901; Bastian, 1895; Garcia Frfas, 1940; Hrdlidka,
1911; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1898 b, 1899 a, 1904 b; Moodie, 1927 b; Salaman, 1939;
Tello, 1909; TeUo and WiUiams, 1930; Virchow, 1897 a, 1897 b; Williams, H. U.,
1932, 1936.
Arthritis.—Hrdligka, 1914; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1903, 1904 a; Verneau, 1903;
Vignati, 1925 c, 1931 c.
Dental caries.—Leigh, 1937; Moodie, 1928 b, 1928 c, 1928 d, 1928 e, 1928 g,
1931 a; Stewart, 1931.
Tumors.—Costa, 1890; Hrdlicka, 1935 a, 1937, 1940 a; Klimann, 1938; Moller-
Holst, 1932; Moodie, 1926 b; Oetteking, 1928.
See also the following.—Burton, 1927; Constanz6, 1942 c; Lehmann-Nitsche,
1902 a; Moodie, 1928 a, 1928 g; Moreno, 1880; Outes, 1915; Price, 1939; Stegmann,
1904; Thulie, 1877; Vergara Flores, 1895 b; Virchow, 1886 a.
CEPHALIC DEFORMATIONS OF THE INDIANS IN
ARGENTINA
By Jos6 Imbelloni
A study of the map of aboriginal deformities in Argentine territory,
in connection with a map of South America, immediately reveals that
the Argentine areas of peoples who deformed are a direct continuation
of the areas of Andean culture. To state this mors precisely, one
observes in the northwestern, western, and northern provinces a
complex of abnormal shapes which are related to the cultures of the
ancient Peruvian and Atacameno zone, and in the southern regions, a
second complex linked to the deforming practices of the Araucanian
area of Chile.
The first complex includes a larger number of shapes or models;
the second includes only one, although it has adopted various special-
izations in its implements (pis. 13, 14).
The following regions of Argentina belong to the first area: (1) The
Puna of Jujuy, (2) the Quebrada of Humahuaca, (3) the Diaguita
area, (4) the area of Diaguita influence.
(1) The Jujuy tableland contains the three artificial shapes: flat,
vertical (tabulares erectos); flat, oblique (tabulares oblicuos); and
annular (anulares). These apparently occur irregularly, although it
may be said that the tableland, taken as a whole, acts as a sort of
canal, on whose eastern side is found the flat oblique type of Huma-
huaca, and on the western side the Atacameno annular type, while in
the central part, from north to south, flows the deeper stream of the
vertical, flat form.
(2) The Humahuaca territory (the Quebrada with the same name)
contains only flat, oblique deformation. We know of many hundreds
of crania from the valley, of which only two or three are annular and
undoubtedly came from neighboring regions. This region is the
most homogeneous in its artificial molding.
(3) The Diaguita area, which includes the provinces of Salta,
Catamarca and parts of Jujuy, la Rioja, Santiago del Estero, and
San Juan, shows an overwhelming predominance of the flat types
(among 542 crania there, 512 were flat and only 30 annular), and of
the two flat|Jtypes,'almost 90 percsnt were vertical, whereas only 10
percent were oblique.
53
54 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Figure 2.—Diagram showing the application of head flattening apparatus,
Quebrada de Humahuaca.
(4) The area of Diaguita influence extends to the remaining territory
of San Juan, a part of Cdrdoba, and some of Santa Fe, in which more
or less sporadic finds reveal the presence of deformed crania of both
flat types, although their development in that area is less character-
istic and few crania show annular deformation.
To the second area belong the ancient inhabitants of the valleys
of Patagonia whose northern limits do not stop at present political
boundaries.
In the political divisions of Rio Negro, Chubut, and Santa Cruz,
and the southern part of the Province of Buenos Aires, deformed
crania have been found, often in large numbers, although always in a
cultural level above the layer of typically Pampcan dolichocephals,
who represent the truly ancient peoples of the Patagonian region.
The plateau-dwellers who practiced deformation generally used the
flat, vertical type. Rather numerous specimens from Rio Negro and
other scattered sites in the southern part of Buenos Aires reveal a
curious specialization of this general type, the "pseudocircular" shape.
Among the instruments which native mothers used to mold the
tender heads of their young children, we are familiar with that typical
of the Quebrada de Humahuaca, an apparatus of "free" boards applied
to the forehead and the occiput (fig. 2). This consisted of two boards,
each composed of several layers of soft algarroba wood a little more
than 1 mm. in thickness; the smaller was placed on the forehead, the
larger on the occiput, with its center in the region of the inion; the
two boards were then drawn toward each other by tightening the
slender strands of wool which passed around them.
A device of two "free" boards, similar to the one described above.
s
Plate 14.—Apparatus for cranial deformation, Argentina. Top: Two wooden
tablets of the apparatus for tabular erecta deformation. The frontal tablet
measures 15.1 cm. (6 inches) and the occipital tablet 22.7 cm. (9 inches).
Bottom: The apparatus applied to an infant's skull. (Courtesy Jose Imbelloni.)
Vol.6] CEPHALIC DEFORMATIONS—IMBELLONI 55
with each board made up of thm layers of hardwood or of one whole
piece, must have been used throughout the entire area of flat, oblique
deformation.
By contrast, annular deformation was accomplished by means of
bandages and belts wound about the head to bind it in the manner
of a kerchief or coif.
Flat, vertical deformation is done with an appliance which differs
sharply from those just described. Whereas the "free" boards were
applied only to the head, leaving the child free to move, flat, vertical
deformation required an apparatus applied to the body, which held
the child with his head pressed against a flat plane (cradles). The
cradles with which we are familiar from the ancient ethnography of
the southern part of Argentina are constructed of pieces of wood and
boards fastened with rawhide thongs and are so made that they can
be stood upright on the ground or carried on the back of the Indians
or on horseback.
We have not yet found traces of the instruments used for deforma-
tion in the Rio Negro region, but examination of the "pseudocircular"
crania assures us that the child's head was fastened to the cradle, not
by the pressure of a board on his forehead, but by means of a kerchief
or elastic bands which produced the characteristic convexity
—
described as cylindrical-conical—of;the forehead.
In general, the cephalic deformities shown by aboriginal crania
excavated from Argentine territory are the result of cultural influences
emanating from the Andean-Pacific area, just as are all the South
American deformities in general. The flat, vertical type belongs to
the West Coast, from Tumbez southward; the flat, oblique type
prevails in the zone of Manta and Esmeralda; the annular, derives
from the coast of Atacama and Arica and extends across the ancient
Peruvian territory toward the Montana on one side and on the other
descends southward toward the Puna. The distribution of the latter
suggests great antiquity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dembo and Imbelloni, 1938; Imbelloni, 1923 c, 1925 a, 1925 b, 1925 c, 1926,
1928 a, 1930, 1931, 1932 a, 1932 b, 1932 c, 1933, 1934 a, 1934 c, 1934 d, 1938 c,
1938 e, ms.
See also the following: Bloxam, 1882; Dillenius, 1910, 1912 a, 1912 b;
Imbelloni, 1938 d, 1940; Villagra Cobanera, 1938.

The Living South American Indians
ANTHROPOMETRY OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
By Morris Steggerda
The Indians of South America, hke those of the northern continent,
vary greatly in their physical proportions. One cannot describe them
collectively as being either taU or short; as having broad or long heads,
long trimks or short arms; or even as having a dark skin color, or
straight, black hair. For one finds exceptions to nearly every general
statement that might be made about such a large group of people.
Although such statements may apply to particular tribal groups, they
are not appropriate to describe South American Indians as a whole.
Therefore, rather than to present generalizations all of which would
need modification, it is the purpose of this short article to tabulate
the mean statures and cephalic indices for as many tribal groups as
possible, and to indicate the availability of additional anthropometry
for each group (pis. 15 to 22).
The accompanying table lists 88 Indian tribes, with their linguistic
afl&nities ' and their approximate locations. In addition to the stature
and cephalic index for each tribe, all the available anthropometry is
indicated by bibliographic reference. The number of individuals
considered in each article is indicated, as well as the relative value of
the article from the point of view of the number of dimensions con-
sidered.
From the original sources it appears that the range of mean statures
for the males is very great; namely from 145 to 184 cm. However,
the mean of 145 is quoted from Roquette-Pinto (1938), who failed to
indicate the number of individuals measured that went to make up
the mean; and the figure 184 is based on only two Ona males recorded
by Lehmann-Nitsche (1927). This wide range is greater than that
found by Steggerda (1932) for North American Indians. In the
present table the upper extreme of this range is somewhat modified
by presenting a figure which is the average of the means recorded for
the Ona. Thus the table shows a range between 145 cm., for an
unknown number of Aruaki Indians as cited by Roquette-Pinto
(1938), and 176 cm., representing a mean of four separate studies of
the Tehuelche.
• In addition to the sources cited in table 1, see also J. A. Mason, this vol., pp. 157-317.
57
58 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
By summarizing the studies in each tribe we are able to present,
for the first time, some very adequate means; as, for example, for the
Ona, where measurements of 85 males and 108 females are used to
make one mean, and for the Quechua, where the mean figures are
based upon 6 different studies comprising 446 males and 77 females.
Similarly, for the Yahgan, 9 original sources are summarized in a mean
based upon 450 male subjects.
On map 4 the recorded statures of males are plotted according to
geographical distribution, based upon the data of the original sources.
From this map it will be seen that the small statures below 160 cm.
are found in the northwest and continue southeastward to more or
less the center of the Continent, with a few scattered groups in south-
em Paraguay and Brazil. Those between 160 and 165 cm. occupy
nearly the same area, but continue farther south along the western
part of the Continent, far into Chile. The next taller group, of 165
to 170 cm., occupies a long, narrow strip reaching from northern Brazil
to southern Argentma. Still taller Indians, averaging above 170 cm.,
are found in the southern part of South America, aud at its southern-
most tip. A small group of very tall Indians, the Bororo, occupies a
small region in central Brazil, as indicated on the map.
The cephalic index of South American Indians has been treated
similarly, except that males and females have been grouped together
to form one mean. This seems justifiable, since there is no significant
sex difference in adults for this mdex. The range, according to our
present table, is from 76 percent for two tribes belonging to the
Ge group to 90 for the Setebo, a Panoan tribe. The means shown in
this table are weighted means covering all the work done on a particu-
lar tribe. On map 5 the distribution of South American Indians by
cephalic index is plotted according to information given in the origuial
articles. It will be noticed that the long-headed Indians (76 to 79.9)
are located centrally and to the south, while the broader-headed,
mesocepbalic Indians (80 to 84) are also centrally placed, but farther
to the north. The brachycephalic Indians are restricted more or less
to a narrow band along the Andes. This band of broad-headed
Indians extends north from Panamd up through Central America,
along the Gulf coast of Mexico, and then north through the western
United States (Steggerda, 1932, p. 84).
As has been said, it is difficult to describe South American Indians
in general. Yet if one breaks them up into linguistic groups, certain
statements concerning their physical features may be made.
Carib.—Recorded anthropometry is present for 13 Carih tribes. In
general, they are relatively short in stature, averaging 159.4 cm. for
males and 147 cm. for females. Their arms are relatively long, with an
average relative span of approximately 105, which corresponds closely
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—STEGGERDA 59
Below a up to 159.9cm
160 -164.9cm
165
-169.9 cm
Map 4.—Distribution of stature among South American Indians. Males.
with that found by the author for the short Maya of Yucatdn (104.7).
Their shoulder width averages 36.6 cm., which, for so short a people,
may be considered broad; the Yucatdn Maya, as measured by the
author, averages 38.0 cm. Their heads are longer and narrower than
those of the average Maya. They are mesocephahc, with an index of
80, whereas the cephalic index for the Maya is 85. The Carih face
and nose are not as broad as those of the Maya. The averages for
various measurements on eight Carib tribes show them to be short,
thick-set, with broad shoulders and relatively long arms.
Arawak.—Of 36 tribes listed as Arawak on Krickeberg's linguistic
map (Buschan, 1922), we have found recorded anthropometry for 15.
The average stature for 151 males of these 15 tribes is 158.7 cm., which
is practically the same as that found for the Carih (159.4 cm.). The
60 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Map 5.—Distribution of cephalic index among South American Indians. Mean
of males and females combined.
Mehinacd and the Paumari Indians are fairly tall; but others, such as
the Ipurina, Atorai, and Goajiro, are relatively short in stature. The
female/male index for stature of the Arawak is 93 percent, which cor-
responds closely to the average human sex difference for stature. Their
relative span is 104.6, again in close correspondence with that of the
Carih and the Maya Indians. Their trunk length, as indicated by the
relative sitting height, is 51.2
—
practically the same as the average
relative sitting height for Indians in general. In shoulder width they
are even broader than the Carih, although their average stature is
7 mm. less. These small differences may be insignificant, but the
measurements show the Arawak also to be a short, stocky, broad-
shouldered Indian.
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—STEGGERDA 61
In head length the Arawak equals the Carib—185 mm. as compared
with 184.9 mm. In head width the average is the same, making the
cephalic index also 80. Their faces, as judged by the bizygomatic
breadth, seem slightly broader than those of the Carib, and their nose
width as judged by the nasal index is also greater than that of the
Carib.
Tupi-Guarani.—There are 11 tribes listed as Twpi-Guarani that have
been measured. The average stature for males of these 11 tribes is
160 cm., making them slightly taller than either the Carib or Arawak.
They, too, are mesocephalic, having an average cephalic index of 80.6.
According to the literature, the appearance and measurements of
the Tupi-Guarani vary considerably among the different tribes.
The Tiatinagua, of which only 4 were measured by Farabee (1922),
have a mean cephalic index of 76.31, which is the lowest of any of
these groups. While not differing greatly from other Tupi tribes in
stature, they are described as having very slender bodies, long faces,
and long hands. Their minimum frontal measurement is the lowest of
all, due to a marked depression at the temples. The Mundurucu and
their neighbors are small of stature, never exceeding 160 cm. The
Indians of the upper Xingu are taller, 162 cm., and are mesocephalic
(80.4), with brown skin, straight nose, salient cheek bones, and wavy
or straight hair. The Guarani average 166 cm. in stature, and tend
to be brachycephahc. The Aueto are mesocephalic (80.2 to 81.8 in
male and female), and short of stature (158 aad 152 cm.).
Pauoans.—The Panoans, found in the southwest of the Amazon
Basin, are, according to Pericot y Garcia (1936), small of stature
(160 cm. or less) and brachycephahc. The Mayoruna (Barbudo),
described by Markham (1894-95), are taller than most of the other
Panoan tribes, and have thick beards and a hght-colored skin.
Eastern Brazil.—In eastern Brazil are such tribes as the Botocudo,
Cayapo, Caingud, and Coroado. According to Pericot y Garcia (1936),
the Botocudo are markedly dohchocephahc; they have strongly de-
veloped supraorbital ridges, are prognathous, with strong inferior
mandibles and a reduced cranial capacity. Their stature is small
(158 cm.), and their extremities are slender. The Cayapo are taller
and brachycephahc, have a lighter skin color, and are better built.
The Coroado and Caingud are of medium stature, rather slender and
well-proportioned. They have an oval face, horizontal black eyes,
and dark skin, which sometimes tends to be lighter, according to the
region inhabited.
Chibcha.—The Chibchan-spesbking peoples appear to be very short
in stature, with relatively long arms and broad shoulders. They are
brachycephahc.
Quechua.—Eickstedt (1934), who deals in detail with the
62 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A, B. Bull. 143
Quechua, says that their body build is massive, the head short, and
the face medium-short. Their stature is also rather small. The
nose is often arched and the cheek bones are salient; the forehead
is low, and the hairline, coming down quite low on the forehead,
makes it appear still lower. The orbital ridges are not very strongly
developed, and the eyes are not deeply set. The length and shape of
the nose, together with the beardless face, lend a very characteristic
appearance to the Quechua Indians. The chest, shoulders, and hips
in both sexes are well developed.
Araucanians.—The dominant physical feature of the Araucanians
is according to Pericot y Garcia (1936), a low stature—161 cm. for
males, and 143 cm. for females. In the Araucanians of Argentina,
brachycephaly is accentuated. The cheek bones are slightly salient,
the nose straight or convex; the eyes are small and dark, the mouth
large, the ha'u- dark and straight. Their build is robust, with wide
shoulders and small extremities; the skin is light brown to olive.
(See also p. 129.)
Other groups.—Short descriptions could be written of other
groups, for example, the Ona, Yahgan, AlacaluJ, Bororo, and Witoto,
but the reader is referred to the table to determine where the literature
may be found. (For the Ona, Yahgan, and Alacaluj, see p. 121.)
There seems to be a specific need for further information on Indian
tribes from most localities in South America
;
perhaps this discussion
might suitably end with an appeal to South American anthropologists
to make additional surveys for their particular areas, and then to
circulate their findings more widely.
Vol. 61 ANTHROPOMETRY—STEGGERDA 63
64 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
3
.s
a
oO
•tj.
8
3
o
00
8
Si,
3
Vol. 61
sa ^-
fl . fl 05 5
.£So
as.o'
ANTHROPOMETRY—STEGGERDA 65
a a »
a
-d
<B.g a
2 o5j= -
"a
oil 5
a--^g
cJ ft s-^
03 05
aw-
w P • <i>
,
.-e'S a a
iJ Ah
2 -a3« -1.,^ h^ '^ t*
fta 03 P
o
.&
'-
03 d —' <= *2
_-S a 03 o S ;
Qx) S ft'CJ3-S
M PL, (
^ s^ si ^
„ 3 a oja ^
i>>>^ 3 " " 2o3_ o-o 5?ja
_
Ki"2 >- a ^
vS *^ Oi a tH 03 o ca
—2 a
fc o S
&•« S ^
& 03 -
*^ >»3 ca 0)
"..-g&a
an
.2 00
t>0o32
^a-
03.0)
"3 (O"?
aa 03
"C o-g
o ta 3
J3 t. o
a> cj *-•
'-I > rf
03 £.3
CO ax]
£ 03 60
to:
Ol
'Es-S.aSs-c
1 ^M <^ b I
« o osw
SS a g gsr"^>ci a
<D ,2 ."ti^ o
o g ^3
M
g;z:.ag
§E1|
a 03 o!.= M
"^ to's'3'3
'-S'Saa
60 s « 8 w
o ™ o Qjoo
O ft3 ^1^^N g 03
,- -w cj 03 , a" a a ft a oO CJ OT P 0^
.-;as> O""
a»^|-2
66 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS iB. A. E. Bull. 143
3
.a
a
oO
^
s
CQ
C3
Plate 15.—Central American, Gniana, and Upper Xingii pliy.sical typea. All
males. Top, left: San Bias; top, right: Cuna; center, left: Tsuna; center, right:
Carib (mixed?); botto7n, left: Atorai; bottom, right: Wapishana. (Courtesy H.
Armstrong Roberts; United States National Museum; University Museum,
Philadelphia; the National Geographic Society; and, bottom, after American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 1, p. 441.)
Plate 16.—Indians of the Upper Xingu and the Chaco. All females. Top, left:
Naravute; top, right: Calapalo; center, left: Caduveo; center, right, bottom, left,
and bottom, right: Chamacoco. (Courtesy University Museum, Philadelphia;
after Lehmann-Nitsche, 1904, Nos. 23, 89, 74, 54.)
Plate 17.—Indians of the Guianas, Montana, upper Xingii, and northwest
Amazon. All males. Top, left: Taruma; top, right: Jlvaro; center, left: Cala-
palo; center, right, bottom, left, and bottom, right: Tuyuca. (After Farabee,
1918, p. 441; courtesy N. E. Anthony; courtesy the University Museum,
Philadelphia; and after Koch-Grunberg, 1906, pis. 29, 22.)
Plate 18.—Indians of tlie northwest Amazon and the Chaco. All males. Top
left: Desand; top, right: CatapolUani; center, left: Caua; center, right: Tucano;
bottom, left: Piratapuyo; bottom, right: Choroti. (After Koch-Griinberg, 190G,
pis. 62, 137, 115, 12, 57; and courtesy American Museum of Natural History.)
Plate 19.—Indians of the Mato Grosso and tlie Ecuadorean Montana. Top,
left: Bororo male; top, right: Bororo male; center, left: Napo River male; center,
right: Bororo male; bottom, left: Bororo female; bottom, right: Bororo female.'
(Courte.sy David M. Newell; courtesy the United States National Museum;
and center, right, after Lehmann-Nitsche, 1904, No. 34.)
Plate 20.—Andean and Chaco physical types. Top, left: Aymara (?) male;
top, right: Aymara (?) male; center, left: Caduveo male; center, right: Chiriguano
male; bottom, left: Araucanian male; bottom, right: Mataco female. (Courtesy
United States National Museum; courtesy the National Geographic Society;
after Lehmann-Nitsche, 1904, No. 10; after Outes and Bruch, 1910, figs. 62,
93; and courtesy American Museum of Natural History.)
Plate 21.—Patagonian and Fuegian phj'sical types. All males. Top, left:
Tehuelche; top, right: Tehuelche; center, left: Yahgan; center, right: Tchuelche (?);
bottom, left: Ona; bottom, right: Yahgan. (Courtesy Robert Lehmann-Nitsche
through the United States National Museum; courtesy the National Geographic
Society; after Outes and Bruch, 1910, fig. 109; after Lahille, 1926, pi. 4; and
courtesy American Museum of Natural History.)
Plate 22.—Patagonian and Fuegian physical types. All females. Top, left:
Tehueiche; top, right: Tehuelche; center, left: Tehuelche (mixed?); center, right:
Tehuelche (mixed?); bottom, left: Fuegian; bottom, right: Ona. (Courtesy the
National Geographic Society; courtesy the American Museum of Natural
History; and after Lahille, 1926, pi. 4.)
Vol. G] ANTHROrOMETRY—STEGGERDA 67
sW
o a> <D
a """
o.at; -MO
„ 03 4^ o ts .E2
t^^^'o'3
03 r
M-
M 3 53 °
,^-jS
"^
ft
a ? c
j3 M 013
^ fe-S CI
tt"^ - ^ t- ra rl
9 "^ £
•
<=> r
s.a-s"
asgg
S3^
•SO
:s a-d-a
• a O 031n
.£:J=i2
j.^ o
o to
3 og 03 g I-.
tn
. . g g „- w
a^i
.El 03
LgSa
;i3 o
o = d a
o 'S fe a
feaS«^o3 5i
G
.s 03 3 a -a
Ǥ w d-d fe
S ".S w ca _•
- h^d c3i-) a
1/
3-°--
OJ3 !r!
!>>d o;
roS:
S?=
S'S.Sao'o
M 03 —
jj'S-dcj.j;
;
^saati;
<v, ,
£ o 2
£ ?-di5
5 3 t- CO oj
"S a?-S-a
a£„s
w*^ 005 .„'^,3 t*^
R.dO'afe-2
^.j^ oov-g^eg
2
-4<S C " doo^ >:;
g P W
C"*
'-T* __, ™o^
^c
^§a. .Q .o j: • 3
C3 ci o m 3
J- t-. +j "^ JIl
I :- gaad a< 03 03 03
O ^ d dtj
>«i d
'^
I CO ^
t; q o 03
liO 1
68 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
3
a
'43
a
oO
s
a,
•^^
29
•a 9
a.2
6=ij
5 as
£ " <9 S
^ So
85
0^ fX •-< " ,o<
§g.bc:2=5^.g
C!-":=->d Q A<'<s„ ^
.
^^ S OJ3 <pS
y o) e " >> M ^
'^' 95% S 2 p oT
a
li.
<X3 G ca.a
O 1 U3 ,,-i<0
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—STEGGERDA 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, 1925; Bastos d'Avila, 1937, 1938 a; Bruch (see Outes and Bruch,
1910); Buschan, 1922; Chervin, 1907; Cooper, 1917 a; Deniker (see Hyades and
Deniker, 1882-83 [1891]); Dreising, 1883; Ehrenreich, 1897 a; Eickstedt, 1934;
Farabee, 1918 a, 1922, 1924; Feeney, 1941; Ferris, 1916, 1921; Garson, 1885;
GiUin, 1936, 1941; Grubb, 1927; Gusinde, 1931-37; Harris, 1926; Holden, 1938;
Hooton {in Lothrop, 1928); Hrdlicka, 1926; Hyades and Deniker, 1882-83
(1891); Jahn, 1926; Karsten, 1932; Koch-Grunberg, 1906 d, 1908 c, 1923; Krone,
1906; Kunike, 1911; Lahille, 1926; Latcham, 1904 b, 1909; Lehmann-Nitsche,
1904 e, 1904 f, 1908 a, 1908 b, 1916 c, 1916 d, 1916 e, 1927; Lopes, 1934; Lothrop,
1928; Markham, 1894-95; Mason, G., 1940; Maurel, 1873; Morong, 1892; Nord-
enskiold, 1905; Outes, 1909; Outes and Bruch, 1910; Pericot y Garcia, 1936;
Petrullo, 1939; Polo, 1901; Posnansky, 1918, 1937; Roquette-Pinto, 1938;
Rouma, 1913; Schultz, A. H., 1926; Serrano, 1930; Skottsberg, 1913; Steggerda,
1932; Taylor, 1938; Ten Kate, 1887, 1896 a; Vellard, 1934; Virchow, 1881.
Other references on anthropometry not cited in text. Aloja, 1939 a, 1939 b;
Bohr, 1881; De la Hitte and Ten Kate, 1897; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1916 b, 1916 c;
Martin, 1902 (?); Routil, 1939; De SemaUe, 1869; Ten Kate, 1894.
General references on living Indians: Giraldo Jaramillo, 1939; Giuffrida-
Ruggeri, 1912; Imbelloni, 1939 b; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1899b, 1904c, 1904 d, 1904 e;
Martin, 1928; Price, 1939; Stolyhwo, 1934 a; Williams, G. D., 1940.

ANTHROPOMETRY OF THE INDIANS OF BRAZIL
By Jose Bastos d'Avila
INTRODUCTION
The founding of the Museu Nacional in Brazil in 1818 marked the
beginning of the anthropological study of the Indians who inhabited
the jungle and forests of Brazil. In 1842, this study was further
advanced by the establishment in this museum of the Secgao de
Numismatica, Artes Liberals, Arqueologia, Usos e Costumes das
Nagoes Antigas e Modernas. The archives and publications of this
century-old institution comprise the first documents on the anthro-
pometry of the Brazilian Indian. Special attention should be called
to the remarkable studies made by Rodrigues Peixoto and J. B. de
Lacerda (1876) on skulls and other material recovered from kitchen-
middens (sambaquis) of the coast and from caves in the interior of the
country, and also to the work of Barbosa Rodrigues (1882), one of
the first to become interested in the living Indian. Later, travel notes
of foreign and Brazilian naturalists contributed to the considerable
body of knowledge on the anthropometry of the American Indian in
Brazil. Unfortunately, many of the Indian tribes, especially those
along the coast, were already extinct when the anthropometric
studies began.
A sm'vey of the material impresses us not so much by its meagerness
as by the lack of a fundamental criterion to serve as a basis for the
organization of data already collected and as a guide to collecting
further data. In short, we lack an adequate classification of the
South American Indians.
Praiseworthy attempts at classification have been advanced, such
as the one by Alcide d'Orbigny (1839), which, though at first
ignored, is now better understood in terms not only of its main
classification but of the premises upon which it is based. D'Orbigny
recognized three great racial groups in South America: (1) Andine-
Peruvian; (2) Pampean; (3) Brazilian-(7wam?u. His tlurd group, the
Brazilian-C^uarani, is the only one that includes Brazilian Indians,
and it embraces only one of Brazil's Indian groups, excluding many
others, which do not fit in with D'Orbigny 's classification.
Language has been the criterion for other classifications (this
volume, p. 157), but these classifications do not wholly coincide with
71
72 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
physical type. Similarly, the Indians have been classed on a regional
basis, as in volumes 1 to 4 of the Handbook. In the present treatment
of the antliropometry of BrazU, we use divisions which are regional,
linguistic, and tribal. The correspondence between environment,
culture, and physical type is by no means complete; but it does
suggest certain historical reconstructions.
The subsequent tabulations of anthropometric data are by linguistic
families and tribes. As these tribes have been described in detail in
previous volumes and as they are located on the tribal and linguistic
map in the present volume, only minimal information is herein given
on their culture and their native and present location ; cross-references
are made to the other volumes of the Handbook where the tribes are
treated in full.
The regions of Brazil.—If we glance at a map of Brazil, we shall see
that its vast territory falls into four regions according to elevation.
Two of the regions can be considered as lowland, with a maximum
altitude of about 60 feet (about 200 m.); two others as plateaus, with
altitudes from 30 to 150 feet (about 100 to 500 m.). The Amazon
and La Plata Basins in their Brazilian reaches, that is along the
Paraguay, Parana, and Uruguay Rivers, belong among the lowlands.
The Coast of Brazil to a minimum depth of 45 miles (15 leagues)
should also be included among the lowlands. This border, which in
the south communicates with the La Plata Basin, strikes deeper inland
toward the Equator and finally merges with the Amazon Basin.
Guiana and the Eastern Plateau of Brazil form the highlands, con-
nected by the Central massif, which separates the Amazon and Sao
Francisco Basins on one side and the Sao Francisco and La Plata
Basins on the other.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANTHROPOMETRIC TYPES
What peoples have inhabited these four regions of Brazil?
The Portuguese, on their arrival in Brazil, found the Tupi-Guarani
Indians on the coast. Later observations showed that the Tupi-
Guarani tribes, called by various names, occupied the whole of the
coastal strip, the Parana and Paraguay Basins, and extensive regions
in the Amazon Basin. In other words, they completely surrounded
the Central-Eastern Plateau, into which they were gradually pene-
trating. In the Brazilian Guiana two groups were found, the Carib
and the Arawak. Both had more or less well-populated nuclei on
the right margin of the Amazon River. The Central-Eastern Plateau,
a refuge area, was chiefly occupied by the Ge tribes which had per-
haps been driven from the richer lowlands by more advanced and
bellicose peoples.
When the subject is thus stated, it seems simple. It is difficult,
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—D'AVILA 73
however, if not impossible, to fit some of the tribes into this classifica-
tion without mentioning the prehistoric and extinct tribes, traces of
which are found in kitchen middens of the coast and in limestone
caves in the interior of Brazil.
The skulls found in the Idtchen middens of the southeastern part
of Brazil (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 401), to which Eickstedt ascribes an
even more remote antiquity than that of the Lagoa Santa Man
(Handbook, vol. 1, p. 399). are, according to the exhaustive studies
of J. B. de Lacerda (1885), characterized by dolichocephaly, low and
retreating brows, wide, coarsely molded faces, square jaws, and teeth
much worn by use. As Virchow noted (1872 a), these skulls should
not be confused with those found in later strata, for the latter are
definitely brachycephalic and probably belong to members of the
great Tupi-Guarani linguistic family.
The "Man of Lagoa Santa" (pi. 23), exhumed by Lund in the caves
of Rio das Velhas, resembles the "Man of the Sambaquis" but differs
from him mainly in a greater height of the skull, which when exam-
ined from the front has a typically pyramidal shape.
The Central- Eastern Plateau of Brazil.—The Ldcida, our name for
the "Alan of the Lagoa Santa," is thought to have been the first
inhabitant of Brazil and perhaps of South America. His fossilized
remains were exhumed from the limestone caves of Rio das Velhas
by Lund, and were studied by S0ren Hansen in Copenhagen and in
1938 by Hella Poch, who compared them with fossilized findings
from Fontezuelas (Argentina).
After the Lacida, other more warlike and perhaps more cultured
peoples may have come to Brazil dominating the first inhabitants,
partly annihilating them and partly mixing with them, but, in any
case, forcing them to take refuge in the regions of the Central-Eastern
Plateau.
The "Tapuya" of the northeast and numerous groups of Ge as well
as the southeastern Botocudo would thus be near relatives of the Lacida
but not their direct descendants. The same could be said of the
natives of the massif of Mato Grosso and of the banks of the Xingii
and Araguaya Rivers, and of the Bacairi, Nahukwa, Carajd, Cayapo,
Aueto, Suya, Bororo, and many other tribes, in whom characteristic
traces betray the primitive Lacida race.
The anthropometric data, appearing in table 1, refer to the skulls
of the Lagoa Santa man, including the only one sent directly by
Lund to the Instituto Historico e Geographico do Rio de Janeiro
(the first of the series). Although the most important measurements
have already been published (Lacerda and Rodrigues Peixoto, 1876),
we believe it pertinent to reproduce them here, with the addition of
others, because the skull in question appears to have been a woman's
74 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
and not a man's, as was first stated, and because comparisons may
be more easily made with the hitherto unpublished data given below.
The latter data refer to skulls belonging to the collection of the Museu
Nacional, of which those numbered 20937, 20938, 20939, and 20982
were exhumed by the naturalist Padberg Drenkpoll from the "Lapa
Mortuaria," later called "Confins"; those numbered 21238 and 21239
were taken from the "Lapa do Caetano" and given to Drenkpoll;
and those numbered 629 and 630 were taken from "Lapa de Car-
rancas" and brought by us to Kio de Janeiro.
Table 1.
—
Craniometric measurements and indices of Lagoa Santa skulls
Craniometric measure-
ments (mm.) and indices
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—D'AVILA 75
foreign countries. One, taken away by Prince Neuwied, appears in
Blumenbach's "Decadas Crainiorum" (1790-1828, fig. 58) and in
Morton's "Crania Americana" (1839, fig. 15). From the excellent
study made by Lacerda and Rodrigues Peixoto (1876), we take the
following anthropometric notes (table 2) referring to two Botocudo
skeletons, one male and one female.
Table 2.
—
Anthi-opometric measurements and indices of two Botocudo skeletons
Measurements (mm.) and indices Male Female
Skull:
Capacity (cc.)
Diam. anteroposterior max-
Diam. transverse max
Diam. vertical
Diam. frontal min
Diam. frontal max
Diam. bizygomatic
Horizontal perimeter
Face height
Nose height -_
Nose breadth
Length-breadth index
Length-height index
Nasal index
Pelvis:
Diam. bicristal
Diam. bi-iliac
Diam. sacro-pubic of the inlet
Diam. transverse of the inlet
Diam. oblique of the inlet
Diam. anteroposterior of the outlet
Diam. bi-ischiatic of the outlet
Diam. bi-oblique of the outlet
Long bones:
Length of femur
Length of radius
Length of ulna
Length of humerus
Length of clavicle
Angle of neck of femur with diaphysis.
1,515
18.6
13.8
14.6
8.8
11.2
14.4
34.5
13.0
5.5
2.5
73.0
78.4
45.4
26.0
21.0
10.2
12.2
11.2
9.5
39.0
21.0
2.3.0
28.0
14.2
130°
1,230
17.4
13.4
13.0
8.7
11.0
12.5
31.0
10.6
4.7
2.3
77.0
74.7
48.9
28.0
25.0
11.0
13.5
11.5
12.5
11.0
12.0
43.0
26.0
28.0
32.0
16.5
135°
The Nambicuara (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 361) were discovered by
General Ronddn in 1907 and described anthropometrically and eth-
nographically by Professor Roquette-Pinto in "Rondonia" (1935).
The anthropometric data from "Rondonia" transcribed in table 3
refer to male Nambicuara.
Table 3. Anthropometric data on 18 male Nambicuara (Jrom Roquette-Pinto, 1935)
Measurements (mm.) and indices Mean value
Stature (cm.)
Thoracic perimeter
Head:
Diam. anteroposterior..
Diam. transverse
Diam. frontal minimum
Diam. bizygomatic
Cephalic index
Nose:
Height
Breadth
Nasal index
Ears:
Length
Breadth
162.0
81.0
18.4
14.0
9.9
13.4
76.0
4.7
4.0
85.0
6.0
3.9
76 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
According to the data of table 3, the Nambicuara are of short
stature, dohchocephaHc and platyrrhine, and, as most of them have
generally very low foreheads, probably chamecephalic, thus approxi-
mating the Australoid type. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to
consider them related to the Ldcidas.
The Carajd (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 179) are pronouncedly dolicho-
cephalic, have high cheekbones and long forearms, and show con-
siderable differences between the sexes, notably the shorter legs of the
women. Paul Ehrenreich (1897 a) had the opportunity of examining
12 male and 9 female Carajd. We are indebted to him for the an-
thropometric notes cited in table 4.
Table 4.
—
Anthropometric measurements and indices of 21 Carajd
Measurements (mm.) and indices Male 12
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—D 'AVILA 77
Table 5.
—
Anthropometric data on five Cayap6 men, two Cayap6 women, and one
Sherente (from Ehrenreich, 1897 a)
Measurements (mm.) and indices
Male (6)
and female
(2)
Stature (cm.)
Thoracic perimeter.—
Head:
Diam. anteroposterior ma.x
Diam. transverse max
Auricular height
Horizontal perimeter
Length-breadth index
Length-height index
Nose:
Height of nose-
Breadth of nose
Nasal index
168.0
91.5
18.4
13.8
12.9
54.2
75.0
70.1
4.7
3.6
.0
The Bororo (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 419), the tallest Indians of the
intertropical zone, living in and wandering over the endless plateaus
of Mato Grosso and Goias, along the Araguaya River, and as far
south as the Parana River at its confluence with the Paraguay River,
and the Southern Cayapo, at the headwaters of the Araguaya River,
present great difficulties. Both tribes are brachycephalic ; the Bororo
speak an isolated language, the Cayapo belong to the Ge family.
Both differ from the dolichocephalic groups to which we have referred
and both doubtless represent a later migration, the Bororo having
kept their own language and the Cayapo having adopted that of the
Ge, with whom they came into contact. The anthropometric data
cited in tables 6 and 7 are from Ehrenreich.
Table 6.
—
Anthropometric data on 26 Bororo {from Ehrenreich, 1897 a)
Measurements (mm.) and indices Females (6)
Stature (cm.)
Thoracic perimeter
Head:
Diam. anteroposterior max..
Diam. transverse max.
Auricular height
Horizontal perimeter
Length-breadth index.
Length-height index
Face:
Morphological height of face
Bizygomatic diameter
Morphological face iudex
Nose:
Height of nose
Breadth of nose
Nasal index
160.5
82.4
18.3
14.2
12.1
53.7
77.4
66.2
10.6
13.3
79.6
4.4
3.6
78 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Table 7.
—
Anthropometric data on seven Cayap6~(/rom Ehrenreich, 1897 a)
Measurements (mm.) and indices
Stature (cm.)
Thoracic perimeter
Head:
Diam. anteroposterior max
Diam. transverse max
Auricular height
Horizontal perimeter
Length-breadth index
Length-height index
Nose:
Height
Breadth .-.
Nasal index
Females (2)
17.5
14.5
12.2
82.8
69.7
4.1
3.5
83.7
Brazilian Guiana.—The Arawak and Carib (Handbook, vols. 3 and
4, passim) shared the Guianas, a region covered by Tropical Forests
and cut by rivers having a plentiful supply of fish. Everything indi-
cates that the Arawak preceded the Carib there.
Karl von den Steinen believes there were two different Arawakan
linguistic groups: (1) The "Nu-Aruaques," which occupy a vast region
extending south to north from Bolivia through Mato Grosso and the
Amazon Basin to Venezuela; and (2) the "Aruaques proper." These
groups probably had a common origin and at the beginning of the 17th
centmy both lived on the Atlantic Coast, north of the mouth of the
Amazon River and in the Lesser Antilles. Only the first is of interest
to Brazil.
The Carib may have started from the southern bank of the Amazon
River, perhaps along the headwaters of the Madeira and Tapaj6z
Rivers, and passed downstream to Brazilian Guiana, driving out or
isolating the Arawak.
Arawak.—The Arawak are widespread in America. (See tribal map.)
According to data collected by Joao Braulino de Cavalho in 1938,
the northernmost in Brazil are the Wapishana and Aturai, who are
completely isolated in Carib territory. During the last century,
the Wapishana lived in the forests between the Essequibo River
and Rio Branco, between lat. 2° and 3° N. The Aturai originally
inhabited the territory between the headwaters of the Rapunini and
Cunduvini Rivers, tributaries of the Essequibo River. Aturai groups
are still extant in Brazil, distributed along the margins of the Rio
Tocutij, tributary of the Rio Branco.
The southernmost Arawak are the Guana on the left margin of the
Paraguay River near Cuyaba, the Paressi near the source of the
Tapaj6z River, and the Custenau, Mehinacu, and Waurd on the
upper Xingii River.
In the west the Paumari, Yamamadi, and Ipurina were studied by
Ehrenreich on his expedition along the Purus River. The Canamari
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—D 'AVILA 79
live on the headwaters of the Puriis River. On the banks of the Jurua
and Jatai Rivers are, respectively, the Maraua and Abaicu. It is,
however, on the left bank of the Amazon River, along the Negro,
Japura, and Igd Rivers, that the Arawak famUy is chiefly gathered,
especially the Baniwa, Tariana, Bare, and Mandos on the Rio Negro
and the Jacuna, Passe, Cauishana, etc., on the Japura and Iga Rivers
(see Handbook, vol. 3, maps 2 and 5, and this vol, tribal map).
Anthropometric data on the various groups of the large Arawak
family are meager; we summarize them in table 8.
Table 8.
—
Anthro
80 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Carib.—The Carib, like the Arawak, are chiefly concentrated in
Venezuela and the Giiianas. In Brazil, their southernmost groups
are the Palmela, on the right bank of the Guapore River; the Western
Bacalri, on the Paratininga River; the Eastern Baca'iri, in the Xingii
River region, all discovered by Von den Steinen during his 1884 and
1887 expeditions; the Nahukwa of the Culiseii River; and the now-
extinct Pimeintera at the headwaters of the Gurgeia River. Cuyab^
is as far south as any of these groups have reached.
In northern Brazil there are the Taulipdng, in the Roraima River
region; the Pianocoto, at the headwaters of the Trombetas and Ja-
mundd Rivers; the Jaricuna, along the upper Cuiuni River; the
Macushi, above the Rio Branco. All are scattered throughout the
region called Brazilian Guiana.
Anthropometric data on the Brazilian Carib are meager.
Table 9.
—
Anthropometric data on the Carib
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—D'AVILA 81
Table 10.
—
Anthropometric data on five Macushf-Wapishana females
Measurements (mm.) and indices Minimum Maximum Mean
Stature (cm.).
Weight (gr.)
Height of trunk
Anterior wall of trunk
Biacromial diameter
Bicristal diameter
Thoracic perimeter.
Abdominal perimeter
Length of superior extremity.
Length of arm
Length of forearm
Length of hand
Length of inferior extremity..
Length of upper leg...
Length of leg
Length of foot
Cephalic perimeter
Diam. anteroposterior max...
Diam. transverse max
Auricular cephalic height
Horizontal cephalic index
Vertical cephalic index..
Capacity of cranium (cc.)
Morphological face height...
Bizygomatic diameter
B igonial diameter.
Morphological face index
Nasal index
150.0
43, 000
70.5
42.5
29.0
27.0
78.0
80.0
61.5
26.5
19.0
13.0
84.0
44.0
31.6
21.5
51.0
16.0
14.0
10.0
77.7
62.5
1,000
9.3
10.0
8.5
95.0
70.0
152.5
58, 000
81.0
50.3
33.0
32.0
93.0
91.0
68.5
31.5
23.0
19.0
88.0
49.0
34.2
24.5
56.0
18.0
15.0
13.0
87.8
72.2
1,193
11.5
12.0
12.0
115.0
80.0
150.6
51,250
77.1
45.5
31.2
29.6
83.2
84.8
66.5
29.3
20.8
16.4
86.8
47.0
32.9
22.5
52.6
17.2
14.4
11.3
83.8
65.6
1,085
10.5
11.3
10.0
103.8
76.9
Tucanoans,—The Tucanoans are divided into tkree geographical
groups, eastern, western, and northern. We had the opportunity of
studying records, sent to the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro by
Dr. Braulino de Carvalho, of 10 males of the Tucano-Decana tribe
called Tuiuca among the Tucano. These belong to the eastern
Table 11.
—
Anthropometric data on 10 Tucano-Decana males
Measurements (mm.) and indices Minimum
82 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Tucanoan group. Koch-Griinberg (1905 d), who knew the Tucano at
first hand, recognized two different types among them, one slender and
the other stocky, the difference being so pronounced as to make one
think they do not have the same origin. He ascribed to the two
types a stature varying from 5 feet 2 inches to 5 feet 6 inches (157
to 167 cm.). Of the 10 records we have, only one individual falls
within these limits.
Upon examining the somatological data of the Tucano-Decanas, one
can see that they do not differ very much from those of the Tupi. In
both groups, the majority are brachycephalic, hypsicephalic, and
mesorrhine.
Tariana.—The Tariana, of the Arawak famUy, live on the margins
of the Caiari-Uaupes River, in its middle reaches, in a region which
juts into the territory of Tucano influence.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Tariana have come into
contact and crossed with the Tucano, as in the cases of the 10 males
between the ages of 11 and 19 and one adult whose records appear
below.
Table 12.
—
Anthropometric data on 10 Tucano-Tariana males
Measurements (mm.) and indices I
Plate^23.—Lagoa Santa skull (lateralis and frontalis). This is the skull pre-
sented to the Instituto Historico e Geografico do Rio de Janeiro by Lund.
(Courtesy Instituto Historico e Geografico do Rio de Janeiro.)

Vol. 61 ANTHROPOMETRY—D'AVILA 83
on these aborigines are extremely meager. When anthropometric
studies were begmi in the 19th century, the majority if not all of the
Indians of the coast were either extinct or had disappeared through
miscegenation.
This great family was not restricted to the Atlantic Coast. Some
believe that their focus of dispersion was in the region which borders
the Paraguay and Parand Rivers, from where they spread to the north,
completely surrounding the Central-Eastern Plateau of Brazil.
The more important Tupian tribes can readily be found on the
tribal and linguistic map (this volume; see also vol. 3). All of the
tribes on the coast of Brazil receive the general designation Twpi-
namha. They played a very important part in the history of Colonial
Brazil, and were to a certain extent absorbed into the population.
As tribes, they are completely extinct; so also are the Tape on the
coast of Uruguay.
Table 13.
—
Anthropometric data on the Tupf-GuaranI
Source Groups
84 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
distinguished from the "Sambaqui" type, found in the shell mounds
of the southeastern coast of Brazil, also dolichocephalic and platyrrhine,
by the height of the skull. The Lacida is definitely hypsicephalic
;
the "Sambaqui" is chamecephalic. They were, it would seem, con-
temporary. The craniometric analysis of the "Lagoa Santa" speci-
mens shows that they average two hypsicephalic to one chamecephalic.
Eickstedt classified both the Lacidas and the Sambaquls under the
designation "Homo lago-maritimus Americanus," although he be-
lieves the "Sambaqui" men may belong to a more remote period.
Later, though long before historical times, new elements came to
Brazilian territory, the Arawak, Carib, and Tupi-Guarani. We do not
possess exact data to determine the exact period in which they ap-
peared and came in contact with the first inhabitants, but along the
Atlantic Coast in the southern part of the country as far as the Doce
River, the skulls which have been found in more recent strata of kitch-
en-middens are all pronouncedly brachycephalic, precluding any mis-
taking them for skulls of the "Sambaqui" men. These later groups
were driven to the Central-Eastern Plateau of Brazil, and together
with the Lacidas they disappeared as distinct groups leaving only the
Ge or ^^Tapuya" as a result of crossing.
Other groups probably worked their way, in successive waves, into
the Brazilian "sertoes," an hypothesis which would explain the
extraordinary number of languages spoken in South America.
From the purely anthropometric point of view, the only incontesta-
ble classification that can be made of the present-day aborigines is
that which separates the dolichocephalic and platyrrhine or sub-
platyrrhine Ge, living on the Central-Eastern Plateau, from the
brachycephalic and leptorrhine or mesorrhine individuals of the coast,
the basins of the great rivers, and the Guianas.
Possibly, under the present regime of "Ajudancias," so wisely cre-
ated by the Servigo de Protecgao aos Indios, from which the Indians
receive medical and social help, interesting data may be collected
that will serve as a basis for a better and more detailed classification
of the remaining Indians of Brazil, before they are completely absorbed
into the mass of the Brazilian population.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbosa Rodrigues, 1882; Bastos d'Avila, 1938 a; Canestrini and Moschen,
1879; Carvalho, 1929, 1931; Ehrenreich, 1897 a; Eickstedt, 1934; Ihering, H. v.,
1904; Lacerda, 1879 (1881), 1885; Lacerda and Rodrigues Peixoto, 1876; Mattos,
1941; Morton, 1839; Moschen (see Canestrini and Moschen, 1879); Pinto (see
Roquette-Pinto) ; Poch, 1938; Rev, 1880; Rodrigues Peixoto, 1885 (also see
Lacerda and Rodrigues Peixoto, 1876); Roquette-Pinto, 1917, 1935; Steinen,
1940, 1942; Virchow, 1872 a, 1874 a. 1874 b (?), 1875.
See also the following: Bastos d'Avila, 1938 b; Rufz, Broca, and Martin de
Moussy, 1860.
THE PIGMENTATION AND HAIR OF SOUTH AMERICAN
INDIANS
By Morris Steggerda
In describing the skin, eyes, and hair of South American Indians,
one must, of necessity, quote from the writings of anthropologists who
are acquainted with the various Indian tribes. This short paper,
therefore, is chiefly a compilation of descriptions gathered from such
sources. I shall consider first the Indians Hving in the western part of
South America, beginning in the north and continuing south along the
Andes to the tip of the continent, and then describe those in the north-
central and central parts of South America. It is to be regretted that
the descriptions are largely subjective. Very rarely have the anthro-
pologists used any of the more objective color scales which might have
proved useful in describing the skin, eye, and hair color. However,
the terms used are at least descriptive, and as such are reviewed.
SKIN COLOR
Buschan (1922) makes the general statement that the skin color of
South American Indians is lighter than that of the Indians of North
America. He describes the skin color of South American Indians as
being hght yellowish gray, or the color of clay or of tanned leather,
and says that this is especially true of the tribes living in the dense
forest regions. The Indians of the Orinoco, for instance, have a very
light skin color, almost white; while other Indians, whose habitat is
mostly in the sun, are of a coppery or even purple-brown color. As a
result of crossings with Whites and Negroes, which have taken place
over a period of time, all variations of skin color can be noted in South
America, from the very dark tribes to those which are very light-
colored.
Describing the Indians of the present country of Panama, HrdU6ka
(1926) speaks of the Cuna as having a medium-brown skin. He notes
the frequent occurrence of albinism among these Indians, a condition
which is present among other tribes of this area as weU; for example,
the San Bias Indians, who according to Harris (1926) range from "a
normal red to white."
The Cayapd Indians, a Chihchan tribe living in the present country
85
86 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
of Ecuador, are described by Barrett (1925) as being "reddish brown."
Their neighbors, the Tuneho, are said to have an ohve-colored skin
(Rochereau, 1924); whereas the Puinave, another group Hving in this
area, are of dark skin color, according to Pericot y Garcia (1936), who
describes the Tucano as having a brown skin.
The Colorado, also Chibchan, have a reddish skin color. This is to
some extent accentuated by their custom of painting their faces and
bodies a bright red with a color obtained by grinding the seeds of the
achiote plant. Hagen (1939) states that these Indians have generally
a lighter skin color than other tribes of the upper Amazon region.
The tribes living in the present country of Peril are dark brown, ac-
cording to Eberhardt's (1910) observations. The Aymara, hving in
the Andean Highlands of Peru, have been studied by McMillin (1927)
who speaks of them as having a "swarthy brown to copperj" skin, or
even a "dark olive" color, some being lighter with a yellowish hue.
Ferris (1921) mentions that there are light as well as dark-brown
individuals among this tribe, according to the degree of mixture with
other races. Pericot y Garcia (1936), on the other hand, calls their
coloring olive gray, and adds that they are lighter than the neighboring
Quechua.
The Araucanians, living farther to the south, are described as light
to olive brown by Pericot y Garcia (1936), reddish brown by Latcham
(1904 b), and light browTi to yellowish by Ten Kate (1904).
The Tehuelche of iVrgentina are said by Ten Kate (1904) to be light
brown or yellowish brown. Of the Guato of the upper Paraguay
River, Markham (1894) says the sldn color is very light.
On the extreme southern tip of South America are the Ona, Yahgan,
and Alacaluf. Lehmann-Nitsche (1927) records the sldn color of
the Ona as very light yellow to brown, whereas Garson (1885) says
that they are reddish brown, the shade of mahogany or bronze.
Gusinde (1937), an authority on the Fuegian Indians, describes the
Yahgan as yellowish brown; and the same term is used by Hyades
and Denikcr (1891), who add that they may also be reddish, and that
the females are of lighter color than the males. The Alacaluf are
classed by Skottsberg (1913) as being of the same color as the Yahgan,
while Pericot y Garcia (1936) caUs them merely "brown."
Turning to the Indians of the northern and central regions of
South America, we shall first consider the Carib linguistic family, to
which the Taulipdng belong. According to Pericot y Garcia (1936),
they have a delicate brown sldn color; Koch-Griinberg (1923) describes
the skm of the pure-blooded Taulipdng as "velvety, soft, and light
brown." The Makiritari, also a Carib tribe, are said to be "almost
white."
In describing the Central Carib, Farabee (1924) discerns two main
Vol.6] PIGMENTATION AND HAIR—STEGGERDA 87
groups: one of the savannah and one of the forest. The savannah
tribes are of darker skin color than the forest tribes, who live in the
dense and shady jungles. Hawtayne (1886) found two types of Carib
in the Island of St. Vincent: the yellow or red, and the so-called
"Black Caribs," who are a hybrid race, a cross between yellow Carib
and Negroes. Gillin (1936), in speaking of the Barama River Carib,
mentions among their characteristics a light to red-brown skin color.
The Yaruro in Venezuela are Mongoloid in appearance, and have
a very dark skin color (Petrullo, 1939).
Writing of the Arawak, Pericot y Garcia (1936) points out that they
have a lighter skin color than the Carib. Ferris (1921), in describing
the Machiguenga, an Arawakan tribe of eastern Perd, states that
about 30 percent of them are of light skin color, 3 percent dark,
and the remaining 67 percent medium brown. Another Arawakan
tribe, the Paressi, have been studied by Roquette-Pinto (1938) who
says that they are copper-yellow, of a darker shade in the Cozarini
and lighter in the Uaimare regions. The Passe, also Arawak, are
described by Markham (1895) as nearly white, resembling Caucasians.
The same author also speaks of the Puru-Puru {Arawak) as having
among them a number of individuals who show white and brown
patches of irregular size and shape on the skin. This, however, is
a pathological condition. He also considers the Tacuna, and calls
them darker than most Indians located on the Maran6n River. The
Tariana have a glossy brown skin color; the Pawumwa or Chapacura,
living along the Guapore River, range from a dark, coppery color
to a very light brown (Haseman, 1912).
The Yamamadi, Ipurina, and Botocudo live in the dense forest
regions of Brazil, and here again we find a yellowish-gray skin color
(Ehi-enreich, 1897); according to Manizer (1919), the Botocudo are
light brown. The Anambe, a Tupi group living on the lower Tocan-
tins River, show an almost white skin color. The Chiriguano, another
Tupi tribe, are yellowish-brown (Ten Kate, 1904). The Siriono of
eastern Bolivia are often very light; in fact, Wegner (1934 a) makes
the statement that there are some white Siriono.
The skin of the Bororo and Carajd, as described in Elirenreich's
(1897) observations, is reddish in color, the Bororo being darker than is
usual among the Tupi. The Caingang were found to be both light
and dark, depending upon the region in which they lived (Pericot y
Garcia, 1936).
The Nambicuara are described by Roquette-Pinto (1938) as having
a skin color of burned-yellow, which is darker in the Cocuzu subtribe,
and in the Tagnani tends to show shades of pink. Markham (1895)
states that the Indians of the entire Amazon Valley have skins of
S8 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
various coppery or brown shades, which often appear to have the
color of smooth Honduras mahogany.
EYE COLOR AND FORM
The majority of the authors quoted in the section on sldn color have
also reported an eye color, and in many cases on the shape of the eye
and form of the eyelid. Their remarks are, in the main, very uniform.
The most typical descriptions of eye color are "dark brown," "black,"
and "dark brown to black"; and the terms most frequently used to
describe shape are "Mongoloid eyes," "eye slits oblique," and "small
eyes." Therefore, in this section, mention will be made only of those
descriptions that deviate from the general usages.
One of the tribes of which something unusual has been said is the
Chipaya, of highland Bolivia, among whom, according to Posnansky
(1918), the Mongolian eyefold is unknown.
Harris (1926), in describing the eyes of the San Bias Indians, says
that in the "brown Indians" the iris is medium to dark brown, while
in the partial albinos it varies from hazel (blue with brown spots) to
dark blue and dark violet.
Describing the eyes of the Aymara, Ferris (1916) states that the
areola of the u'is is medium maroon, and the periphery greenish-
yeUow. Pericot y Garcia (1936) differs from this slightly, saying that
the iris is dark brown and the cornea yellowish. Chervin (1913) has
observed that the Aymara have lighter eyes than the Qvechua, whose
eye color has incorrectly been called "black," whereas it is really of
various shades of chestnut.
Among the Tehuelche described by Ten Kate (1904), only one had a
Mongolian eyefold, and all had eyes of a light-brown color. In
speaking of the eyes of newborn Yahgan, Hyades and Deniker (1891)
say that the iris is black, and becomes light brown after a few days,
then tm-ning to dark gray with a bluish shade after 2 weeks. After
the tenth month the eyes are dark brown in all children, Gusinde
(1931) states that the eyes of the adult Yahgan are either hght hazel
or various shades of brown to deep black.
Gusinde, who has studied the Alacaluf, observed that the ej^es of
these Indians range from light hazel to deep black. Skottsberg
(1913) remarks that their eyes are dark blue in children and be-
come deep brown in adulthood. Both Gusinde (1931) and Pericot
y Garcia (1936) point out that the Alacalufs eyes are Mongoloid in
appearance.
Concerning the Nahucua and Bororo Indians of Brazil, Ehrenreich
(1897) says that the nis showed a blue color in a few of the individuals
observed, while the majority had different shades of brown. The
Botocudo have eyes of a medium hght color, according to Manizer
(1919).
Vol.6] PIGMENTATION AND HAIR—STEGGERDA 89
HAIR COLOR AND FORM
In describing the hair of Indians in both North and South America,
anthropologists very frequently use the general adjectives: "coarse,"
"black," and "straight." Many tribes, however, do differ from this
description; and those comments of anthropologists that deviate
significantly are recorded below.
According to Harris (1926), who has m^ade a thorough study of the
brown and white Indians of San Bias, the hair is black in brown
Indians, and from flaxen to straw-colored in the white Indians.
Commenting on the hair of the Aymara and Quechua, Ferris (1921)
states that it is generally black, straight, and abundant, but that the
hair on the face is scant in both mixed and pure Quechua. There is
very little grayness among these Indians, he says. Similar remarks
have been made by Pericot y Garcia (1936) and Forbes (1870).
The Araucanians, who also have dark and straight hair, have no
body hair (Latcham, 1904 b); but Ten Kate (1904) has seen some
individuals among them with a slight beard or moustache. The
same author made identical observations on the hair of the Tehuelche:
that it is abundant, straight, and black, and that here also some
individuals have a slight moustache.
The Yahgan have the same general characteristics, and Hyades
and Deniker (1891) emphasize the Mongoloid appearance of these
Indians. Gusinde (1937) also mentions the scant body hair, which
he says is typical of all Fuegians. Skottsberg (1913) describes the
hair of the Alacaluf as brown, in contrast to the uniformly black hair
of the Fuegians.
Ferris (1921), an authority of the Arawak, reports that the hair
of the Machiguenga tribe is long, thick, dull, black, and fine. The
scalp hair is straight in all males, but he found one female individual
who had slightly wavy hair. He found that beards were entirely
absent in 38.8 percent of the males, sparse in 18.8 percent, and present
to a small extent in 42.4 percent. Similar observations have been
made upon the Machiguenga by Farabee (1922), and he adds that
face hair is pulled out by the men, whenever it appears.
The hair of the Caingua is both wavy and straight, as reported by
Pericot y Garcia (1936). That of the Cayua, of the Tupi linguistic
family, as described by Koenigswald (1908 a), is always straight,
black, and thick, and is worn long. Baldness and grayness of hair
is unknown even in the oldest individuals of this tribe, according to
the same author.
Id the Guayaki, the hair varies from brown to shiny black (VeUard,
1934). Serrano (1930) has made an interesting observation on the
Mataco and Choroti; the hair of adults is black, while in the children
it is reddish. Karsten (1932) describes the hair of these adults merely
as long, black, and coarse.
90 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Roquette-Pinto (1938) comments on the hard, straight hair of the
Namhicuara, but mentions that he has seen a few of these Indians
with wavy hair.
The Puinave, an independent group in Colombia, is worthy of
special comment; Pericot y Garcia (1936) quotes a remark taken from
Tastevin, in which the hair color of these Indians is described as
chestnut brown to almost blond. Pericot y Garcia (1936), however,
states that their hair is black and straight; and he also mentions that
the men have scarcely any beard, except occasionally on the upper lip.
The Tucano have short, black, and often frizzly hair, according to
Pericot y Garcia (1936).
The most usual description of the Indians of the Mato Grosso, the
Puriis River region, and the Xingii district of Brazil, indicated that
their hair is coarse, black, and straight; but this is apparently not
true of all these tribes. Only among the Bororo and Carajd is
this type of hair predominant. According to Ehrenreich (1897), other
groups show individuals with thick, wavy, and fine hair; there are
frequently people with curly hair, mostly among the Baca'iri. The
Baca'iri hair color, though apparently black, shows a brown hue in
strong sunlight, and the children always have this shade of hair.
Old people have gray hair, but white hair has not been observed by
this author.
Wavy and frizzly hair has also been seen among certain individuals
of the Arawak tribes; according to Pericot y Garcia (1936), the inci-
dence of wavy and frizzly hair is rather great. Among the Indians
whose hair sometimes diverges from the norm are also the Botocudo.
There is a frequency of reddish-brown hair in this tribe (Manizer,
1919).
Stegelmann (1903) also discovered a tribe of peculiar appearance
living on the upper Envira River in Brazil. Their hair was Hght red,
similar to that found in certain Jewish types. Their skin was red
also. The other Indian tribes called them ^'Coto,'" which means
"howling monkey," because of the similarity of their color to that of
this particular monkey.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, 1925; Buschan, 1922; Chervin, 1913; Eberhardt, 1910; Ehrenreich, 1897;
Farabee, 1922, 1924; Ferris, 1916, 1921; Forbes, 1870; Garson, 1885; Gillin, 1936;
Gusinde, 1931-37; Hagen, 1939; Harris, 1926; Hasenaan, 1912; Hawtayne, 1886;
Hrdlicka, 1926; Hyades and Deniker, 1891; Karsten, 1932; Koch-Griinberg,
1923; Koenigswald, 1908 a; Latcham, 1904 b; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1927; Manizer,
1919; Markham, 1894-95; McMillin, 1927; Pericot y Garcia, 1936; PetruUo,
1939; Posnansky, 1918; Rochereau, 1924; Roquette-Pinto, 1938; Serrano, 1930;
Skottsberg, 1913; Stegelmann, 1903; Ten Kate, 1904; Vellard, 1934; Wegner,
1934 a.
See also the following: Aichel, 1932 b; Henckel, 1934; Trotter, 1943.
BLOOD GROUPS OF SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
By William C. Boyd
The hereditary blood groups (O, A, B, AB) represent a set of physi-
cal characteristics determined by three allelomorphic genes {0, A, B).
The study of blood groups is of value to physical anthropology because
they are genetically determined by a known mechanism, absolutely
objective in character, completely unaffected by environment, not
subject to mutation at any rapid rate (Wyman and Boyd, 1935; Hal-
dane, 1940), and nonadaptive as far as extensive investigation indi-
cates. These merits should render blood gro ups a most useful criterion
in elucidating the classification of mankind and human evolution.
The genes determining the four blood groups vary in frequency in
different human populations, with B highest in Asia, and A highest in
Spain, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, and North American
Indians. Maps showing these distributions will be found in Boyd
(1939 b) and Haldane (1940).
The more recently discovered M, MN, and N types (Landsteiner
and Levine, 1927) are determined by two allelomorphic genes without
dominance. These types are independent of the O, A, B, AB blood
groups. World distribution of the M, N types has not been as exten-
sively studied as that of the O, A, B, AB groups, but the existing evi-
dence suggests that their frequency is mainly more uniform. N type
is highest in Australian aborigines; M type is highest in American
Indians (Boyd, 1939 b; Birdsell and Boyd, 1940).
The study of the blood groups as a physical anthropological charac-
teristic goes back to the pioneer studies the Hirszfelds (1919) made
during World War I. The inevitable extension of such studies to
American aborigines was made in 1923 by Coca and Deibert (1923),
who reported results on Indians of the Haskell Institute, Lawrence,
Kansas, U. S. A. Although these and later authors found fair amounts
of group A, the fact that A was much lower than in peoples of Euro-
pean stock, and that in some Indian groups nothing but group O was
found, led to the suggestion that originally American Indians possessed
only group O, and that the A and B found were due to admixture of
White blood. This idea received a serious set-back when the reports
of Rahm (1931 c) and Matson and Schrader (1933), dealing with
Yahgan in Tierra del Fuego, and Blackfoot and Blood in Montana,
91
92 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
respectively, were published. Mathematical analysis (Wyman and
Boyd, 1935; Boyd, 1939 a) shows that in fact a majority of the results
on Indians cannot be explained on this hypothesis.
Boyd (1940) has suggested that the present distribution of blood
groups in American aborigines is due to (a) several successive migra-
tions of small numbers of persons, the various migrations representing
somewhat different stocks; (6) the effects of isolation (Wright, S.,
1931 a, 1931 b) of such immigrants in America, which led occasionally
to the loss of one or more genes. Such a suggestion would account
for the uneven character of the blood-group distribution in South
America, where it seems evident that many tribes possessed only
group O, others had O and A, one or two perhaps had some B, and
some perhaps possessed both A and B.
The available results on blood groups in South American Indians
are presented in table 1, and those on the M, N frequencies in table
2. For discussion of statistical evaluation of the relative reliability
of various results, see Boyd (1939 a, 1939 b), Haldane (1940). The
results are arranged by countries, except that Tierra del Fuego is
listed separately.
The O, A, B, and AB percentages suggest the uneven distribution
already mentioned. A number of tribes seem to have originally
possessed only group O. Such were probably the Chunupi, Maiaco,
Tola, Guarani, and Macd, perhaps m^ost of the Indians of Ecuador,
and the Indians at Naranjal m Colombia. The Carajd {Golden, 1930)
may have possessed considerable B, although the exact percentage is
hard to estimate from the tests reported, since such small numbers are
involved. In answer to the doubt often raised as to the reliability
of Golden's results, it may be pointed out that he used the same sera
to test peoples of European stock and achieved the expected results.
Nevertheless, it is now the only tribe in which any significant amount
of B seems at all credible, judging by the results available. A
reexamination of the Yahgan indicates that the non-0 groups are
due to racial admixture. Prof. A. Lipschutz found that of 20
pure-blood Yahgans, all were group O. Some non-0, although not a
high percentage, was found in 20 Yahgans known to be mixed. A
similar check upon the Carajd would be highly desirable, but for the
meantime it seems best to provisionally accept the original report.
It is not too easy to say which South American tribes certainly
possessed group A before Wliite contact, but we may speculate that
the Colla and Pilagd are among them.



iaiiiMSir
ti
sc
1{
tc
fo
A
gr
so
ar
2.
of
rei
lis
al]
po
Tc
an
VHi
ha
m\
of
to
Ne
of
ree
du<
pu]
hig
sim
me
I
pes
the
ii' \;
')
-h
Vol. 61 BLOOD GROUPS—BOYD 93
OS 00 CO
oS
Tt^or-owoosco
^or^oooosooiOSO0iO0i00C»O> cO':o*OcD *f05'—1 CO "^t>-Oi Oi03 0> Oi <Ji Oi 0> 00 O)
OOOOO OO
»o b*CO I
»-l O i-H ^ CO OO Oi
-^ P4
CO cq oooi—t r-
kO (N .-• Oi a> o i-fCOiOTji CO O O '<*< c^ oMCOC^IN to .-H '^ CO o c^OOOO OOO O rH O
; CO (NjOO '00(N00 O OOOO OO^ O »-i o
SOOOOO-^OO O O f-(
W C* CO
vOO-^OCOiOt>^iH o ^*
rH UO OS CD
OC^OO CO
gj i-( CO COOOCOIO b*
^ 05 O lO O CDOO (N CO O TjS
K. 00 O 0> O CT> l>- 00 OS O Oi
t^OSOai-H CD W Tt* COi-H
Ci C-i ^c6 O?00tJ* CO OiO
oi OS oi d 00 OS 00 00 r^ OS
2?t--»0(Moo»m^cD"^ o OS 1-1
•O Tt« iO 00 t^ CO <M -"ti OS CS O CDgw N 1-HM 1-t fH C^
CO i-H CO »0 lO O '•^ f-H -^ T^
oiocjr^ <NiOoo o OTti
COCOi-Hi-H 1-t o c^ CSl
,
_,
,
03 > c3
CO 1-4 ^
O Mb
<Q
•S 5
2°
rt a 3
III! U.
&Hc»iJW CL,«
O o o
o S^ s s U t> u -ageeoeata.^
a.S
•a «»
, o S o ^~
.Q S S 3 s
;S seScQ
a, o CQ
94 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
3
.9
oO
e
8
e
6Q
S.
«D O »0 iO t*
O OO t^ CO o
t^ 00 t>» ^ r^ OS
03 03 0^03
Tt* CD t^ OS -^ 1-Hoooooooooooo
^ ID
•* 00oo
<) a
00 t^
Oo
r^ ^H r^ -^ CO o
r-( i-H r-H (N (M OOOOOOO
CO ooco
uc4 'o
CO »0 l-H f-H
"o 'o
coo
ooeo>o
w-^ o o
00 (N "<** t^ 00 c^
oo I-^CO
ScO'*
JJ lOCOO
»}^ CS -^ l> ^ 00
CO <n" CO *' -^ -! cd0'*''0
g to CO
o t-^cd O
w 00 O O
lO F-*cD
lo <r> ^ cc'* 00
C3 03 O) O 03 o>
; io -^ cs -^j^ CO -^ •-< rf 05
r^ rH ^ o tN r^-O --I »-H o t^ 00
i^p
Jx! C3"l
X! -a 2 CI .5
oo^ SpihOhoZ;
o o
o »ooo
t^ «-i cc c^
03 4jrH.Oi E^
S61
a o
C: : r
go
II
''3
3 ^^"^
a II «
sa
3 5
a a
0)
£- 2
So
'i
Vol. 6] BLOOD GROUPS—BOYD 95
Table 2.
—
Classification of South American Indians by blood groups: M and N
groups
Tribe

THE BASAL METABOLIC RATES OF
SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS
By Elsie A. Wilson
Of the many studies of basal metabolism that have been made in
South America, only two deal with pure-blooded American Indians.
Pretto (1938) in Peru and Albagli (1939) in Brazil made metabolism
measurements on individuals of mixed White and Indian blood, but
apparently, judging from the accessible literature, Hurtado and
Pi-Suner are the only investigators who have studied Indians of pure
race in South America.
The observations of A. Hurtado (1927, 1928, 1929) in Peru afford
information regarding the basal metabolism of Indians of pure race,
living not only at sea level but at high altitudes and in subtropical
and tropical climates. Some of these Indians came from different
mountainous regions but had lived for from 2 weeks to 4 years in the
subtropical climate of Lima and were studied there. Others were
natives of the mountainous regions of Arequipa, Santa Lucia, and
Oroya, and were adapted to life at high altitudes. A few had resided
only a short time in Oroya and were not adapted to the altitude.
StiU others were natives of Piura, a tropical region in northern Peril.
In Oroya the observations were made by Hurtado 's colleague, Dr.
Enrique Rond6n. Among the 116 Indian men studied, 90 were
soldiers in active service and, if living in the mountains, were adapted
to conditions there. Seventy percent of these men had basal meta-
bolic rates within ±10 percent and 90 percent of them rates Avithin
±15 percent of the normal standards established for White men in
North America by Harris and Benedict (1919) and by Aub and Du
Bois (1917). The average deviation of the basal metabolism from
the Harris-Benedict standard was +4 percent in Lima, —3 percent
in Arequipa, ±0 percent in Santa Lucia, and +1 percent in Piura.
The average deviation for all 90 men was only —1 percent. Eight
Indian men in Piura who led a sedentary life had metabolic rates
averaging ±0 percent (—7 percent, Aub and DuBois, 1917). Seven
Indian women in Lima showed an average deviation of — 1 percent
and three Indian women in Santa Lucia, +7 percent (±0 percent,
Aub and Du Bois, 1917).
Hurtado concludes that, although their racial and anthropometric
characteristics are distinct from those of other races and although
their habits of life are different, these Peruvian Indians have basal
metabolic rates within normal limits of the standards established for
North American Whites and show no divergence from the standards
97
98 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
that can be attributed to racial characteristics or diet. This con-
clusion applies not only to Indians living at sea level but also at
higher altitudes (if adapted to life at high altitude) and in the Tropics,
and it is equally true of those leading a physically active life and
those leading a sedentary life. White men Hving in Lima, Santa
Lucia, and Oroya were also found to have metabolic rates close to
the normal standards, which further supports Hurtado's claim that
the metabolic level of the Peruvian Indian is similar to that of the
White race.
The data of Kond6n (Hurtado, 1927-29) on 18 Indians in Oroya
show that those who had resided there for many years and were com-
pletely adapted to the mountains had metabolic rates within normal
limits, but that those who had come to Oroya from lower regions and
were not adapted had rates averaging 16 percent below the standards.
This decrease in the metabolism of the latter subjects, Hurtado
believes, represents a compensatory phenomenon, which confirms his
theory that in individuals not adapted to high altitudes the organic
activity is reduced to enable the body to support better the energy
requirements in physical activity.
Pi-Suner (1933 a, 1933 b, 1933 c, 1933 d) studied the basal metabo-
lism of the Araucanian Majpuche (31 men and 14 women) of southern
Chile at the Franciscan missions of Puerto Saavedra and Puerto
Dominguez. This tribe, according to Pi-Suner, has had little inter-
mixture in the province in which the work was done. From measure-
ments of the sitting height and calculation of the pelidisi therefrom,
Pi-Suner concludes that the nutritional state of these Mapuche was
practically normal. The men had metabolic rates averaging 9.8 and
9.3 percent and the women strikingly high rates averaging 14.8 and
14.4 percent above the Harris and Benedict and Aub and Du Bois
standards, respectively. Associated with the high metabolic rates
were pulse rates that were slower than the normal for the White race.
This dissociation between pulse rate and metabolism was shown to a
more marked degree by the men than by the women. Hurtado also
noted low pulse rates with some of his Indian subjects but found that
the rate was higher in those living in the mountains.
The pertinent data obtained on these two groups of South American
Indians are summarized in tables 1 to 3 and, for comparative purposes,
the data are also included that have been reported for Maya Indians
of Yucatan and Guatemala in Central America, Chippewa Indians of
Canada, and United States Indians in Arizona and South Dakota.
That only nine investigations have thus far been made on the basal
metabolism of pure-blood American Indians and that only two of
these concern the South American Indian emphasizes the need for
further studies of this nature.
Vol. 6]
c
100 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
Table 2.
—
Age, height, weight, and body temperature of the American Indians
studied '
Sex and group
Vol. 6] BASAL METABOLIC RATES—WILSON 101
Table 3.
—
Blood pressure, respiration and pulse rates, and basal metabolic rates of
American Indians—Continued.
Sex and group
Number
of sub-
jects
Blood pressure
'
Min. Max. Avg.
Males:
Maya (Yucat&n)
2d expedition-..
Maya Qukhi
Totonicipdn
—
Pacific slope
Chippewa
Females:
Chippewa.
Navaho (sex?)
90/60
98/65
95/68
102/75
114/70
118/90
128/90
114/79
134/85
145/86
100/75
111/77
104/73
120/80
124/76
112/72
' Harris-Benedict standard in all cases except Chippewa and Maya Quichi Indians, where the Mayo
standard was used. The average deviation from Harris-Benedict standard is calculated to be -1-19.5 and
-f 20.1 percent for male and female Chippewas, respectively, and -1-10.3 and 4-9.5 percent for Maya Quichi
soldiers and laborers, respectively.
» Adapted to high altitudes. "Natives and residents."
• Not adapted to high altitudes.
• Omitting maximum of -|-44 percent.
« Omitting maximum of +64 percent.
• Standard used not stated.
' Systolic and diastolic, respectively, expressed in mm.
Examination of table 1 shows that the diverse factors of altitude,
season of the year, climate, nature of the diet, and respiratory tech-
niques employed all add to the complexity of any attempted compar-
ison of the metabolic rates of these several Indian groups. According
to table 2, the ranges and the averages in the ages, the heights, and
the body weights of the several groups are, for the most part, much
the same, although the male Mapuche and the male Chippewa were
taller, the male Mapuche heavier, and the Maya Quiche laborers
lighter in weight than were the other males. The mouth tempera-
tures, insofar as such data have been recorded, were normal for basal
conditions and comparable among the different groups. The respira-
tion rates (table 3) of the Peruvian Indians and the Maya of Yucatdn
were, on the whole, within normal limits, although in some instances
rates as low as 5 to 9 respirations per minute were noted.
The most striking features shown by the detailed data in the original
publications, the ranges and the averages of which are summarized
in table 3, are the relatively high metabolic rates of all the groups
except the Peruvian, Navaho, and South Dakota Indians, the low
pulse rates that were characteristic of many of the subjects, and the
high blood pressures recorded in a few instances. These comparisons
emphasize the need of further accumulation of data on pulse rate and
blood pressure in any future studies of basal metabolism if explana-
tions are to be obtained for the dissociation noted between pulse rate
and metabolism and for the suggested correlation between high blood
pressure and high metabolism. These comparisons raise the ques-
tion as to why the Peruvian, Navaho, and South Dakota Indians have
metabolic rates similar to the standards for North American Whites,
102 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
whereas the Mapuche and the other Indians have higher rates. These
higher rates are shown consistently by the majority of the subjects
in these groups. Are the differences in the metabolic levels to be
accounted for by inherent differences in the racial characteristics of
these several groups of American Indians or are they to be explained
by differences in external environmental factors, in experimental
techniques, physical activity, character of diet, and the like?
The differences in the experimental techniques (see table 1) used
in these studies can hardly be offered as an explanation of the differ-
ences noted in the metabolic rates, for both the Peruvian Indians and
the Mapuche were studied with the same type of respiration apparatus,
and yet the former show normal metabolic rates and the latter high
rates. Furthermore, any inherent error in the experimental techniques
would be too small to account for the difference in metabolic rates of,
for example, +18 percent noted with male Chippewa Indians and —3
to +4 percent noted with the Peruvian soldiers.
All the subjects were apparently healthy and weU nourished.
Measurements were made of the sitting heights of the male Mapuche
and the Maya of Yucatan, and from these measurements and the
body weights the pelidisi (the Pirquet index of the state of nutrition)
was calculated and found to be witliin normal limits. Possibility of
a febrile condition due to malaria or some other tropical disease was
ruled out in the Maya of Yucatdn, for the mouth temperatures taken
just prior to the metabolism measurements were somewhat below the
accepted normal average of 98.6° F. The high metabolic rates noted
with the Maya Quiche Indians of Guatemala might, however, be due
to a functional abnormality. Crile and Quiring (1939 b) point out
that there is a high incidence of diffuse endemic goiter throughout
the region occupied by these Indians, that all the Indians except two
studied by them were examined for goiter, and only in one was no
evidence of goiter found. Certainly in any further research made to
establish the metabolic rates characteristic of South American Indians
and individuals of other races in other localities, each individual
should undergo a thorough physical examination, to insure that only
functionally normal subjects are used.
Climate, with particular reference to differences in prevailing
outdoor temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity (the Chip-
pewa were studied outdoors) during the various seasons of the year
when metabolism studies are made, is also a factor that cannot
readily be eliminated in the comparison of these different Indian groups.
Some investigators claim that the basal metabolism is lower in warm
than in temperate climates, but others believe that the basal metab-
olism is independent of climate. The care with which Albagli has
recorded cHmatological data in connection with the basal metabolism
Vol.6] BASAL METABOLIC RATES—WILSON 103
measurements he made in Rio de Janeiro, BrazU, could well be
emulated by all investigators as a step toward resolving the role played
by climate in the metabolism of different human races. Riddle
(Steggerda and Benedict, 1932, p. 281) has suggested that the high
metabolism of the Maya of Yucatdn may reflect a temporary adjust-
ment of the thyroid to offset the eft'ects of extremely cool nights, for
the Maya sleep inadequately protected by clothing against these
cool nights. Climatological records show that the minimum tempera-
tm-es in Chichen Itzd, when the second and thh'd studies on the
Yucatdn Maya were made, averaged from 14.5° to 18.2° C. and in a
few instances were as low as 8° to 10° C. But the majority of the
observations in the first expedition were made in July, when the
average minimum outdoor temperatiu^e was more nearly 20° C,
and yet these July measurements also showed a high metabolism. The
average outdoor temperatm'e in Chile during the season of the year
when the Mapuche were studied averaged 9.3° C, and the metabolic
rates were high. The temperatures in Peru ranged from 12° to 25° C,
and the Peruvian Indians had normal rates. The CJiippewa faced
extreme rigors of climate, yet they lived in tents the year round and
failed to provide themselves with warm shelters or to clothe them-
selves properly. They are also among the Indians having high
metabolic rates. As the evidence with regard to the effect of climate
is conflicting, this suggestion of Riddle deserves further consideration.
Difference in altitude apparently does not account for the differences
in the metabolic rates of the several Indian groups, for at sea level the
rates are high for some groups and low for others, and the same is true
at altitudes of from 2,300 to 4,000 m. (about 7,650 to 13,325 feet)
(adapted individuals). However, it should be remembered that
some individuals may not be adapted to high altitudes and con-
sequently may have a low metabolism. Such individuals should
not be included in any racial comparisons.
The high metabolic rates of the Mapuche of South America and
the Maya of Yucatdn cannot be ascribed to the stimulus of a high
protein diet, for both groups ate little meat and their diets were poor
in protein. The diet of the Navaho, on the other hand, is chiefly
mutton (Carpenter and Steggerda, 1939), and yet their average
metabolic rate is not high. The need for further comparisons of this
nature is indicated.
Benedict and his coworkers point out that the customary hfe of
hard labor of the Maya of Yucatd,n might in part (not whoUy) account
for their elevated metabolism. Great physical activity might also
account to some extent for the high metabolism of the Chippewa,
who led a nomadic life fishing and hunting, and of the Maya Quiche,
who were soldiers or laborers on a coffee plantation. The Peruvian
104 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Indians, on the other hand, who presumably also engaged in physical
activity to a considerable degree, showed in general no increase in
metabolic level above the standards. However, in a few instances
high metabolic rates were noted by Hurtado among the soldiers
studied at Santa Lucia, and he ascribes these to their active life in
maneuvers.
Basal metabolism studies have been made on normal individuals
in many different parts of the world. Many observers in subtropical
and tropical parts of South America have noted metabolic rates some-
what lower, on the average, than the North American standards,
at times markedly lower, but in no instance except that of the Mapuche
has a general picture been recorded of a metabolic rate in South
America appreciably above that for North American Whites. The
researches of Benedict and his colleagues have given particular im-
petus to consideration of the role played by race itself. Many
investigators now believe that race per se is a factor affecting the
basal metabolism, along with the factors of age, weight, height, and
sex. Wilhams and Benedict (1928) and G. D. WiUiams (1931) believe
that there may be some correlation between the purit}'" of the racial
mixture and the metabolism. Many others believe that race is not
a factor but that climate, undernutrition, and other factors explain
the differences found in the metabolic rates of various human races.
The divergence in the results of the two investigations on South Ameri-
can Indians thus far reported emphasizes anew the complexity of
the study of the racial factor in metabolism and the need for additional
studies on South American Indians.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albagli, 1939; Aub and Du Bois, 1917; Benedict (see Harris and Benedict, 1919;
Williams and Benedict, 1928, Shattuck and Benedict, 1931; Steggerda and Bene-
dict, 1932); Carpenter and Steggerda, 1939; Crile and Quiring, 1939 a, 1939 b;
Du Bois (see Aub and Du Bois, 1917); Harris and Benedict, 1919; Hurtado, A.,
1927, 1928, 1929; Pi-Suner Bayo, 1933 a, 1933 b, 1933 c, 1933 d; Pretto, 1938;
Quiring (see Crile and Quiring, 1939 a, 1939 b); Rondon (see Hurtado, 1927,
1928, 1929); Salsbury, 1939 (in Crile and Quiring, 1939 b) ; Shattuck and Benedict,
1931; Shaw, 1933; Steggerda (see Carpenter and Steggerdp, 1939); Steggerda and
Benedict, 1932; Williams, G. D., 1931; Williams and Benedict, 1928.
See also the following: Albagli, 1940; Albagli et al., 1940.
References dealing with other physiological observations: Alvial Ibarra, 1940;
Barcroft, 1922; Barcroft et al., 1923; Hurtado, A., 1932 a, 1932 b.
South American Mestizos
MESTIZOS OF SOUTH AMERICA
By Morris Steggerda
Before the Conquest of the South American continent, intertribal
crossing among the Indians had been widely practiced. Even today,
several relatively pure Indian tribes are crossing with one another to
produce stocks of Indian hybrids. However, it was not until the
coming of the Europeans, now nearly four centuries ago, that race
crossing in South America began in earnest. With the establishment
of the White race in South America came also the importation of
large numbers of Negro slaves, as well as Chinese and East Indians,
which further increased miscegenation. At the present time it may
be said that South Am.erican Indians from every locality and members
of every tribe have, to some degree, crossed with Europeans, Asiatics,
and Africans to produce hybrids, collectively defined as Mestizos.*
Indians who have remained relatively piu^e may still be found in
remote regions; similarly, it is true that one can still find Europeans in
large cities who show no traces of interracial crossing with the Indian
or Negro. Along the coastal regions of Brazil there are towns and
cities in which are found large numbers of Negroes who may be
considered racially pure. But for the miost part. South America has
become a "melting pot" of races.
Anthropometric studies on hybrids in South America are rare. The
few data on Mestizo types are herein reviewed, but for the material
on Mestizos in Brazil, where the subject has been most fully developed,
the reader is referred to the following article by Pourchet (p. 111).
Peru.—In tropical Peru, Eberhardt (1910) noted that most of the
tribes seemed to have become mixed with either Whites or Blacks, and
that consequently many variations in skin color were evident, ranging
from the very dark tribes of the Putumayo River region, in whom the
author recognized strains of Negi-o blood, to the very light Guarayu
{"Huarayo") of the Madre de Dios River, who, according to the
author, might be the result of mixed Indian and Spanish ancestry.
Gait (1878) mentions that the offspring of matings between Spanish-
Peruvians and the Indians of Highland Perd show a great general
• Further data on racial demography will be found in Handbook, vol. 5, p. 655,
105
106 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
similarity to the Chinese, a resemblance which is chiefly found in the
oblique position of the eyes, the shape of the nose, and the yellow-white
complexion. This author also mentions that breadth of the chest
and size of the lung case are greater among the mixed breeds.
Hardy (1919) states that the mixed types in the Lowlands are lighter
in color than the pure-blooded Indians, and lack their ruggedness of
features. They are shorter in statui-e, less healthy, and show numerous
signs of dissipation. The chola (half Indian, half Spanish) women of
the Urubamba district are more attractive than their men, having
more regular features, but they are inclined to obesity, a characteristic
acquired from the mixture with Spanish blood.
Ferris (1916) says that the skin and the areola and periphery of the
iris are distinctly lighter in mixed than in the pure Quechua. The
facial hair is more strongly developed in the hybrids. Ferris measured
24 males, White-Quechua cross, and recorded these dimensions as:
Cm.
Stature 158.7
Sitting height 84. 2
Span 162.3
Shoulder width 38.2
Head length 18. 6
Head breadth 14.6
Nasal index 82.20
Kouma (1913) lists means for several measurements of individuals
representing various crosses with Quechua (table 1).
Table 1.
—
Mean measurements of various crosses with Quechua (from Roumxi, 1913)
Dimension
lid"
Vol. 6] MESTIZOS—STEGGERDA 107
Venezuela and the Antilles.—Generally speaking, the populations
of the northern countries and the littoral regions of South America
show a greater proportion of race mixture than those of the inland
regions.
The Antilles are among the regions most affected by the admixture of
Negro blood. The various ports in the Antilles were the receiving
stations for coimtless cargoes of black slaves, imported by Portuguese,
Spaniards, and Dutch, principally from the African Gold Coast. In
most of these islands the pure Indian (Carib) has completely dis-
appeared. In the Island of St. Vincent, there are stiU two types of
Carib: (1) the red- or yellow-skinned, and (2) the Black Carib, a
hybrid race, practically black, which resulted from a mixture of the
yellow Carib with some of the African slaves (Hawtayne, 1886).
These slaves were wrecked, about 1632, on the shores of Bequid, an
island close to St. Vincent. Eventually, the Black Carib settled on the
leeward or northwestern coast, and the yellow or native tribes on the
opposite side of the island. Hawtayne relates that the Black Carib
became alarmed when African slaves continued to be imported by
Europeans, lest their descendants might be mistaken for slaves and
thus compelled to work. To prevent this, they introduced the prac-
tice of compressing the foreheads of all newborn children, so as to
distinguish them from the pure African Negroes. This custom was
abandoned a long time ago, but skulls with receding foreheads are
still found. The Black Carib live at the foot of the Souffriere Momi-
tain, in a small reservation granted them in 1805. In 1735 the black
and yellow Carib together were estimated to number about 10,000,
whereas in 1879 their number had shrunk to 431.
The Guianas.—According to Rodway (1912), the population of the
Guianas is more varied than that of any other country in the world.
Almost every race is represented, and mixed breeds are present in all
possible combinations. It appears that the people living along the
rivers are largely mixed—African, Indian, and European elements;
Negro blood, however, seems to be most evident.
Ten Kate (1887) also mentions several groups of Mestizos living in
the Guianas. One of these, the Karboergers, is found in Dutch and
British Guiana. These Karboergers are said by this author to be
the result of Negro male and mulatto female crosses, or of Negro,
mulatto, or other Mestizo male and Indian female crosses. These
last crosses are said to resemble Indians much more than they do
Negroes.
Brazil.—Three principal basic racial stocks are responsible for the
formation of the Brazilian population of today: White (Portuguese),
Indian, and Negro (see p. 111).
Because of the frequent crossing and recrossing of Mestizos with
108 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
secondary types, it is obvious that certain racial characteristics of
Negro, White, and Indian are found in nearly all individuals, and
precise ethnic origins are extremely difficult to determine.
Roquette-Pinto (1942), in writing about the non-Indians of BrazU,
says that this population may be classified as foUows:
Percent
Whites 51
Mulattos (WhiteXNegro) 22
Negroes 14
Caboclos (WhiteX Indian) 11
Indians (not wild; possibly mixed
—
Author) 2
Actual body measurements on mixed breeds have been taken by
few investigators. Bastos d'Avila (1937) lists several measurements
taken on Indian tribal crosses. He discusses a cross between two
important linguistic groups: the Arawak, represented by Wapishana
individuals, and the Carib, represented by Macushi. The dimensions,
as recorded by Braulino (1929), for 5 adult hybrid females and com-
pared with pure Wapishana and pure Macushi females, are given
in table 2.
Table 2.
—
Comparative measurements of WapishanaX Maciishi cross and pure
Wapishana and pure Macushi (from Braulino, 1929)
Dimension
Adult
female (5)
Wapishana
XMacushi
cross
Adult
female
pure
Wapishana
Adult
female
pure
Macushi
Average stature
Weight (kg.)
Trunk height...
Chest girth...
Head girth
Horizontal cephalic index
Vertical cephalic index
Bizygomatic breadth
Nasal index..
Cm.
150.6
51.25
77.1
83.2
52.6
83.8
78.5
11.3
76.9
Cm.
151.4
52.80
77.0
85.8
52.0
80.2
86.7
10.6
64.8
Cm.
147.9
50.25
77.4
84.6
62,8
82.8
84.6
10.5
74.1
Discussion.—From a review of the anthropological literature on
Indians, Whites, and Mestizos of South America, it seems apparent
that this area is richer in genetic crosses than most parts of the world.
Most studies in race crossing up to the present time have been made
with mass statistics, which, as a rule, obscure rather than illuminate
the problem. When real Fi hybrids and their parents are available,
as is true in many parts of South America, the analyses of such indi-
vidual families should result in producing information in the study of
human genetics.
The study of race crossing is most satisfactory when widely divergent
races enter into the original cross. Thus, Negro-White hybrids make
excellent material for study, if pure Negroes and homogeneous Whites
mated and produced children. For such studies in North America,
Vol. 6] MESTIZOS—STEGGERDA 109
the first obstacle, and perhaps the most important one, is that there are
practically no pure Negroes, all of them having mixed, to some extent,
with Whites and Indians, The second obstacle is that most matings
between Negroes and Whites are surrounded by moral stigmata and
social barriers to such an extent that a complete study is diflBcult to
carry out. Finally, it has been found that the light-colored individuals
resulting from various crosses wish to pass for Whites, which makes it
most difficult to win their cooperation in such a study.
In South America, these racial barriers do not exist to such an extent;
and, therefore, such investigations may be carried out more satisfac-
torily. Race crossings are, perhaps, more complex in South America
than they are in North America; and the study of Indian-Negro-White
crosses may be followed up by that of other hybrid groups, such as, for
example, White and Chinese, White and East Indian, and the like.
Such diversified combinations of races offer an extensive field for the
study of physical traits appearing in the hybrid offspring of parents
who are of different racial origin.
Stature and general body build may not always be affected by a
cross between the representatives of two different racial stocks; but
such traits as eye color, hair color and hair form, and pigmentation
of the skin may offer unmistakable evidence of hybridization. Neither
eye color nor hair form has been studied adequately in hybrid races,
because of technical difliculties encountered in grading eye color and
in sectioning human hair. But these difficulties can be overcome.
Dermatoglyphic patterns have been found to run true to type in repre-
sentatives of distinct racial stocks. Finger, palm, and sole-print pat-
terns do not change throughout life; and there is strong evidence that
Indians, Chinese, Negroes, and Whites show different dermatoglyphic
patterns when compared with one another, so that this characteristic
too may become of assistance in determining racial origins.
Furthermore, there are other physical characteristics which are
strongly influenced by the crossing of races, such as ratios of the ex-
tremities;, nasal index, cephalic index, and so forth. A genetic approach
to this important problem of race crossing not only may shed light
on the physical and mental fitness of each particular hybrid group and
on its adaptability to a given environment, but also may result in a
better understanding of the fundamental motives in race crossing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bastos d'Avila, 1938 a; Campos, 1919; Chervin, 1907; Deniker, 1926; Eber-
hardt, 1910; Ferris, 1916; Freyre, 1934; Gait, 1878; Hardy, 1919; Hawtayne, 1886
Kehl, 1929; Pan American Union, 1935-40; PetruUo, 1939; Rodway, 1912
Roquette-Pinto, 1923, 1942; Rouma, 1913; Stewart, Dr., 1889; Ten Kate, 1887
World Almanac, 1938.
See also the following: Braulino, 1929; Bruch, 1911-12; Castro and Silva, 1938

BRAZILIAN MESTIZO TYPES
By Maria Julia Pourchet
Since the second half of the 16th century, intermarriage has been
going on between representatives of the three basic races of Brazil:
the Portuguese colonizers and later on Spanish, Italian, and German
elements; the aborigines; and the Negroes, who were subsequently
imported as slaves. An intense process of interbreeding, due to this
peculiar ethnic set-up, is creating the most varied types of Mestizos,
since the proportions in which the different ethnic strains were
crossed are also varied.
An extensive sociological bibliography was started by Euclides da
Cunha and was continued by Gilbert© Freyre and disciples of these
two great masters. It contains accurate studies of temperament,
affinities, tendencies, practices, customs, and traditions of those
products of interbreeding. Studies of physical anthropology, how-
ever, have received less attention despite the enormous variety of
physical types which challenges investigators. What appears imme-
diately obvious is that the Mestizo population shows no signs of
degeneracy, and what was unjustly attributed to miscegenation has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been determined by
causes linked with social factors which today have been fortunately
recognized and duly evaluated.
The crossing of Black and White is closely linked with the economic-
social formation of Brazil and first received the attention of anthro-
pologists. The crossing of White and Indian which preceded it began
only recently to be the object of more accurate investigations and the
contributions devoted to its study have been few indeed. Sd e
Oliveira in Bahia seems to have been the first to have made compara-
tive scientific investigations of the physical peculiarities exhibited
by the mulatto, cridulo, caboclo, and Whites of Bahia (Sd e Oliveira,
1895). Craniometric features of the different Mestizo groups in
Brazil have been recorded, and although the number of crania studied
was slight, we must recognize the precision of the anthropometric
technique used. A series of general considerations on the problem of
interbreeding in his time occupied the attention of the Director of
the Faculdade Medica of Bahia, who recorded the existence of various
111
112 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
products of interbreeding, including the Bahia Whites, especially those
of the lower social classes, as a type more or less mixed with African
or indigenous blood (Roquette-Pinto, 1923).
Believing in the destiny of the products of interbreeding, he foresaw,
however, a great lapse of time before the firm and perfect union of the
characteristic lines takes place; social prejudices and organic aptitudes,
under the influence of our climate and other influences will establish
the most favorable selection, parallel with the evolutionary develop-
ment of the organisms.
Such in general are the ideas of the Bahian scholar.
The White-Indian-Negro crossing is responsible for the majority of
the so-called sertanejo type, which has been clamoring for the earliest
possible anthropological study. Although Negro influence was slight
in Ceant where exploitation of Indian manpower was more favorable,
in other regions of the northeast there was present, on the contrary,
a large percentage of Negro blood, especially in the northeast char-
acterized by latifundia, the land of the casa gi'ande and the senzala
(the big house and the slave quarters). Here, contact between
White Em'opean colonizers and the colored races was the result of two
social factors, the monoculture characteristic of the latifundia and the
scarcity of White women among the arrivals (Freyre, 1934, p. 74).
Products of interbreeding begin to arise then. They first resulted
in equal proportions of White and Negro blood and afterward in the
most varied proportions. These Mestizos constituted the favorite
material for chroniclers and historians of the period, who regarded
the novel reactions of those "sui-generis" peoples as a spectacle new
to their eyes and to their point of view as Whites, Europeans, and
civilized men. First of all, it seemed to them that miscegenation
affected robustness and physical efficiency, and that it was the cause
of a lack of dynamic energy and of disharmony in the physical type.
They were probably neither the first nor the last to form snap judg-
ments. Our sociologists, however, are proving that deeper causes
of a social order linked to diet—causes and not cause
—
probably
produced that first impression. These causes include insufficient
and poorly balanced diet and a patriarchal regime based on slavery
—
deteriorating factors to which might be added the influence of the
milieu, those geophysical conditions which modern studies are clarify-
ing. A hypopituitary condition linked to a hypoadrenal condition
seems to have been determined by the adaptation of glands to the
new milieu. The brackish water which the Mestizos drank and the
salty food they ate, in other words an excess of chlorides, which
determined a low activity of the adrenal cortex, created a rather
intense activity (Bastos d'Avila, 1940 a, p. 131).
The physical type also was probably strongly marked—a stocky
Vol. 6] BRAZILIAN MESTIZO TYPES—POURCHET 113
Stature or, if we wished to go further, that frequent occurrence of
brevihnear types which we can surmise from the description of the
chroniclers of the times: dark complexion, short and thick neck, an
almost waistless trunk, and a prominent abdomen.
Assuming the responsibility of the milieu for the physical types to
be found in the northeast (State of Pernambuco), two investigators
made comparative studies of various ethnic groups (white skins
[leucodermosl, dusky skins [faiodermos], and black skins [melano-
dermos]) functioning in three regions: the littoral, the intermediate
country, and the hinterland. Unfortunately, the yellow skins,
xantoderraos (result of White and Indian crossing), were ignored
(Ferraz and Lima Junior, 1939, pp. 277-317).
According to the techniques of the constitutionalist school, Viola's
method, each one of the groups was studied in each one of the three
regions, and the authors arrived at the following general conclusions:
In each of the ethnic groups, those who dwelt along the littoral are
predominantly longilinear; in the intermediate zone (mata e agreste)
the brevilinear varieties predominate; in the hinterland zone the
longilinear type again predominates, which may be attributed to
greater or lesser thyroid activity and to food rich in or lacking in
iodine. The excess of manioc flour, beans, rice, and tortillas is
probably responsible for the incidence of brevilinear types in the
intermediate zone.
Miscegenation was just as great in the State of Bahia, with the
White and Black crossing predominating at the beginning. Later
on, however, in several parts of the state, there was an increase in
Indian-Negro mixed breeds (the latter had fled from the littoral and
taken refuge in quilombos), or the crossing of caboclos with Negroes,
giving rise to cafusos, in whom the proportions of one blood and the
other are variable.
During our investigations with colored children in Bahia, we used
the genealogical method for the first time. In a regular number of
cases we discovered the mixture of three bloods: White, Black, and
Indian. We did not have enough time to analyze the influence of
Indian blood in the distribution of morphological traces. Therefore,
we restricted ourselves exclusively to the White-Negro crossing.
According to the personal testimony of several investigators (Artur
Ramos, Edison Carneiro), cafusos (Negro-Indian) are frequently
found in cities of the interior.
In the central state of Minas Gerais, contact between Whites and
Mestizos has been increased; the latter, in turn, resulting from previous
crossings (Senna, 1922, p. 208). This has been going on since the
penetration of the bandeirantes and the sertanistas pauhstanos from
south to north and before them, the entradas coming from the Bahian
114 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
coast and going east and northeast. The crossing and recrossing was
intense: the Pauhsta, product of Portuguese-Spanish-Indian crossing,
the mamehico (crossing of White and Indian), the curiboca or cafuso
(crossing of indigenous blood w'ith African).
The history of the setthng (povoamento) of Minas Gerais, which is
intimately linked with the history of the Paulista people, was built
around this amalgamation (caldeamento). In the 17th and 18th
centuries, the people of Minas Gerais w^as already composed of a
"strong and helter-skelter ethic mixture": Whites, Mestizos, Indians,
and Negroes. Among the Mestizos there were mulattos, cabras,
bastards, curibocas, caboclos, and pardos, resulting from Negro-White,
Indian-Wliite, and Indian-Negro crossings. But miscegenation con-
tinues and the three bloods flow together forming the most varied
series of products of crossing for which the above cited author demands
anthropophysical and social study. In the State of Minas Gerais
they are called by a great variety of names: capiaus, biribas, tabareus,
peoes, jaguncos, etc.
With the exception of several general observations, we do not know
of any contribution to the physical anthropology of these peoples,
even though that lacuna is making itself strongly felt.
The principal fields deserving the study of race crossings are the
types in wooded regions (matas) of the Rio Doce and in the bush
(brenhas) of the Mucury and Itambacary Rivers, the gorutubano
cowboys (vaqueiros) of the Nortista sertoes of the Jahyba River, the
wiry and muscular sertanejos of the banks of the Sao Francisco and
Jequitinhonha Rivers, and the ox drivers (boiadeiros) of the west and
of the Triangle between the Paranahyba and Grande Rivers (Senna,
1922, pp. 222-226).
Escaped Negroes in 1721 and 1725 who had rebelled against their
overseer (dominador) sought refuge in qudombos in the neighborhood
of native tribes. As far as we know, the latter were the Aimore tribes
of the Mucury River and the Botocudo of the Doce River, with whom
they intermarried and created cafusos. The anthropological charac-
teristics of those mixed types were, according to the description of
chroniclers of the period, more or less the following: Almost black,
dark coloring of the epidermis, copper color or coffee-brown; small
though narrow feet, muscular, especially in the chest and the upper
limbs; more Negroid than Indian in appearance; oval face with promi-
nent cheek bones; broad nose; lips not thick; black eyes; characteristic
high frizzled hair, as though it had been artificially raised, reminiscent
of the Papuans of New Guinea (Roquette-Pinto, 1915, p. 51).
The Euro-American crossing which has been going on in the
Pauhsta Plateau since the middle of the 16th century, giving rise to
the first generation of mamelucos, is closely bound with the history of
Vol.6] BRAZILIAN MESTIZO TYPES—^POURCHET 115
the bandeirante movement. The history of bandeu-antismo appears
to to be closely linked with the mamelucos and their incomparable
attributes of "great fecundity, magnificent longevity, and amazing
virility."
Relations of cause and effect between bandeira and interbreeding
are being brilliantly debated by our historians, and according to them
interbreeding operated in the following manner (Ellis, 1936, p. 53):
(1) Unions legalized by marriage between a White man and an Indian
woman, or between the latter and a mameluco. (2) Illegal union
between the White or the mameluco and the Indian woman, equivalent
to American common-law marriage. (3) Fortuitous and accidental
unions between the White or the mameluco and the Indian woman,
who was sometimes secretly sold. These unions produced an immense
number of bastards.
Concerning the fecundity and longevity of the products of Ibero-
American crossing, which took place in the 16th and 17th centiu-ies
on the Paulista Plateau, documents of the period which patient
historians are collecting treat them expressively (Ellis, 1936, pp. 77-83)
There is a terrific dispute raging among historians of bandeirantismo
concerning the presence of Negroes in the bandeirante movement.
Historical reasons, in the light of reUable documents, lead us to
believe that "whites, Indians, and Negroes all participated in the
bandeira" (Ricardo, 1942, 2: 61). The bandeira, the first collective
product of Euro-Amerindian interbreeding, probably gave rise after-
ward to other ethnic crossings: cafusos, mulattoes, and mamelucos
were probably the results. Many a cafuso was probably the result
of marriage between Negroes and Indians. Some of these unions
were legally sanctioned by the action of the Jesuit missionaries;
others, iUicitly, were the consequence of the rape of Indian women
by Negroes who fled from the bandeiras.
The existence of cafusos, cabras, mamelucos, forros Indians, and
Negroes is attributed to the amazing and rapid penetration of the
sertoes by the bandeirantes in the south and the criadores in the north
(OUveira Vianna, 1938, p. 93).
The bandeirante movement and the conquest of Amazonas were
the accompUshments of Mestizos.
Among the contributions to the physical anthi'opological study
of our present Mestizo population the most important are those
carried on by the Servigo de Saude of the Army and by the Labora-
torio de Antropologia of the Museu Nacional. Among the former
must be reckoned the studies of MuriUo Campos, Romeiro da Roza,
and Arthur Lobo da Silva. The latter are linked with the name
of Roquette-Pinto, who greatly stimulated anthropological studies in
Brazil. In all of these contributions we shall analyze the data referring
794711—50 9
116 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
to the different ethnic groups, point out the differences, and sum up
the conclusions of each investigator.
In studying different ethnic groups—Whites, caboclos, Mestizos,
and Blacks—Murillo de Campos expresses the opinion that distinc-
tions between curiboca or cafuso Mestizos, mamelucos, and mulattoes
are becoming more and more difficult to estabhsh because a careful
study frequently reveals stigmata of the three races in the same
individual (Campos, 1919, vols. 9-12, pp. 1 ff,). His investigation
of cephalic, facial, and nasal indices led to the following results:
Ethnic group: Cephalic index Nasal index Facial index
White 78.9 50.3 92.8
Mestizos 79.0 66.7 95.9
Caboclos 83.7 61.1 90.9
Blacks 79.7 70.7 88.8
For height, chest measurement, weight, and Pignet index the
results encountered in the four groups are as follows:
Height Weight Chest measurement Pignet index
Ethnic group: (cm.) (grs.) (mm.)
Whites 166 56,300 816 28.5
Mestizos 165 57,100 824 25.1
Caboclos 162 56,200 821 23.5
Blacks 167 63,000 817 27.1
Data were also collected referring to the average shoulder and
pelvic girdle measurements and to the dynamometric force.
In conclusion Campos (1919) states that the Brazilian Mestizo is in
general the result of the fusion of^three races and that his supposed
inferiority is a problem for preventive and sociaPmedicine rather
than of racial genetics proper.
A regional investigation conducted with a group selected from the
wooded zone (Minas Gerais) based upon 290 individuals, most of whom
were 21 years old, yields data concerning height,-, chest measurement,
and weight (Romeiro da Roza, 1920, pp. 53-61).
Under the heading "Mestizos" were included all the products
of crossing in whom it was difficult to ascertain racial origins, although
the author does not have the slightest doubt in affirming that there
was a high percentage of individuals who had aboriginal ancestors.
The results for the different groups were as foUows:
Chest
ci., . Height Weight measurement Pignet
ilitnnic group: (mm.) {grs.) (mm.) index
White 1,670 55,100 863 25.6
Mestizo 1,656 55,300 861 24.2
Black 1,681 59,000 866 22.5
Proportionate to their height, the Mestizos had the finest chest
measurements.
Vol.6] BRAZILIAN MESTIZO TYPES—POURCHET 117
In regard to the Pignet index an important discovery was made
according to which the Mestizos had a higher average than the Whites,
a fact which is pointed out by the author as disproving the bruited
physical inferiority of the Mestizo.
In an excerpt from the Report of the SecQao de Antropologia of the
Museu Nacional, Roquette-Pinto presents data concerning 600
females and 1,127 males, from every State in Brazil and from 21 to
25 years of age.
Each ethnic group was studied froni the point of view of regional
distribution, including three zones: the northern states, the central
states, and the southern states.
For the caboclos the regional variation was:
-, , . Height Cephalic Nasal
V^abOClOS: {mm.) index index
Southern 1,690 79.36 70.00
Central 1,656 80.10 66.03
Northern 1,633 83.15 66.66
In our opinion, the differences revealed are quite important and a
physical anthropological study of the indigenous groups of the region
would clarify the matter (Roquette-Pinto, 1923, p. 30). To sum it
up, we will analyze the two most important investigations made to
date, which, by a happy coincidence, constitute all of volume 30
of the Arquivos do Museu Nacional (Lobo da Silva, 1928; Roquette-
Pinto, 1928). The first and main work contains original abundant
data—38,675 files on young men from 20 to 22 years of age, gathered
in all the States of the Brazilian Federation. In addition, the files
were divided according to region: the States were separated into three
groups, taking into account not only the geographical position but
certain analogies between them as well.
The first group includes the States of the interior without a coast
line and localized on the central plateau of Brazil; the second is the
northern group from Amazonas to Bahia inclusive; the third extends
from Espirito Santo to Rio Grande do Sul.
The caboclos presented the greatest variation in height, greater in
the south than in the north. The caboclos had the greatest chest
measurements, the Mestizos being next. In regional distribution, the
northern caboclos were more favored than the others.
Despite its complete lack of biological significance, the Pignet index
was the only one used. The caboclos had the best indices, as Romeiro
da Roza has aheady discovered in his investigation with individuals
selected from the forest region.
Finally, we shaU comment upon tbe work of Roquette-Pinto which
has been incorporated in the now classic work, "Nota sobre os ytpos
antropologicos do Brasil." This Brazihan scholar, who has been con-
cerned for a long time with the problems of our peoples, uses data
118 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BulH43
collected for about 20 years. Because of accusations launched against
our Mestizos from Aryan sources, he always takes pains to verify
"whether their anthropological characteristics show signs of anatomical
or physiological decadence." The data were gathered from young
men hailing from every State, sons and grandsons of Brazilians, all
healthy and subject to the same living conditions, and for this collec-
tion of data Martin's technique was used.
For this study we will select for analysis the two groups resulting
from crossing, dusky skins (White and Negro) and yellow skins
(White and Indian).
Unfortunately, the other products of crossing, cafusos and cabores,
were numerically unimportant and were not analyzed; according to
calculations made by the Museu Nacional in 1922, the percentage of
mulattoes and caboclos was, respectively, 22 percent and 11 percent of
the Brazilian population.
The anthropometric data considered were: Weight; height; facial
height; cephalic and nasal indices; color of the skin, of the hair, and
of the eyes; and type of hair. For Brazilian dusky skins (Negro-
White crossing), Roquette-Pinto found that they were predomi-
nantly around 1.64 m. tall and less frequently around 1.73 m.
The cephalic index clusters around 78, which is mesocephalic. The
nasal index is predominantly leptorrhine.
To sum it up:
The mulattos of Brazil form a group which is not homogeneous. Among them
there is a marked tendency toward the White race which many of them approach
by different characteristics. None of the characteristics studied (height, cephalic
and nasal indices, chest measurement, length of the face, bizygomatic breadth,
life span) lead us to consider them as involuted types. [Roquette-Pinto, 1928.]
In conclusion, dusky skinned Brazilians may be characterized
as foUows:
Individuals of brown skin, more or less dark (Nos. 20 to 30 on the Von Luschan
scale), dark eyes (black or brown) and ulotrichous hair; medium height; meso-
cephalic, mesorrhine, narrow face. [Roquette-Pinto, 1928.]
In the xanthodermic group (resulting from White-Indian crossing),
height clusters around 2 points, 1.63 m. and 1.69 m., visibly veering
toward the latter.
The Tufi, Arawak, and Carib of the far north, some Ge from the
south of Bahia and from Minas Gerais made the greatest contributions
to those crossed groups whose height varies from 158 cms. to 164 cms.
The Bororo (173 cms.), Carajd (168 cms.), and Nahukwa (168 cms.)
had little influence in the crossing. White blood seems to be respon-
sible for the relatively tall height of some of our caboclos.
A leptorrhine nasal index indicates a strong White influence.
Strong brachyfacial characteristics predominated.
Vol.6] BRAZILIAN MESTIZO TYPES—POURCHET 119
In this, as in other investigations, the relatively high chest measure-
meDt is noted. This characteristic gives our caboclos an appearance
of physical robustness which so many chroniclers have remarked upon.
The brachycephalic index, which is quite homogeneous, is higher than
that of the White skins.
Roquette-Pinto made a resume of the following occurrence of
characteristics in those products of crossing: Skin 20 to 30 on the
Von Luschan scale; black hair, lissotrichous; dark eyes, at times with
the palpebral fold slightly oblique; short, broad face; medium or low
stature; brachycephalic; leptorrhine or mesorrhine.
After analyzing the physical anthropological data of the different
groups, the Brazilian investigator Freyre arrives at the following
general conclusions:
From the physiological point of view the investigations proved that inter-
marriage between White and Negro, and White and Indian always result in
normal types, unless the progenitors are carriers of morbid heredity. The habit
of considering Mestizos who are only ill or disgenicos as degenerate has been com-
mon among those who are violently opposed to miscegenation. The fact is
that this confusion in attributing responsibility must be removed. All we need
is to recall the case of Ceard, where the greatest number of intermarriages took
place between white skins and yellow skins. Th3 vitality of the races was in no
way affected by the crossings. The physical resistance and moral vigor of the
conquerors of Amazonia (northeastern Mestizos) who overcame every obstacle is
absolute proof. We already referred to this when comparing it with the tenacity
of the bandeirantes.
Everything leads us to believe that miscegenation was a valuable contributing
factor in the formation of the Brazilian, creating that ideal type of the modern man
for the Tropics, the European with Negro or Indian blood to revive his energy.
[Freyre, 1934, p. 74.]
Despite the small number of anthropological investigations con-
cerning the present Mestizo Brazilian peoples (in the present work
we considered by preference the results of White and Indian cross-
ing), neither here nor anywhere else did intermarriage cause degen-
eracy save in those cases where unfavorable individual conditions
entered into the picture.
The evaluation of a human group should be made in the light of
their achievements, and in Brazil, if nothing else were to speak in
its favor, the two great sertanista movements, the conquest of Ama-
zonia and the bandeirante penetration would prove that miscegena-
tion has been advantageous rather than prejudicial.
More accurate studies should be made in the meanwhile falling
into the three following categories: (1) The evaluation of variability
of the morphological traces of groups resulting from crossing. (2) A
constant observation of the reactions of the present Mestizo peoples
of Brazil. (3) The adoption of a genealogical method in certain
regions wherever it is possible to do so, particularly in order to throw
120 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
light on the little-lmown subject of crossings of White with Indian,
resulting in caboclos, and of Negro with Indian, resulting in cafusos.
The study of the present Brazilian Mestizo peoples is therefore
deserving of accurate investigation using the most modern scientific
methods.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bastos d'Avila, 1940 a, 1940 b, ms.; Campos, 1919; Ellis, Jr., 1936; Ferraz and
Lima Junior, 1939; Freyre, 1934; Lima Junior (see Ferraz and Lima Junior,
1939); Lobo da Silva, 1928; Oliveira Vianna, 1938; Ricardo, 1942; Romeiro da
Roza, 1920; Roquette-Pinto, 1915, 1923, 1928; Sd e Oliveira, 1895; Senna, 1922.
See also the following: Lowrie, 1938; Pourchet, 1939; Roquette-Pinto, 1940.
References on growth and constitution: Bastos d'Avila, 1940 b; Bastos d'Avila
et al., 1937; Bezerra, 1940; Castro, 1939; Juliani, 1939; Lacaz de Moraes, 1939;
Lima Junior and Ignacio, 1939; Pourchet, 1942; Roquette-Pinto, 1942; Sussini
et al, 1937; Thomaz, 1942.
The Physical Anthropology of Chile
THE ANTHROPOMETRY OF THE INDIANS OF CHILE
By Carlos Henckel
The present study presents a brief summary of the physical an-
thropology of the Indians of Chile who survive as ethnic groups at
the present day. It does not take into account the Chilean Indians
who have disappeared, either through becoming mixed or absorbed
in the "White population.
The extreme south of the continent of South America was occupied
by three ethnic groups, the Ona (Shelknam), the Yahgan (Yamana),
and the Alacaluj {HalakvMlup)
}
THE ONA (SHELKNAM)
In pre-Columbian times the Ona occupied the large island of Tierra
del Fuego but today are reduced to a very few individuals who live
around Lake Fagnani, some of them in the Salesian Mission of Rio
Grande. They numbered 276 persons in 1919 (Gusinde, 1939), 110
in 1931 (Rahm, 1931 a) ,^andfscarcely^three^dozen in 1938 (Gusinde,
1939).
SOMATOLOGY
Numerous observations have been made of the physical appearance
of the Ona (Sarmiento de Gamboa, 1768; Banks, 1896; Darwin, 1875;
Fitz-Roy, 1839; Serrano, R., 1880; Lista, 1887; Segers, 1891; Nor-
denskiold, 1896; Wieghardt, 1896; Cook, F. A., 1900; Outes, 1909;
Gallardo, 1910;Canas, 1911 b;Dabbene, 1911; Furlong, C. W., 1917 a;
Barclay, 1926; Lothrop, 1928; Serrano, A., 1930; but complete studies
using modern methods have been made only by Lahille (1926),
Lehmann-Nitsche (1916 b, 1927), and Gusinde (1922 a, 1922 b, 1922 c,
1924, 1926 a, 1932, 1939), who with Lebzelter followed Martin's an-
thropometric techniques (Martin, 1928).
Early writers called attention to the tallness of the Ona. Lehmann-
Nitsche found that 20 men had a mean stature of 174.1 cm. (168.0-
183.7) and 30 women of 159.6 cm. (149.0-168.3). Gusinde's results
were similar: 24 men, 172.9 cm. (163.1-180.9), and 22 women, 160.3
cm. (153.7-166.9).
' See Cooper, 1917 a, for a complete bibliography of the physical anthropology and ethnography of these
Fuegian tribes.
121
122 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The Ona head is large and rugged (pi. 24, top, left, and bottom,
right). The horizontal circumference is considerable: men, 590 cm.;
women, 574 cm. (Gusinde); or men, 583.5 cm.; women 563.7 cm.
(Lehmann-N itsche)
.
The maximum longitudinal diameter of the head is great: men,
199 mm.; women, 190 mm. (Gusinde); so is the maximum transverse
diameter: men, 158 mm.; women, 152 mm. The average horizontal
cephalic index is 78.8 for men, 79.8 for women (Gusinde); or 79.6
for men, 80.5 for women (Lehmann-N itsche). This is mesocephaly
approaching the lower limit of brachycephaly.
The face is oval, the cheek bones wide and prominent. The average
morphological height of the face is: men, 124 mm.; women, 117 mm.
The bizygomatic breadth has a mean of 150 mm. for men, 142 for
women. The facial index shows euryprosopy : men, 82.7; women, 82.2
(Gusinde)
.
The nose is large, straight, sometimes slightly aquiliue, and leptor-
rhinic. The mean nasal index is: men, 67.5; women, 68.8 (Gusinde).
The forehead is low owing to the down growth of the hair toward
the orbits. The eye opening is small, somewhat oblique, and almond-
shaped. All the Ona have a transverse fold of the upper eyelid (plica
palpebralis media) and most of them a marginal fold (plica naso-
marginalis). The eye color almost always corresponds to number
2 or 3 of R. Martin's color chart.
The mouth opening is large and the lips are thin. The naso-labial
furrow is well marked, especially m persons of some age. The chin is
massive and there is always a furrow between it and the lower lip.
According to Gusinde's detailed description of the ear (1926), in
the lower half of the external ear the helix is outstanding for its con-
siderable thickness. The tragus and antitragus are especially massive.
The neck is regular, and the trunk is broad and strong (pi. 24,
bottom, left.) The biacromial width has a mean of 438 mm. in men,
403 mm. in women (Gusinde). The length of the trunk has a mean
value of 533 mm. in men, 508 mm. in women (Gusinde). Due to
the great development of the thorax, the circumference of the chest is
great; Gusinde found an average of 100.8 cm, in 15 men.
The arms are strong, well formed, and muscular. The average
length of the arm is 783 mm. for men, 692 mm. for women (Lehmann-
Nitsche). The hands are small and well formed (Lehmann-Nitsche,
1904 d).
The legs are thin in the calf, thick in the thigh. The total average
length of the leg is 921 mm. or 53.2 percent of the total stature in
men, 849 mm. or 52 percent in women. The feet are small and well
formed.
Vol.6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 123
The skin is a brownish yellow, relatively clear, and corresponds to
Nos. 10 and 11 of Von Luschan's color chart.
The hair is dark and blackish. The hairs are straight, strong and
thick. (For details, see Sailer, 1939.) The beard has very few hairs.
Hairs are extremely sparse in the armpits and in the pubic region.
CRANIOLOGY AND OSTEOLOGY
For the craniology of the Oria see Hultkrantz (1907), Lebzelter
(1925), Hilden (1930), and Gusmde (1939).
According to Gusinde, who has studied the greatest amount of
material to date, the average cranial capacity is 1,480 cc. in males and
1,356 cc. in females. These figures correspond to the aristencephaly of
Sarasin.
The greatest cranial length (pi, 25) is 192 mm. in males, 184 mm. in
females; the width, 143 mm. and 137 mm., respectively. The hori-
zontal cranial index has a mean of 74.5 for males, 74.9 for females
(Gusinde), indicating dolichocrany approaching mesocrany. The
mean basio-bregmatic height is 136 mm. for males, 135 mm. for fe-
males (Gusinde). The auricular height is 116 mm. and 114 mm.,
respectively. The vertico-longitudinal index is 70.9 and 73.4, re-
spectively, showing medium orthocrany.
To judge by Gusinde's median values, the Ona may be classified as
follows: Metrio- to acrocranic, according to the vertico-transverse
index (men, 95.1; women, 98.7); orthocranic, according to the index
of auricular height in relation to cranial length (males, 60.3; females,
62.0) ; steno- to metriometopic, according to the fronto-parietal index
(males, 65.5; females, 67.4).
The average angle of frontal inclination of the Otul is only 48°.
The forehead is low and retreating. There is an almost complete
absence of lateral frontal protuberances. A supraorbital torus is
common; also a sagittal crest (lophocephaly). The muscular relief
of the occiput is well marked, and in most cases amounts to a torus.
Mean facial dimensions of the skull (Gusinde) are: Morphological
height of the face, males, 126 mm., females, 127 mm.; bizygomatic
width, males, 144 mm., females, 138 mm.; facial index, 87.2 and 91.8,
indicating meso- to leptoprosopy; superior facial index, males, 52.7,
females, 55.3, indicating meseny or a slight lepteny. The angle of
total profile in skulls of both sexes is 84°, which is near the upper limit
of mesognathy and close to orthognathy.
The orbital index, 92.4 for males and 82.3 for females, shows that
most skulls are mesoconchic. The nasal index shows that males are
leptorrhinic (45.9) and females slightly mesorrhinic (47.1). The mean
palatal index, 76.6 for males, 80.1 for females, is leptostaphylinic or
slightly mesostaphylinic (Gusinde). All skulls show a palatal torus.
124 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The mandible is very massive, the mean bicondylar width being
127 mm. for men, 122 mm, for women.
Ona teeth are considerably worn, but caries occurs only rarely.
For other Ona skeletal characteristics, see Hultkrantz (1907).
THE YAHGAN (YAMANA)
The Yahgan lived in the region included between Slogget Bay on the
point southeast of Isla Grande, the Peninsula of Brecknock, and
Cape Hornos. Today, only some 24 persons survive, living in the
village of Mejillones on the Island of Navarino (Gusinde, 1939).
SOMATOLOGY
There are many descriptions and observations concerning Yahgan
somatology: Abel (1934), Bove (1882), Bridges (1893), Colvocoresses
(1852), Darwin (1875), Forster (1843), Fitz-Roy (1839), Gusinde
(1939), King (1839), Hyades and Deniker (1891), Lehm'ann-Nitsche
(1916 c). Martial (1888), Sailer (1939), Spegazzini (1882), Snow
(1857), Webster (1834), Weddell (1827), and Wilkes (1844).
The stature of the Yahgan is relatively short. Various mean heights
recorded are:
Men Women Author
157.4 147.5 Bove, 1883.
158.9 ..148.1 Bove, 1882-83.
158.7 149.4 Martial, 1888.
158.7 147.1 Hahn, 1883.
157.2 147.4 Hyades and Deniker, 1891.
160.0 147.8 Gusinde, 1939.
158.5 149.0 Dabbene, 1911.
The head is large and of great capacity (pi. 24, top, right). The
mean maximum head length is 190 mm. for men, 180 mm. for women
(Hyades and Deniker, 1891), or 197 mm. and 186 mm., respectively
(Gusinde, 1939). The greatest mean width of the head is 151 mm.
for men, 142 mm. for women (Hyades and Deniker); or 155 mm. and
150 mm., respectively (Gusinde).
The horizontal cephalic index is 79.6 for men, 79.1 for women
(Hyades and Deniker), or 78.6 and 80.8* (Gusinde). The Yahgan are
thus mainly mesocephalic, with a slight tendency to brachycephaly.
The face (pi. 27, top, lejt) is generally ovaloid, somestimes round,
but always angular with prominent cheekbones. The morphological
height of the face has a mean value of 118 mm. in men, 116 mm. in
women; the bizygomatic width has a mean of 150 mm. for men, 141
mm. for women. The facial index of 78.7 for men is hypereuryprosopic
and 82.4 for women is euryprosopic. The superior facial index of
48.2 for men and 50.1 for women indicates meseny for both sexes
(Gusinde, 1939),
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 125
The Yahgan forehead is low, narrow, and retreating. The super-
ciHary ridges are well developed, the frontal torus being conspicuous.
The front limit of the head hair is very near the orbits. The nose is
relatively narrow between the eyes, while farther down it is wide.
The nasal profile is generally concave, and in rare cases straight. The
nasal index, 77.1 for men, 74.2 for women, is mesorrhinic.
The eyes are rather smaU. The opening between the lids is gen-
erally spindle-shaped. The upper lid has a transverse fold, and in
some cases there is also a marginal fold. The color of the iris corre-
sponds to number 2 or 3 on Martin's color chart.
The mouth is large and the lips generally medium thick, but there
are individuals both with thin and very thick lips. The upper hp
almost always protrudes. The chin is quite massive.
The neck is short and thick. The body is massive and cylindrical,
and in adults almost without a waistline. The mean trunk length is
490 mm. for men, 472 mm, for women, and the biacromial width is
392 mm. and 371 mm,, respectively (Gusinde). The circumference
of the thorax is considerable: a mean of 92.3 cm, for men, 85.8 cm.
for women (Hyades and Deniker). The mean ratio of the circum-
ference of the thorax to the stature is 58.7 percent for the two sexes.
The arms are well formed and muscular. The mean total length is
72.5 cm. for men, 65.0 cm. for women (Gusinde). The hands are small.
The legs are very weakly developed. The total leg length has
a mean value of 85.2 cm. for men, 74.9 cm, for women, which is
53,2 percent and 51.2 percent, respectively, of the total stature
(Gusinde). The "atrophy" of the legs, of which Hyades and Deniker
speak, is caused by the custom of spending a great deal of time in
canoes, paddling or fishing, and is not an hereditary characteristic
(Gusinde)
.
The skin color is somewhat dark. In most individuals, it is clearer
than Nos. 10, 11, and 12 of Von Luschan's color chart, but these
tints are also observed.
The hair is abundant, stiff, and generally straight, although wavy
hair is seen on some persons. According to Spegazzini (1882), the
Yahgan have no body hair, and only the old men have a few hairs
on the upper lip and chin. In the armpits and pubic region there
are very few hairs. The hair color is very black. (For details, see
Sailer, 1939.)
CRANIOLOGY AND OSTEOLOGY
Yahgan craniology has been dealt with by Garson (1885), Gusinde
(1939), Hilden (1930, 1931), Hultkrantz (1907), Hyades and Deniker
(1891), Ten Kate (1904), Mantegazza and Kegalia (1886), Owen
(1853), G. Sergi (1887), and Vignati (1927 b). The following measure-
126 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
ments are mean values from Gusinde, who has examined the greatest
amount of Fuegian cranial material to date
:
The cranial capacity of males is 1,432 cc. and of females is 1,290 cc,
indicating euencephaly (Sarasin).
The greatest skull length is 186 mm. for males, 177 mm. for females
(pi. 26, top), which is considerably less than for the Ona, whereas
the greatest width is scarcely different, being 142 mm. for males, 136
mm. for females. The horizontal cranial index is 76.6 for male skulls,
77.0 for female, which is mesocranic and approximately two points
higher than for the Ona. The basio-bregmatic height reaches 136
mm. in men, 131 noma, in women, and the auricular height 115 mm.
and 112 mm., respectively. The vertico-longitudinal index is 73.6
and 74.1, corresponding to mesocrany.
According to the vertico-transverse index of 96.1 for males, 96.3
for females, the Yahgan are orthocranic. The auricular height-
length index, 62.1 for males, 63.3 for females, is between the limits of
ortho- and hypsicrany. The fronto-parietal index, 67.4 for males,
67.5 for females, is metriometopic.
The angle of frontal inclination in the skulls is 49° in males, 50°
in females, and the forehead is very retreating. The lateral frontal
protuberances are hardly noticeable, but frequently there is a frontal
torus.
Parietal eminences are present only in a very few cases, but a
sagittal crest (lophocephaly) is frequently observed.
The occipital bone is flat in its cerebral portion, which forms almost
a right angle with its cerebellar portion (Hyades and Deniker). There
is often an occipital torus.
The morphological height of the face is 121 mm. for males, 111 mm.
for females. The bizygomatic width is 142 mm. for males, 131 mm.
for females. The facial index is 84.7 and 83.9, respectively, indicating
euryprosopy. The superior facial index is 51.7 and 50.8, respectively,
showing meseny.
The angle of total profile is mesognathic, being 82° in males, 80°
in females. The orbits of the Yahgan are mesoconchic, the index
being 79.5 for males, 80.2 for females. The nose is mesorrhinic,
the index being 47.9 in males, 47.3 in females. The palate is leptosta-
phylinic, with an index of 74.8 for males, 71.7 for females. A palatal
torus is always present, though sometimes weakly developed.
The mandible is large and massive. The bicondylar width, 123 mm.
in males, 116 mm. in females, is somewhat less than that of the Ona.
Yahgan dentition is similar to that of the Ona. Hyades and Deniker
noted that the permanent teeth appear earlier than in Whites.
Osteometric observations on the other bones of the skeleton are
contained in Garson (1885), G. Sergi (1887, 1888), Hyades and
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 127
Deniker (1891), Hultkrantz (1907), S. Sergi (1928), Delle Seta (1938),
Genna (1928, 1930-32), Jazzeta (1928), Pastore (1935-37), Scolni de
Kliman (1938), and Sabatini (1933-34).
THE ALACALUF (HALAKWULUP)
The Alacaluf inhabit the islands, beaches, and channels from the
Gulf of Penas south to the northwestern portions of Isla Grande in
Tierra del Fuego. They number less than 90 persons (Gusinde, 1939).
SOMATOLOGY
Somatological studies and observations are contained in Bischoff
(1882 a, 1882 b), Boehr (1881), Essendorfer (1880), Fitz-Roy (1839),
Gusinde (1939), King (1839), Hyades and Deniker (1891), Lehmann-
Nitsche (1916 d), Martin (1893-94), Manouvrier (1881), Outes (1909),
Seitz (1833), Skottsberg (1910), and Virchow (1881).
The Alacaluf stature is small, the mean values according to five
authors varying between 151.0 cm. and 161.4 cm. for men and between
143.2 and 152.2 for women. Gusinde, who as usual made the greatest
number of observations (15 men, 16 women), gives an average of
154.7 cm. for men and 143.2 cm. for women.
The greatest head length has a mean of 192 mm. for men, 183 mm.
for women, and the greatest head width is 148 and 143, respectively.
The horizontal cephalic index has a mean of 77.4 for men, 78.2 for
women, which makes the Alacaluf mesocephalic (Gusinde)
.
The face is oval or round, and, especially in women, it is flat. (See
plate 27, top, right, and center.) The cheek bones are not very promi-
nent. The average morphological height of the face is 120 mm. in
men, 108 mm. in women. The bizygomatic width is 140 and 131
mm., respectively. The face is mesoprosopic in men (average index,
85.6) and euryprosopic in women (average index, 82.3) (Gusinde).
The nose is triangular as seen from the front ; and either straight or
somewhat concave from the side, though sometimes slightly convex.
The nose is mesorrhinic, but close to the limit of leptorrhiny, the
average index being 72.2 for men, 70.6 for women (Gusinde).
The forehead is low because the hair grows down toward the supra-
orbital ridges. The eye opening is generally fusiform. In almost all
persons of this group there is a transverse fold on the upper eyeUd
(pUca palpebralis media) . A true Mongolian fold is not found among
the Alacaluf.
The color of the eye is dark brown, corresponding to No. 2 on R.
Martin's color scale.
The mouth is large, and the lips generally thick. A slight protru-
sion of the upper lip is frequently noted. The naso-labial furrow is
well marked. The chin is rounded.
128 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
The body or trunk is 467 mm. long in men, 459 mm. in women.
The biacromial width has an average of 387 mm. in men, 349 mm. in
women (Gusinde) . The thorax is generally almost flat.
The arms are well developed, the mean total length being 688 mm.
in men, 622 mm. in women (Gusinde).
The legs are less developed than the arms, and the calves are thin.
The authors constantly mention the poorly developed musculature of
the legs, and they explain it in the same way as among the Yakgan,
that is, the Alacalufs habit of spending a great deal of time in their
canoes, paddling or fishing. The mean total length of the leg is 814
mm., or 53.0 percent of the stature in men, and 730 mm., or 51.2 per-
cent of the stature in women (Gusinde) . The feet are large.
The AlacaluJ skin color is light brown, corresponding to Nos. 13
to 15 on Von Luschan's color scale (Outes, 1909). The fatty tissue
is well developed. BischofF (1882 a, 1882 b) gives data on the micro-
scopic structure of the skin. For fingerprints, see Abel (1934).
The hair is abundant and grows low on the forehead. Frequently
it grows in on the temples, sometimes being continuous with the
eyebrows. The hairs are thick, stiff, and smooth. For the micro-
scopic structure of the hairs, see Martin (1893-94) and Sailer (1939).
The hair color corresponds to Nos. 27 and 4-27 of Fischer's table.
The beard is little developed, and in the armpits and the pubic
region the hair is scarce.
CEANIOLOGY AND OSTEOLOGY
For the craniology of the Alacaluf, see Medina (1882), Martin
(1893-94), Mehnert (1893), Garson (1885), Ten Kate (1904), Latcham
(1911), and Gusinde (1939). Hoyos (1913) describes a Fuegian skull,
but does not give its tribe.
The mean cranial capacity of the Alacaluf is 1,530 cc. in males,
1,295 cc. in females (Gusinde). Unfortunately, these mean values
were determined on the basis of only 13 skulls.
According to Gusinde, the greatest skull length (see pi. 26, bottom)
is 191 mm. in males, 180 mm. in females; the greatest width, 141 mm.
and 138 mm., respectively. The mean horizontal cranial index
is 74.6 for males, 76.7 for females, that is, dolichocranic for males,
mesocranic for females. The basio-bregmatic height has a mean of
140 mm. for males, 130 mm. for females; the auricular height, 121 mm.
for males, 117 mm, for females. The mean vertico-longitudinal index
is 73.2 for males, 71.9 for females, showing orthocrany (Gusinde).
To judge by Gusinde's data, the mean indices of the Alacaluf may
be classified as follows: Metrio- to tapeinocranic, according to the
vertico-transverse index (97.6 for males, 91.5 for females); hypsicranic,
according to the auricular height-length index (63.6 for males, 64.7
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 129
for females); metrio- to stenometopic, according to the fronto-
parietal index (67.9 for males, 65.5 for females).
The medium angle of inclination of the forehead is, for both sexes,
52°. The forehead is low and sloping. The lateral frontal protuber-
ances are little developed. The glabella is only slightly rounded;
usually it corresponds to No. 2 on Broca's scheme (Martin). The
Alacaluf skulls frequently have strongly developed superciliary ridges
and a frontal torus. Parietal eminences are little developed and
appear only in isolated cases. Lophocephaly is very frequent.
The occipital bone often has a torus, and the muscular relief is
always well marked.
The mean morphological height of the face is 125 mm. in males,
113 mm. in females; the bizygomatic width is 143 mm. and 131 mm.
respectively. The facial index, 86.5 for men, 85.9 for women, in-
dicates mesoprosopy. The mean superior facial index, 51.1 for
males, 52.0 for females, indicates meseny (Gusinde).
The angle of the total profile for both sexes has a mean of 84°,
corresponding to mesognathy (Gusinde).
According to the mean orbital index (83.3 for males, 87.1 for
females) , masculine skulls are mesoconchic, feminine are hipsiconchic.
The mean nasal index (46.2 for males, 48.6 for females) shows that
males are leptorrhiuic, females mesorrhinic. According to the mean
palatal index (78.2 for males, 80.9 for females), males are leptosta-
phylinic, females mesostaphylinic. The upper dental arch usually
has the form of a "U". A palatal torus is general and is characteristic
in these skulls.
The mandible is very massive, the bicondylar width being 125 mm.
in males, 117 mm. in females.
The teeth show considerable wear, especially in older persons.
Caries occurred only rarely among the Alacaluf while they stUl re-
tained their native culture. Today it is more frequent, owing to
the influence of modern civilization.
The weight of the Alacaluf skull is considerable, as among all the
Fuegians, owing to the thickness of the walls of the cranial vault.
For the remainder of the Alacaluf skeleton, see Martin (1892).
Unfortunately a work by Vallois (1932) on the Fuegian humerus is
not available to me.
NATIVES OF THE SOUTHERN PROVINCES
In the southern provinces of Chile, from Arauco to Llanquihue,
live a considerable number of Araucanians or Mapuche, who are quite
distinct from the foregoing tribes. This ethnic group is not homo-
geneous physically, as we shall see.
130 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The Araucanians were estimated by Latcham (1928) to number
120,000 and were increasing rapidly. Brand (1941 a) places their total
at 300,000, wliich is probably somewhat high. The distribution of
the Mapuche, according to the 1920 census, is as foUows:
Province of Arauco 4, 980
Province of Bfo-Bio 1, 372
Provinc; of Malleco 11, 815
Province of Cautin 58, 305
Province of Valdivia 19, 723
Province of Llanquihue 8, 697
The older chroniclers, including de Olivares, G6mez de Vidaurre,
and Molina, as well as the historians, Barros Arafia and others,
referred to the physical appearance of the Mapuche. Special works on
the physical anthropology of the Mapuche are, however, still very
scarce.
SOMATOLOGY
The stature of the Mapuche, as the following mean figures show
(table 1), has considerable variation according to locality.
Table 1.
—
Data on the stature of the Mapuche {mean values)
Locality
Males
Plate 24.—-Pliysical types of Tierra del Fuego. Top, left, Ona woman; top, right,
Yahgan type; bottom, left and right, Ona. (Bottom, left, after Pericot, 1936,
p. 681; others, after Gusinde, 1939, pis. 1, 2, 3.)
Plate 2.5.—Ona skulls. Tierra del Fuego. (After Gusinde. 1939, pis. 7, 8.)
Plate 26.—Skulls from southern Chile. Top, Yahgan; bottom, Alacaliif. (After
Gusinde, 1939, pis. 14, 13.)
Plate 27.—Physical types from southern Chile. Top, left, Yahgan woman.
Top, right, Alacaluf type. Center, Alacaluf woman. Bottom, left, Mapuche
chief. Bottom, right, Mapuche woman. (After Gusinde, 1939, pis. 4, 5, 6;
bottom pictures courtesy Carlos Henckel.)
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 131
The face (pi. 27, bottom, left and right) is generally round, though m
some it is angular. Seen in profile, the face is notably flat. Atten-
tion is called to the prominent and well-developed cheek bones. The
forehead is narrow and low. The eye opening is narrow; frequently
there is a transverse fold of the upper lid (plica palpebralis media)
and a marginal fold. The iris is dark in color, most commonly corre-
sponding to the shades Nos. 13, 14, and 15 of Martin's and Schultz'
chromatic chart. The conjunctiva is somewhat yellowish. For
histological details of the eye, see Henckel (1942 a).
The nose is generally broad ; in profile, it is straight, never aquiline.
The mouth is large, the lips generally thick. There is marked progna-
thism. The chin is square and somewhat prominent.
The neck is short and thick. The thorax is well developed, its
mean lateral diameter in men being 31.8 cm. (Matus), and its
antero-posterior diameter 22.0 cm. The circumference of the chest
has a mean value of 93.0 cm., which is very high if we take into account
the short stature of this group (Matus). The lung capacity of the
men varies between 4,500 and 5,300 cc.
The back is broad in both sexes, and the abdomen is somewhat
enlarged, showing a certain propensity to obesity.
The arms are short and thick, and the hands are relatively broad
and short. The dynamometric hand pressure has been determined
in some men by Matus; it averages 49 in the right hand and 47 in
the left.
The legs are short and, especially in women, the thigh is thick and
rounded. The ankle is thick; the calf has not been described. The
feet are short and thick.
The Mapuche skin color has been characterized by the abbot
Molina (1776), in the following words: "Although they are the
lightest of all American natives of the south, their complexion is some-
what olive-color." Many individuals have skins no darker than those
of southern Europeans. Microscopic observations on the quantity
and distribution of cutaneous pigment have been made by Henckel
(1941).
The Mongoloid spot is found very frequently in the newborn and
nursing children; according to Mardones (1937), in 86.7 percent of
the cases.
The arrangement of the dermal ridges on the hand was studied
by the present author (Henckel, 1933 b, 1942 b). In 246 Mapuche,
the Galtonian types occur with the following frequency: Arches, 7
percent; loops, 56 percent; and whorls, 37 percent.
The hair color is dark, usually corresponding to the shades V, W,
and X on the chromatic table of Fischer and Sailer. The head hair
is very coarse: 94.3 n average in women, 87.1 n in men. It is also
794711—50 10
132 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
smooth and stiff. For its histological characteristics, see Henckel
(1941).
We must mention certain blond Mapuche, with white skin and light
eyes, in Boroa, Cautin Province, mentioned by the old chroniclers,
G6mez de Vidaurre and Molina. Guevara and Latcham (1911)
regarded them as the result of accidental crosses of Indians and
Whites. It is more likely, however, that this was a case of partial
albinism, as has been observed in other native American groups.
The head hair of the Mapuche is very abundant. It grows low on
the forehead and temples. Kretschmer's "fm- cap" is quite common
(Barrientos, 1942). Sometimes, especially in children, the head hair
continues to meet the eyebrows (Schauble, 1939). In rare cases,
there is baldness. Gray hair comes late in life (Poeppig, 1942).
There is little beard, and body hair is scarce. There are few hairs
in the armpits and pubic region, even in individuals well developed
sexually (Pi-Suner and Reyes, 1935).
Barrientos (1942) has diagnosed Kretschmer's constitutional types
among the Mapuche as follows: "Pyknic," 46.8 percent; athletic, 18.9
percent; and leptosomic, 34.0 percent.
For some other aspects of Mapuche somatology, see Houze (1884),
Latcham (1904), and Manouvrier (1883).
CRANIOLOGY
The present status of Mapuche craniology has been well character-
ized by Brand (1941 a)
:
... a few small series of Araucanian skeletal material are present in Chile,
Argentina, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, Scandinavia, Italy, and the
United States. However, no museum has an adequate collection and not even one
anthropometric index, ratio, or simple measurement has been made on an adequate
number of specimens. [Brand 1941 a, p. 33.]
Thus, unfortunately, we can give but few data on Mapuche crani-
ology. Medina (1882) gives some figures and measurements on seveD
Araucanian skulls, but without the main details.
The horizontal cranial indices of 18 male and female Mapuche from
the Central Valley range from 72.2 to 84.4 and have a mean of 80.3
(Guevara, 1898, 1912). These include 3 which are doHchocranic, 3
mesocranic, and 12 brachycranio. In a series of 12 male and female
crania from the cordillera, to the east, the same index varies from 70.5
to 85.0, and includes 6 which are dohchocranic, 3 mesocranic, and 3
brachycranic. Guevara concludes that brachycrany predominated on
the Coast and in the northern part of the Central Valley and that
dohchocrany was increasingly present in the south and in the cor-
dillera, to the east.
As descriptive craniological characteristics, Guevara mentions the
Vol. 61 ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKBL 133
weight, roughness, narrowness of the forehead, the flatness of the
posterior curvature, the prominence of the inion, the well-marked
supercihary ridges, the great development of the malar bone, and the
width of the lower jaw.
Vergara Flores (1902) made a comparative study of the crania of the
Araucanians and Aymara.
Verneau (1903) examined 6 Mapuche skulls (one male, five female),
which came from Mochita graves in Concepcidn and are now in the
Museum of Natural History in Paris. Their mean horizontal cranial
index is 81.5 and 81.4, respectively, indicating brachycrany. Their
mean vertico-horizontal index is 79.1 and 77.3, respectively, indicating
hypsicrany. Their mean vertico-transverse index is 92.0 and 94.9,
respectively, indicating metriocrany. The average facial index for
the female skulls is 70.7 (hypereuryprosopy) . The mean orbital index
is 87.2 and 89.4, respectively, which, according to Broca, is meso-
conchic. The mean nasal index is 56.1 and 54.6, respectively, in-
dicating chamaerrhiny.
The average cranial capacity of the Araucanians is 1,425 cc. for 6
male skulls and 1,355 cc. for two female skulls, according to Quatre-
fages and Hamy (cited by Verneau, 1903).
Latcham (1911) gives 81.7 as the mean cranial index of 92 male and
female Mapuche skulls from the Central Valley. The average cranial
capacity for the male skuUs is 1,350 cc. and for the female skulls, 1,230
cc. This, in Sarasin's sense, is euencephaly. The mean height index
is 86.6, the Mapuche thus being high-headed ("hypsiacrocephahc")-
The facial skeleton, according to Latcham (1911), has the following
characteristics: Bizygomatic diameter, 136 mm. in males, 132 mm. in
females; orbital index, 85.2; nasal index, 48.5 (mesorrhinic) ; subnasal
profile angle, 76.2° (prognathic).
Deniker (cited by Martin, 1928) gives the average Araucanian
cephaHc index as 83.9 for males and females.
Araucanian dentition has been studied morphologically by Munoz
(1936), who gives information on wear, caries, malocclusion, trema,
diastema, CarabeUi's tubercle, etc.
Although they have not been utihzed in the present article, mention
should be made of the work done by Ten Kate (1892) among the
Argentine Araucanians and the studies made by Puccioni (1912)
andHoyos (1913).
THE INDIANS OF NORTH CHILE
North of the Rio Loa to the Chilean-Bohvian border are various
Aymara Indians whose number Brand estimates (1941 c) at 40,000.
The ancient Atacameno of the Cordillera de Antofagasta and
Tarapacd and the Pima de Atacama (Latcham, 1911; OUver, 1932)
134 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
have disappeared completely, despite the claim to the contrary by
Brand, who confuses them with the present Indians living in the
Pmia de Atacama. For the last, see Phihppi (1860).
The Chilean Diaguita, who lived in the southern part of the Province
of Atacama and the Province of Coquimbo, have disappeared as an
ethnic group, but their physical type has been preserved in the rural
population of this region (Brand, 1941 b).
In the littoral north of the Rio Loa lived the Uro, who are com-
pletely extinct today. According to Latcham (1912), they were
brachycephalic
.
The coast between the Rio Loa and the Rio Choapa was occupied by
the Chango, of whom a few descendants survive in the coves between
TocopUla and Taltal, where they are civilized and mixed with Whites
(Oyarziin, 1927 b; Oliver, 1932; Brand, 1941 c; see also Handbook, vol.
2, pp. 595-597). Some of their somatological characteristics have
been described by D'Orbigny (1839), Philippi (1860), Latcham (1910,
1911, 1926), and Gigoux (1927). Latcham (1911) gives the following
description:
The Changes were of low stature, 160 cm. for men, 145 cm. for women. The
body is large in proportion to the arms and legs; the shoulders wide. But the
chest is not so well developed as among the mountain people.
The face is wide and the features are rugged. The forehead is not very narrow
but it is low and receding. The eyes are small and dark, the nose is narrow at the
base but broad at the end, and always straight, never aquiline. The mouth is
large, the lips thick and everted.
The skin is dark, being brown as burned by the sun and wind and not reddish.
The hair is black, stiff, straight, and lusterless, and it grows so low over the
temples that the forehead appears narrower than it really is.
The mien is somber and sad. [Latcham, 1911.]
For the craniology of the Chango, there are works by Latcham
(1903, 1904 c, 1912, 1939), Vergara Flores (1905), Fonk (1906, (1912)),
Barras de Aragon (1909), and Ibar (1933).
Morphological characteristics which have received a great deal of
attention are the ^thickness of the walls of the skull (an average of
11.65 mm.), especially in the occipital and malar regions ("skuUs
with thick walls," says Vergara), and the great weight. According to
Latcham (1912), the Chango skulls are long, "dolicho- or subdolicho-
cephalic," with a tendency to lophocephaly. The greatest width is
between the parietal protuberances. The forehead is narrow but not
depressed. The face is long, narrow, and somewhat flat. The orbits
are rectangular. The palate is very wide, and prognathism is pro-
nounced.
For a series of 19 Chango skuUs from the Rio Loa, Vergara (1905)
gives the following mean values: Cranial index of males, 80.2, of
Vol. 6] ANTHROPOMETRY—^HENCKEL 135
females, 88.4; orbital index for males, 87.4, of females, 91; nasal index
of males, 50.6, of females, 52.6.
The average cranial capacity of 9 Chango skulls from Paquica is
1,302 cc. (Ibar, 1933). Ibar gives the average cranial index as 74.9,
the orbital index as 87.7, and the nasal index as 48.4.
According to Ibar, the long bones of the Chango are notable for
their thickness and evidence of strong musculatiu:e, especially of the
arms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, 1934; Banks, 1896; Barclay, 1926; Barras de Arag6n, 1909; Barrientos,
1942; BarroB Arana, 1884-1902, vol. 1; Beclard, 1863; Bischoff, 1882 a, 1882 b;
Boehr, 1881; Bove, 1882, 1882-83, 1883; Brand, 1941 a, 1941 b, 1942; Bridges,
1893; Cafias, 1911 b; Colvocoresses, 1852; Cook, F. A., 1900; Cooper, 1917 a;
Dabbene, 1911; Darwin, 1875; Delle Seta, 1938; Deniker (see Hyades and Deniker,
1891); Essendorfer, 1880; Fitz-Roy, 1839; Fonk, 1906 (1912); Forster, 1843; Fur-
long, C. W., 1917 a; Gallardo, 1910; Garson, 1885; Genna, 1928, 1930-32; Gigoux
1927; G6mez de Vidaurre, 1889; Guevara, 1898, 1912; Gusinde, 1922 a, 1922 b,
1922 c, 1924, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1939; Gusinde and Lebzelter, 1932; Hahn, 1883;
Henckel, 1933 b, 1939, 1941, 1942 a, 1942 b; Hilden, 1930, 1931; Hyades and
Deniker, 1891; Houz4, 1884; Hoyos, 1913; Hultkrantz, 1907; Ibar, 1933; Jazzetta,
1928; King, 1839; Lahille, 1926; Latcham, 1903, 1904 b, 1904 c, 1910, 1911, 1912,
1926, 1928, 1938, 1939 a; Lebzelter, 1925 (also see Gusinde and Lebzelter, 1932)
;
Lehmann-Nitsche, 1904 d, 1916 b, 1916 c, 1916 d, 1927; Lista, 1887; Lothrop,
1928; Manouvrier, 1881, 1883; Mantegazza and Regalia, 1886; Mardones, 1937;
Marguin, 1875; Martial, 1888; Martin, 1892, 1893-94, 1928; Matus, 1912; Medina,
1882; Mehnert, 1893; Molina, 1776, 1787; Mufloz, 1936; Nordenskiold, 1896;
Outes, 1909; Owen, 1853; Oliver, 1932; Orbigny, 1839; Olivares, 1864; Oyarzun,
1927 b; Pastore, 1935-37; Philippi, 1860, 1872; Pi-Suner and Reyes, 1935; Poeppig,
1942; Puccioni, 1912; Rahm, 1931 a, 1931 b; Regalia (see Mantegazza and
Regalia, 1886); Reyes (see Pi-Suner and Reyes, 1935); Sabatini, 1933-34; Sailer,
1939; Sarmiento de Gamboa, 1768; Schauble, 1939; Scolni de Kliman, 1938;
Segers, 1891; Seitz, 1883; Sergi, G., 1886-87, 1888; Sergi, S., 1928; Serrano, A.,
1930; Serrano, R., 1880; Skottsberg, 1910; Snow, 1857; Spegazzini, 1882; Ten
Kate, 1892, 1904; Topinard, 1881; VaUois, 1932; Vergara Flores, 1902, 1904, 1905;
Verneau, 1903; Vignati, 1927 b; Virchow, 1881; Webster, 1834; Weddell, 1827;
Wieghardt, 1896; Wilkes, 1844.

THE GEOGRAPHICAL PATHOLOGY OF CHILE
By Ernesto Herzog
One of the principal tasks of geographical pathology is to study in
each country the diseases that are related to cHmate, to conditions of
life, to racial and other factors, and to investigate the differences of
their course and form as compared with those known in other coun-
tries. From this can be deduced the enormous importance of the
comparative study of diseases in different parts of the world, a fact
which can furnish many leads to the etiology, mode of course, and
manifestation of many pathological patterns, which up to the present
are not clear or are unknown.
These conditions can be more easily studied in countries which are
sparsely populated but have a great climatic variety due to their great
extent of territory. In this sense, Chile is undoubtedly one of the
most interesting from the point of view of its geographical pathology
because of its great territorial expanse from lat. 18° to 56° S. In the
northern part of the country there are tropical but very dry regions,
besides desert zones, and great differences in altitude from a few
meters above sea level up to 3,000 to 4,000 m. (about 9,000 to 13,000
ft.) ; in most of the southern part, in the wilderness and lakes, a humid
climate prevails, and in the region of Magallanes, in the far south,
there is less humidity but more winds, and the weather is cold. Fur-
ther differences exist between the maritime zones on the littoral of
the long coast, the continental zones of the central part, and the
Cordillera region. Unfortunately, the low density of the population
and in some places its entire lack is as yet an obstacle to the extension
of geographical pathological studies through the whole country.
Accurate data can be obtained only on the basis of a great number of
autopsies which up to the present time have been possible only in
the large cities where there are institutes of pathological anatomy.
The confidential observations made by some doctors in places where
no anatomico-pathological services exist may also be of importance.
Due to these difficulties, however, it has been impossible to obtain
exact anatomical details about the constitutional and pathological
anatomy of the natives of Tierra del Fuego and about the Mapuche
(Araucanian) Indians scattered through the southern part of the
country. "With the estabUshment of new anatomico-pathological insti-
137
138 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
tutes in the future, we may be able to add further contributions to
this subject.
The racial components of the population of Chile are mainly the
White race, particularly from Spaniards and other Europeans, and
the native Indian. The Negro is virtually nonexistent in Chile.
Thus, we deal in Chile mostly with a population of mixed White and
native stocks.
It is of the utmost interest to ascertain whether this mixture pro-
duces special reactions to disease as well as characteristic morpho-
logical types, and whether it has greater or lesser resistance with
regard to definite pathological patterns. As yet anatomical investi-
gations based on autopsies are insufficient to permit accurate general
deductions. The determination of exact racial and constitutional
factors is also compHcated by a series of other factors, such as climatic
or environmental ones, which cannot always be well defined or singled
out. And so, our studies on geographical pathology refer to some
thousands of autopsies in the course of 12 years in the central zone
of Chile, practiced for the most part at the Universidad de Concep-
ci6n and partly in the corresponding Institutes of Santiago and of
Valparaiso, besides medical observations, without autopic control,
in the different parts of the country. Hence, this is but a modest
trial and only a beginning for the geographical pathology of Chile.
First, we must direct our attention to certain infectious and parasitic
endemic diseases.
Typhoid fever.—This is an endemic disease throughout the country
and is conditioned, in the first place, by certain hygienic deficiencies,
for example, lack of potable water in many small towns and especially
in rural zones. Also the old system of irrigating vegetable gardens
and flower gardens by means of trenches, i. e., open canals full of dirty
water that runs through entire communities, have contributed a
great deal to the spreading of the typhoid bacillus, thus causing infec-
tion of human beings directly as well as through contaminated fruits.
Of course, this danger has diminished in the last few years in cities
with good systems of potable water, but there are still other sources
of infection by unkempt humans, purveyors of germs, and contami-
nated food. Observations, verified also by autopsies, show that foreign-
ers living in Chile are much less resistant to typhoid fever than the
autochthonous Chileans; also the death-rate among foreigners is much
higher. Although the course and anatomical pattern of this disease
does not show any major deviation from that observed in other coun-
tries, it is notable that mild cases are more frequent here than in
Europe. The explanation of this phenomenon seems to be that
people living in more primitive or at least less hygienic conditions and
who, therefore, are always apt to have more contact with the typhoid
Vol.6] GEOGRAPHICAL PATHOLOGY—^HERZOG 139
bacillus should be in a state of relative immunization, a fact that
results in milder patterns than in the case of persons who have not
been subjected to infection, i. e., who have not become allergic to
them. Unfortunately, we have no available data of this disease among
the natives so that we cannot substantiate this thesis. We do not
think it probable that there is any racial influence in these cases,
although this possibility cannot be entirely disregarded untU it has
been studied.
Exanthematic typhus.—This infectious disease is also endemic in
Chile, for isolated cases are always found, and its appearance depends
primarily upon hygienic and social factors. Epidemics which appear
now and then, such as that of 1932 to 1935 with a 20 percent mortality,
are caused by unloiown biological factors besides the hygienic and
social ones (Herzog, E., 1937, pp. 574-600). We do not know as yet
the extent of this disease among the natives, but epidemics among
them have not been mentioned. There do not seem to be great
differences in the appearance of exanthematic typhus in the various
regions of the country, although during the last epidemics the northern
and central zones were the more affected while no cases occurred in
Magallanes. As yet, however, it is impossible to determine definite
climatic influences.
Epidemic meningitis.—Meningococcic meningitis appears, from
time to time, in the form of limited endemias, especially in the northern
and central zones of the country, but it presents no particular charac-
teristics differing from those known in other countries. In 1942,
during a certain period, the cases of meningitis were more frequent
and almost assumed an epidemic character.
Tuberculosis.—The problem of tuberculosis in Chile is one of the
gravest, for Chile ranks second among all the countries of the world
in the frequency of tuberculosis and the mortality due to it (Boltheuer,
1934-35). Until now, the patterns obtained from autopsies show
practically the same anatomical and clinical aspect observed in other
countries, but whether tubercular preinfection in adults is not more
frequent than had been thought is a matter of discussion. Observa-
tions made at autopsies both in Concepcidn and Santiago suggest
prime infection in adults, particularly among adolescents, but the
total number is not as yet sufficient to draw any general conclusions.
The characteristic trait in these cases is an extensive and intense
caseous lymphadenitis of the hilus nodes and tracheo-bronchial
ganglia, with progredient tuberculosis of the lungs, well-known forms
in the precocious generalization of primitive tuberculosis in children.
Should this fact be further verified, it would point to an environment
as yet not wholly tuberculized. It would be also interesting to make
a comparative study of the com-se of this disease among the natives,
140 SOUTH AJVIERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
sometliing that has not yet been done. As to the diiferent parts of
the country, there do not seem to exist any major differences in the
tuberculosis pattern, although we still lack anatomico-pathological data
about the extreme north and southern regions of the country to decide
definitely on any possible climatic influences.
Syphilis.—Anatomical manifestations of syphihs observed at present
in Chile are few, which agrees with the observations of the last decades
in many countries. Thus syphihtic gummas on the autopsy table
are rare, and so are serious destructive osseous alterations. The
only evidence rather frequently noted in adults is luetic mesaortitis
with or without aortic aneurisms. The pattern of luetic mesaortitis
has been observed in the Instituto de Anatomia Patologica in the
Universidad de Concepci6n, with 2.9 percent out of 1,152 autopsies
and 1 percent of aortic aneurisms (Jara, 1936). This figure is more or
less stable. The reason for a lesser frequency of organic syphilis in
adults must be sought, first of aU, in effective treatment. There are
also biological factors which are not known in detail. There are no
further data as to syphihs among the natives.
Congenital syphilis plays an important role in the death rate of
childi'en. Anatomical statistics made at our Institute, based on
autopsies with thorough histological examinations, have revealed
37.4 percent of congenital syphilis among 143 premature and newly
born infants (Rojas, 1936). Undoubtedly, the role of congenital
syphihs as a decisive factor upon infant mortality has been greatly
exaggerated. It is known from numerous observations and especially
autopsies that there is a series of other factors that account for such
high mortality among children in Chile, such as malnutrition, lack of
hygiene, and social conditions.
Actinomycosis.—This infectious disease, caused by the actinomy-
ces, is rarely apparent either in the autopsies or in the central wheat
zone, but, unfortunately, there are no exact statistics to compare its
frequency with that of other countries. Thus far this is only our
impression based on autopsic data.
Malignant pustula (anthrax).—As Chile is an extensive agricultural
country it should not cause surprise that autopsies show a certain
percentage of deaths due to the anthrax baciUi with the same mani-
festations observed in other countries.
Other infectious septical patterns.—Patterns of puerperal sepsis,
angina, polyarticular rheumatism, endocarditis (Torres, 1937) and
others are very frequent and they have shown no major variations in
their course and general pattern. It is a veiy remarkable biological
phenomenon that in a relatively high number of serious cases of ab-
dominal wounds, some even with the intestines protruding, no con-
sequent peritonitis occurred. This phenomenon is somewhat famifiar
Vol.61 GEOGRAPHICAL PATHOLOGY—^HERZOG 141
to surgeons but such cases appear also among our data and in forensic
medicine. The remarkable fact is that it generally occurs among the
lower classes who, despite living under deplorable hygiene and in a
filthy environment, do not develop purulent infections. There are
even cases in which the patient came to the doctor hours after being
wounded, with the intestines out of the body and wrapped in ordinary
paper, yet without consequent peritonitis. There are no exact
statistics and it is very difficult to determine whether this phenomenon
is due to individual resistance or to other factors. With regard to
postoperative pneumonias, their lesser frequency stands in marked
contrast with that of many countries where it is rather serious and is
rightly feared.
Rabies.—Rabies is relatively frequent throughout almost all the
Chilean territory owing largely to the great number of errant dogs
which transmit the disease, mostly to other animals but also to human
beings. Among human beings it is infrequent, thanks to good anti-
rabies service by vaccination. According to our observations, there
is well-founded suspicion that on certain occasions mice appear as
the spreaders of the virus, a fact that has yet to be verified by further
research. The course of the disease does not vary from what is already
known.
Parasitic diseases: Malaria.—This disease appears in Chile only in
the northern tropical zone of Arica and its environs, in the pattern
already known. Already it has been notably reduced by the effective
struggle against this scourge.
Chagas' disease.—Of late years isolated cases of this disease have
been observed, first, in the Province of La Serena, or northern part of
the country, but the vinchucas transmitters (Triatomas infestans)
have also been observed in the Province of Santiago. Farther south
this disease is unlaiown and should not be expected on account of
certain determining climatic conditions. Further data are lacking as
these observations are comparatively new. No fatal cases have been
described yet.
Amebiasis {amebic dysentery).—This disease, of frequent occur-
rence in Chile, is not exclusively limited to the northern or tropical
zones of the country, but is also observed rather frequently in the
central zones and even in the south. No exact information could be
obtained for the region of Alagallanes. The anatomically typical
pattern appears with the more or less extensive ulcerations of the large
intestine and, in many cases, with the serious complication of the
hepatic abscess. The frequency of amebiasis should be determined
primarily by hygienic factors similar to those mentioned in connection
with abdominal typhus fever.
ParasiticjUseases^caused by intestinal worms.—These are likewise
142 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
important and frequent. First of all is the Taenia echinococcus trans-
mitted to man by dogs, one of the most serious problems in the
country due to the great number of dogs that live together with the
common people under utterly inadequate hygienic conditions. Thus,
it is not surprising to find rather frequently at autopsies hydatinous
cysts, primarily in the hver, lungs, abdominal cavity, but likewise in
other organs, even in the heart itself, and we have observed in our
material an extensive intracranial hemorrhage which was fatal
because of a scolex of echinococcus found in the wall of the anterior
cerebral artery which caused its rupture (Behn, 193S, pp. 535-538).
Among almost 2,000 autopsies at om- Institute we fuui a frequency of
echinococcus of about 1 percent although this figm-e should ordinarily
be higher (Behn, loc. cit.). In the larger cities the frequency of echi-
nococcus should have diminished during the last 10 years due to better
general hygiene. Taenia solium, although less frequent, is also found
in autopsies. Through human autoinfection owing to lack of hygiene
and through infection caused by flies and infected lettuce, it leads to
the pattern of cysticercosis with preferential locaUzation of the Cysti-
cercus celhlosae in the brain and other organs like the heart, hver,
lungs, etc. The Avcylostoma duodenale, with its resulting anemia, etc.,
has been observed rather frequently m the coal mines of the central
zone of the country, but it is notably diminishing through effective
treatment.
We will not mention other parasites of the family of intestinal worms
in order to avoid special pathological patterns.
Other pathological patterns.—Besides these groups of infectious
parasitic diseases, numerous other pathological patterns have been
studied, for example, those of arteriosclerosis, anemias, hepatic cir-
rhosis, ulcers of the stomach and duodenum, cholecystitis, and choleh-
thiasis, embohsm, thrombosis, and cancers (Moena, 1933), etc. There
already exist some clinical and anatomico-pathological statistical data
about the cities of Santiago, Valparaiso, and Concepci6n, presented
at the Congresos Internacionales de la Sociedad Internacional de
Patologia Geografica, and in part, in the communications of our
coworkers (see bibliography). We cannot mention all these patterns
in detail since they ai-e of interest only to specialists; however, in what
follows we make a limited selection of noteworthy pathological pat-
terns which show, in part, marked differences from what has been
observed in other countries.
Hepatic cirrhosis occurs in Chile rather frequently, i. e., in 2.2 per-
cent of cases among 3,000 autopsies made in the Institutes de Anato-
mia PatoMgica of Santiago, Valparaiso, and Concepcion (data furn-
ished to the 1st and 2d International Congress of Geographical Pathol-
ogy held in Geneva in 1931 and in Utrecht in 1934) . (See also Petersen,
Vol.6] GEOGRAPHICAL PATHOLOGY—^HERZOG 143
1933.) Although the anatomical and clinical pattern does not differ
from that in other countries, it is interesting that this disease is less
frequent in this country than in others (Switzerland, for example,
with 9-14 percent), despite the fact that Chile has a considerable
production of wines and a great deal of alcoholism among the popula-
tion. From this we can at least deduce that alcohol cannot be an
exclusive factor in the genesis of hepatic cirrhosis, although one cannot
as yet make any conclusive pronouncements on the exact etiology of
this disease.
As to thyroid goiter, special studies made of its frequency in the
autopsies and biopsies of our Instituto show that it reaches 1.8 percent
in almost 2,500 cases (Suazo, 1933). The greatest part of the observed
material comes from the province of Concepcidn near the sea, in the
central part of Chile, and from some other neighboring provinces, and,
therefore, is unilateral; yet it clearly shows the existence of colloidal
goiter in its diffused or nodular form, although with shght increases
in shape in the flat zone and in parts of the Uttoral. Unfortunately,
insufficient evidence is available from other parts of the country, but
statistics, which include the geographical distribution of goiter through-
out Chile, are in preparation. We can only say that thyroid goiter
has been observed in other parts of the country, but never in as great
numbers as in such mountainous regions as Switzerland. Generally,
the cordilleran valleys of Chile are sparsely populated ; as yet cases of
goiter in these regions have not been observed to be more frequent or
more noticeable. Endemic goiter is known only in the region of Teno,
Chile, and in the central plain in the southern part of Santiago in
conjunction with cretinism. Basedow goiter, on the contrary, is noted
everywhere with the same moderate frequency as in other countries
and has no relation whatsoever to race or climate.
Of utmost interest has been the comparative study of embolisms
and thromboses in Chile, all the more, since in many countries fatal
pulmonary embolism is one of the most dreaded and most serious
complications following surgical operations. An increase in this
pattern has been verified in various countries in the last few years,
a fact which, together with the somewhat obscure etiology, constitutes
an enormous problem. It is noteworthy that statistics from all parts
of the country show fatal pulmonary embolism to be exceedingly rare
in comparison with other countries. We have found only 0.4 percent
of violent embolisms among 3,900 autopsies from our material in
Concepci6n, while in European countries and in the United States
this percentage reaches 3 to 5 percent and more (Herzog, E., 1943).
Likewise, venous thromboses are 2.4 percent of the same material,
a figure lower than that of many other countries. These data agree with
surgical clinical statistics furnished by doctors from all parts of the
144 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
country. It is remarkable that in Chile, climatic factors seem to have
no major importance. We are acquainted, besides, with reports of
other doctors and pathologists from different South American coun-
tries who have made the same observations. This almost eliminates
the racial factor, but we still consider it premature to reach general
conclusions about the etiology of thrombosis and embolism.
It is worth mentioning that amyloidosis, in the form of deposits of
amyloid, especially in the spleen, liver, kidneys, etc., and particularly
in cases of extensive chronic suppurations, syphilis, etc., is very rare
in Chile according to the tests of anatomico-pathologists. We do not
possess exact figures but its frequency is far below that of European
countries. So far its cause is unknown.
With regard to other diseases, specially cancer, there is no need
to dwell on them. Observations respecting their development, form,
and frequency seem very similar to those of most other countries.
To be fruitful, in the future, the geographical pathology of Chile
must be broader, it must be based upon anatomico-pathological statis-
tics, combined with medical statistics, from all parts of the country,
and it must cover the natives and the zones where, up to the present,
there are no anatomico-pathologists. Thus, our contribution is still
very imperfect and modest, but as the first of its kind and based mostly
upon autopsies, it should serve as a stimulus for future investigations
in this field.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Behn, 1938; Comptes rendiis de las conferences internationales de Pathologie
geographique, 1931, 1934, 1937; Herzog, E., 1937, 1943; Holtheuer, 1934-35;
Jara, 1936; Moena, 1933; Petersen, 1933; Rojas, 1936; Suazo, 1933; Torres, 1937.
Other general references on racial pathology: Krieg, 1932; Ribeck, 1936;
Strong et al., 1915; Willianis, H. U., et al, 1927.
THE PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE INTERNAL
ORGANS AMONG THE RACES OF CHILE
By Carlos Henckel
INTRODUCTION
Physical anthropology, i. e., the natural history of the Hominidae,
has until now stressed somatological and osteological research but
has seriously neglected the anthropology of the internal organs, so
that very little is known of racial differences in myology, angiology,
splanchnology, the nervous system, and the organs of sense.
During recent years, however, and especially since the publication
of E. Loth's book (1931), anthropologists throughout the world have
been devoting more time to the internal organs of the human body.
Hence, it seems advisable to summarize the research that has been
made on these organs in Chileans so as to indicate their present stage
of development.
This account must dispense with any discussion of the native inhabi-
tants of Chile (Mapuche, Fueguians, etc.) since studies of these
groups are scarce and quite incomplete. The only research on the
internal organs of the Mapuche was done by Westenhoeffer (1911),
who performed autopsies on Araucanian corpses. In addition, there
are the studies of Henckel on the integument (1941) and the eye
(1942 a) and those of Mardones (1937) on the Mongolian spot in the
Mapuche. Concerning the internal organs of the Fuegians, I shall
mention only the work of Seitz (1883, 1886) and of R. Martm (1893-94).
DIGESTIVE APPARATUS
Tongue.—The chalice-shaped papillae (papillae circumvaUatae) *
of the tongue appear in a V, Y, T, or straight-line formation. Accord-
ing to Soenksen's observation (1936) of 217 indivdiuals, the V forma-
tion appeared in the large majority of cases (90.4 percent); Y, T, and
straight-line formations appeared in the following percentages,
respectively: 5.9 percent, 3.2 percent, and 0.5 percent.
The number of these papUlae varies considerably; in the Chileans
it fluctuates between 4 and 14. The average is 9.37.
The fimbriated fold (plica fimbriata) sometimes appears on the
1 The Latin terms have been taken from Jena Nomina Anatomica of 1935 (I. N. A.).
145
146 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
lower surface of the tongue. In half of the cases it is entirely lacking
(49.8 percent); in 44.2 percent it appears in an elemental form, and is
well formed in only 6 percent of cases.
Palate.—Judging from Weldt's investigations (1934, 1935), the
central raphe of the palate (raphe palati) consists, in the large majority
of cases, of two parallel ridges in the mucous membrane of the palate.
The palatal tubercle (papilla incisiva) of the Chileans, as Weldt
has shown, is generally oval or pear-shaped. It seems that there are
considerable racial differences: for example, in the Japanese it is very
often spindle-shaped.
The degree of development and number of palatal ridges (plicae
palatinae transversae) are, as we know, quite variable. According to
Weldt, in Chileans they number from 3 to 6, the average being 4.26 in
the men and 4.05 in the women. They extend over a rather large
surface of the palatal mucous membrane, sometimes reaching the
level of Ml. They are in general well developed, with extensive
branchings.
Data on the morphological characteristics of the Chilean uvula
(uvula palatina) were produced by Figallo (1940) as the result of
observations made on 1,000 individuals.
The position of the uvula is generally perpendicular (96.1 percent),
variations having been found in only 3.9 percent of cases. In the
large majority, the uvula has the shape of a cone (40.3 percent) or a
cylinder (48.1 percent); round uvulas are relatively infrequent (1.9
percent), as are likewise filiform uvulas (0.1 percent), narrowed ones
(0.4 percent), and undeveloped ones (2.4 percent). Bifid uvulas have
been found in only 2.9 percent of cases; nevertheless, in scarcely 0.3
percent this anomaly was perfect in shape.
The intestine (intestinum).—From M. Tapia (1939), who ascer-
tained the length of the small intestine, we have the statistics shown
in table 1.
Table 1.
—
Length of small intestine in Chileans (from Tapia, 19S9)
Sex
Vol. C] PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY—^HENCKEL 147
The liver.—Henckel and Skewes (1943) give us the averages for
weight of the liver shown in table 2.
Table 2.
—
Weight of the liver in Chilean men (in grams) (from Henckel and Skewes,
1943)
Age (years)
148 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
1934) while in only 41.17 percent of cases it reaches the anterior edge
of the lung (M. Tapia, 1932).
AccordiQg to Jir6n (1935 b), a secondary fissure is seen rather fre-
quently on the upper half of the lower lobe of the right lung.
The so-caUed azygous lobe, an additional lobe at the base of the right
limg, is found completely developed (as proved by N. Mufioz, 1934)
in 5.29 percent of cases and incompletely developed in 3.52 percent.
Figure 3.—Lung and aorta. Left: Incomplete horizontal fissure of right lung.
Right: Origin of truncus brachiocephalicus and first left carotid artery from
a common branch of the aorta.
CIRCULATORY SYSTEM
Heart.—Henckel and Skewes (1943) give the following information
concerning the weight of the heart:
Table 4.
—
Weight of the heart in Chilean males {in grams) (from Henckel and
Skewes, 1943)
Age (years)
Vol. 6] PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY—^HENCKEL 149
artery (arteria vertebralis sinistra) started from the arch of aorta.
There are no percentages for other types of the aortic arch.
Concerning variations of the coeliac artery (arteria coeliaca), the
gastric coronary artery (arteria gastrica siaistra) and the hepatic
artery (arteria hepatic communis), I might mention the excellent data
fm-nished by Flores (1939).
Spleen.—There are various works concerning the peculiarities of
this organ in Chileans.
Recently the newborn's spleen was studied by Mahn (1933). Per-
haps the most important conclusion reached by this author is that at
birth the weight of this organ in Chileans (males, 11 .2 gm. ; females,
10.2 gm.—average) is no less than that in other nationalities (Hell-
mann, 7.9 gm; Herrmann, 11.2 gm; Lucas, 10.6 gm.; Miller, 10.8 gm.).
The weight of the adult spleen in Chileans is, however, less than that
in other ethnic groups. Jirdn says (1939): "Among us the weight of
the spleen is from 90 to 100 gm." Henckel and Skewes (1943) estab-
Ushed an average of 106.17±3.0 gm. as the absolute weight of the
spleen in Chilean males of all ages. Naturally, the weight of this
organ depends on the age, a sharp decline in absolute and relative
weight being noticed in older people. The authors mentioned have
arrived at the averages shown in table 5.
Table 5.
—
Weight of the spleen in Chilean males {in grams) (from Henckel
and Skewes, 1943)
Age (years)
150 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
males, 115 gm., females, 80 gm.; Japanese, males, 93 gm., females
86 gm.
According to Jir6n (1939), average dimensions of the adult male
spleen are: length 9K cm., width 6)^ cm., and thickness 3 cm.
There is less interest from the point of view of anthropology in the
clefts, indentations, etc., on the edges and surfaces of the spleen.
(See Loth.) Mahn (1933) and Jir6n (1939) furnished some details
on this subject.
A complete absence of the spleen was observed by Jir6n in only a
single case (1939).
Superfluous spleens are rather frequent (14.5 percent) in the new-
born (Mahn, 1933).
ENDOCRINE SYSTEM
Unfortunately, we have at present very few data concerning the
glands of internal secretion.
Mahn (1933) has ascertained the weight of the adrenal glands
(corpora suprarenalia) in newborn babies. The average for males
is 5.55 gm. on the right side and 5.67 gm. on the left; corresponding
weights for females are: 5.21 gm. and 5.21 gm. Superfluous adrenal
glands (corpora interenalia accesoria) were observed in 4.5 percent
of cases.
UROGENITAL SYSTEM
Henckel and Skewes (1943) have ascertained the weight of the
kidneys. Their conclusions are shown in table 6.
Table 6.
—
Weight of the kidneys in Chilean males (in grams) (Henckel and
Skewes 1943.)
Age (years)
Vol. 6] PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY—^HENCKEL 151
NERVOUS SYSTEM
W. Munoz (1935) made a systematic study of the terminal branches
of the lower maxillary nerve (nervus alveolaris mandibularis) . He
discovered several variations: for example, he was able to prove the
anastomosis of the lower dental nerve with the lingual nerve in only
22 percent of cases; that of the mylohyoid nerve with the lingual nerve
in only 30 percent of cases.
Jir6n (1935 a) calls attention to the fact that the classic description
of the great sciatic nerve, i. e., that it arises from the top of the sacral
plexus, passes beneath the pyramidal muscle, and divides in the poplit-
eal hollow, applies in only 38 percent of cases among Chileans while
in the remaining cases (62 percent) there are many variations, all
characterized by numerous divisions of the great sciatic.
BLOOD GROUPS
There are still very few data on blood groups among the Chileans.
Three statements refer to the frequency of the classic groups A,
B, AB, and O in the people of Santiago (Meza, Sanhueza, and Dus-
sert, 1930; Bunster, Sandoval, 1941). Analogous serological studies
have not yet been made in other parts of this large country; only a
small number of Mapuche (Araucanian) from the vicinity of Temuco
have been examined by Onetto and Castillo (1930).
The results of these studies appear in table 7. The most notable
fact in this table is the high percentage of the 0-group or the r gene
in Chileans.
Table 7.
—
Frequency of the classic blood groups and their genes
People of Santiago
152 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
By combining the classic blood groups with tbe groups M and N,
Sandoval (1941) was able to present the following percentages in the
people of Santiago: AM, 14.25 percent; AN, 4.75 percent; AMN,
13.00 percent; BM, 2.75 percent; BN, 0.75 percent; BMN, 4.5 per-
cent; ABM, 1.25 percent; ABN, 0.5 percent; ABMN, 0.75 percent;
OM, 22.75 percent; ON, 1.50 percent; and OMN 33.25 percent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Castelli (see Henckel, Castelli, and Dal Borgo, 1941) ; Castillo (see Onetto and
Castillo, 1930) ; Dal Borgo (see Henckel, Castelli, and Dal Borgo, 1941) ; Dussert
(see Meza, Sanhueza, and Dussert, 1930); Figallo, 1940; Flores, 1939; Henckel,
1941, 1942 a; Henckel, Castelli, and Dal Borgo, 1941; Henckel and Skewes, 1943;
Jir6n, 1933, 1935 a, 1935 b, 1938, 1939; Loth, 1931; Mahn, 1933; Meza, Sanhueza,
and Dussert, 1930; Mardones, 1937; Martin, 1893-94; Munoz, N., 1933, 1934;
Munoz, W., 1935; Onetto and Castillo, 1930; Sandoval, 1941;^Sanhueza (see
Meza, Sanhueza, and Dussert, 1930); Seitz, 1883, 1886; Skewes (see Henckel and
Skewes, 1943); Soenksen, 1936; Tapia, M., 1932, 1939; Weldt, 1934, 1935; Westen-
hoeffer, 1911.
See also the following.—Fallot and Alezais, 1890; Paula Pontes, 1939; Pontes,
1937; VineUi-Baptista, 1937-38.
GLOSSARY
PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Acrocrany. Breadth-height indices of the skull (basion-bregma heightX 100/
greatest breadth) of 98.0 and higher. For the living (acrocephaly) , sub-
stituting ear height, it refers to indices of 85.0 and above.
Actinomycosis. A chronic infectious disease of cattle, sometimes transmitted to
man, caused by a parasitic fungus.
Allelomorph. One of a pair of Genes (q. v.) determining the development of con-
trasted characters, and believed to occupy equivalent loci in homologous
chromosomes.
Allergy. The natural hypersensitiveness of an individual to a foreign substance
(antigen), as contrasted with anaphylaxis, which is artificially induced.
Amazonidos. A term used by Imbelloni to describe the physical type of the Indians
of the Amazon and Orinoco Basins. Same as Von Eickstedt's "BrasUide
Rasse."
Amebiasis. The state of being infected with minute one-celled animal organisms
called amebae.
Aneurism. A sac formed by the dilation of the walls of an artery and filled with
blood.
Angina. Any disease or symptom characterized by spasmodic suffocative attacks.
Angiology. The sum of knowledge regarding the blood- and lymph-vessels.
Aristencephaly. SkuU capacities of 1,451 cc. and above in males, or 1,301 cc. and
above in females.
Asthenic. See Leptosomic.
Athletic. A term used by Kretschmer to describe the intermediate form between
the extreme stout and thin constitutional types.
Auricular. Pertaining to the auricle or ear.
Australoid. Having the physical characters common to native Australians.
Vol.6] PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY—^HENCKEL 153
Biacromial. Relating to the tips of the acromion processes of the shoulder blades,
in the sense of the line or distance between.
Bizygomatic. Relating to the two cheek bones, in the sense of the line or distance
between.
Brachycephaly. Length-breadth indices of the head (greatest breadthX 100/
greatest length) between 81.0 and 85.4. When applied to the skull (brachy-
crany) this term refers to indices between 80.0 and 84.9.
Brachyfacial. Having a short face.
Brevilinear. A term used to indicate the short, stocky constitutional type
according to Viola's method.
Calvarium. The skull without lower jaw.
Carabelli tubercle. A small elevation of enamel occasionally seen on the lingual
surface of a molar tooth.
Caries, dental. Dissolution and disintegration of the enamel and dentin by the
action of acid-producing bacteria and their products.
Cephalic. Pertaining to the head.
Chamaecephaly. Length-height indices of the head (ear heightX 100/ greatest
length) up to and including 57.6. When applied to the skull (chamaecrany)
basion-bregma height is used and the indices include 69.9.
Chamaerrhiny. Nasal indices between 85.0 and 99.9 in the living and between
51.0 and 57.9 on the skull.
Cirrhosis. A disease of the liver, ending in atrophy and degeneration of the
organ, which give to it a granular, yellow appearance.
Cholecystitis. Inflammation of the gall bladder.
Cholelithiasis. The presence or formation of gallstones.
Columbidos. A term used by Imbelloni to describe the physical type of the
Indians of the northwest coast of North America. Same as Von Eickstedt's
"Pazifide Rasse."
Cranial. Pertaining to the skuU.
Cretinism. A chronic condition associated with defects of the thyroid gland,
marked by arrested physical and mental development.
Cysticercosis. The condition of being infected with the larval form of the tape-
worm enclosed in cysts.
Dacryon. The metric landmark at the common junction of the frontal, maxillary,
and lacrimal bones.
Dermatoglyphics. The name for all the skin patternings of fingers, toes, palms,
and soles, as well as for the study thereof.
Diastema. A space. In dentistry, a space between the teeth.
Diastole. The stage of dilatation of the ventricles of the heart.
Diverticulum, Meckel's. An occasional sacculation of the ileum derived from an
unobliterated vitelline duct.
Dolichocephaly. Length-breadth indices of the head (greatest breadth X 100/
greatest length) vip to and including 75.9. When applied to the skull
(dolichocrany) this term includes indices between 70.0 and 74.9.
Dolichoid. Elongated.
Dynamometry. The measurement of the force of muscular contraction.
Echinococcus. A small tapeworm, the larval form of which is occasionally found
in humans encased in cysts (cysticercosis).
Embolism. The plugging of an artery or vein by a clot or obstruction which has
been brought to its place by the blood-current.
Endocarditis. Inflammation of the lining membrane of the heart.
Etiology. The study or theory of the causation of any disease.
154 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Euencephaly. Skull capacities between 1301 and 1450 cc. in males, or between
1151 and 1300 cc. in females.
Euryprosopy. Morphological face indices in the living (nasion-gnathion X 100/
bizygomatic breadth) between 79.0 and 83.9. Used in connecton with the
skull it refers to indices between 80.0 and 84.9.
Exanthematic. Pertaining to an eruptive disease.
Fueguidos. Term used by Imbelloni to describe an Indian physical type found
especially among the Botocudos and the tribes of Tierra del Fuego. Same as
Von Eickstedt's "Lagide Rasse (Kiistentypus)."
Gene. A unit of inheritance situated at some particular locus of a particular
chromosome and transmitted according to the laws of Mendel.
Glabella. A metric landmark at the most prominent point in the midline between
the eyebrows. Also used to designate this region.
Gumma. A soft gummy tumor occurring in the late stages of syphilis.
Hilus. The depression at the entrance and exit of the vessels, nerves, and duct of
a gland.
Hominid. Pertaining to the group of mammals to which Homo, or mankind,
belongs.
Hydatinous cyst. A cystlike tumor, sometimes found in man, which is the
encapsulated larval stage of the small tapeworm. Taenia echinococcus.
Hyperbrachycephaly. Length-breadth indices of the head (greatest breadthX
100/greatest length) from 85.5 and up. When applied to the skuU (hyper-
brachycrany) this term includes indices between 85.0 and 89.9.
Hypereuryprosopy. Morphological face indices in the living (nasion-gnathionX
100/bizygomatic breadth) up to and including 78.9. Used in connection
with the skull it refers to indices up to and including 79.9.
Hypsiacrocephaly (or -crany). A term coined by combining Hypslcephaly (or
-crany, q. v.) and Acrocephaly (or -crany, q. v.) denoting the upper range of
the mean height index (for the skull from about 83.5 up).
Hypsicephaly. Length-height indices of the head (ear heightX 100/greatest
length) of 62.6 and higher. As applied to the skull (hypsicrany), substitu-
ting basion-bregma height, it refers to indices of 75.0 and up.
Index. Usually the ratio between two measurements expressed as a percentage
of the larger. Thus, the cephalic or cranial (horizontal) index is: Maximum
breadthXlOO/maximum length; the morphological face index is: Chin-nasion
heightX 100/bizygomatic breadth; the nasal index is: Breadth XlOO/length.
(See, however, the Pignet index),
fstmidos. A term used by Imbelloni to describe the physical type of the Indians
of Middle America. Corresponds to a part of Von Eickstedt's "Zentralide
Rasse."
Lacrimale. The metric landmark at the point of intersection of the posterior
lacrimal crest with the fronto-lacrimal suture.
L^guidos. Term used by Imbelloni to describe an Indian physical type found
among the oldest skeletal remains, especially at Lagoa Santo, Brazil. Same
as Von Eickstedt's "Lagide Rasse (Berghohlentypus)."
Lepteny. Upper face indices in the living (nasion-prosthionX 100/bizygomatic
breadth) between 53.0 and 56.9. When applied to the skull it refers to in-
dices between 55.0 and 59.9.
Leptoprosopy. Morphological face indices in the living (nasion-gnathionX 100/
bizygomatic breadth) between 88.0 and 92.9. Used in connection with the
skull it refers to indices between 90.0 and 94.9.
Leptorrhiny. Nasal indices between 55.0 and 69.9 in the living, and up to and
including 46.9 on the skull.
Vol.6] PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY—^HENCKEL 155
Leptosomic. Pertaining to the thin constitutional type. Same as Asthenic.
Leptostaphyliny. Palatal indices as determined on the skull, up to and including
79.9.
Lissotrichous. Having straight hair.
Longilinear. A term used to indicate the long, thin constitutional type according
to Viola's method.
Lophocephaly. A condition of the skull in which a pronounced sagittal crest is
present.
Luetic. Pertaining to or affected with syphUis.
Lymphadenitis. Inflammation of lymph glands.
Maxillo-frontale. A metric landmark at the intersection of the anterior lacrimal
crest, or this crest prolonged, with the fronto-maxillary suture.
Melanesoid. Having the physical characters common to the natives of Melanesia.
Mesaortitis. Inflammation of the middle coat of the aorta.
Meseny. Upper face indices in the living (nasion-prosthion X 100/bizygomatic
breadth) between 48.0 and 62.9. When applied to the skull it refers to
indices between 50.0 and 54.9.
Mesocephaly. Length-breadth indices of the head (greatest breadth X 100/great-
est length) between 76.0 and 80.9. When applied to the skull (mesocrany)
this term refers to indices between 75.0 and 79.9.
Mesoconchy. Orbital indices between 76.0 and 84.9 (measuring breadth from
Maxillo-frontale, q. v.), between 80.1 and 85.0 (measuring breadth from
Dacryon, q. v.), or between 83.0 and 88.9 (measuring breadth from Lacrimale,
q. v.).
Mesognathy. Gnathic indices (basi-alveolar length X 100/basi-nasion length)
between 98.0 and 102.9.
Mesoprosopy. Morphological face indices in the living (nasion-gnathion
X 100/bizygomatic breadth) between 84.0 and 87.9. Used in connection
with the skull it refers to indices between 85.0 and 89.9.
Mesorrhiny. Nasal indices between 70.0 and 84.9 in the living, and between
47.0 and 50.9 on the skull.
Mesostaphyliny. Palatal indices, as determined on the skull, between 80.0
and 84.9.
Metabolism, basal. The minimal heat produced by an individual in the fasting
and resting stage.
Metriocrany. Breadth-height indices of the skull (basion-bregma height X
100/greatest breadth) between 92.0 and 97.9. For the living (metriocephaly)
substituting ear height, it refers to indices between 79.0 and 84.9.
Metriometopy. Transverse fronto-parietal indices on the skull (minimum
frontal diameter X 100/greatest breadth) between 66.0 and 68.9.
Mongoloid. Having the physical characters common to the Mongolian peoples.
Morphologic. Pertaining to form and structure.
Mutation. The germinal change resulting in the production of an individual
having a different genotypic constitution from its parents.
Myology. The study of muscles.
Orthocrany. Length-height indices of the skull (basion-bregma height X
100/greatest length) between 70.0 and 74.9. As applied to the living (ortho-
cephaly), substituting ear height, it refers to indices between 57.7 and 62.5.
Orthognathy. Gnathic indices (basi-alveolar length X lOO/basi-nasion length)
up to and including 97.9.
Paleoanthropology. The study of the ancient remains of man.
156 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
PSmpidos. A term taken over from Von Eickstedt by Imbelloni to describe
the physical type of the Indians of southeastern South America, especially
Argentina.
Peritonitis. Inflammation of the lining of the abdominal cavity.
Pignet index. A measure of body build obtained by the formula: Stature (cm.)
— [chest girth (cm.) +body weight (kg.)].
Planidos. A term used by Imbelloni to describe the physical type of east-
central North America. Same as Von Eickstedt's "Silvide Rasse."
Platyrrhine. A broad nose, indicially corresponding to Chamaerrhiny (q. v.).
Polymorph. Having many forms.
Prognathous. Having projecting jaws.
Pueblos-andidos. A term used by Imbelloni to describe the physical type of the
Indians of the Pueblo area of North America and of the Andean area of South
America. Combines a portion of Von Eickstedt's "Zentralide" with his
"Andide Rasse."
Pyknic. A term used by Kretschmer to describe the stout constitutional type.
Raphe. A ridge or furrow that marks the line of union of the halves of various
symmetric parts.
Sepsis, puerperal. Poisoning by the products of a putrefactive process occurring
after childbirth.
Somatology. The sum of what is known regarding the body.
Splanchnology. The sum of knowledge in regard to the viscera.
Stenometopy. Transverse fronto-parietal indices on the skuU (minimum frontal
diameterXlOO/greatest breadth) up to and including 65.9.
Subdolichocephaly (better, -crany). A term used to classify the length-breadth
indices of the skuU between 75.0 and 77.76.
Systole. The stage of contraction of the ventricles of the heart.
Tapeinocrany. Breadth-height indices of the skull (basion-bregma height X 100/
greatest breadth) up to and including 91.9. For the living (tapeinocephaly)
,
substituting ear height, it refers to indices up to and including 78.9.
Thrombosis. The formation or development of a plug or clot in a vessel.
Torus. A swelling; a bulging projection.
Ulotrichous. Having wooly hair.
Uvula. A small, fleshy mass hanging from the soft palate above the root of the
tongue.
Part 3. The Languages of South American Indians
By J. Alden Mason
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction 159
Sources 169
The Meso-Anxerican languages-
_
173
Hokan-Siouan 173
Macro-Penutian 173
Utaztecan 174
Macro-Otomanguean 174
Lencan, Jicaquean, and
Payan 174
Macro-Chibchan 174
Chibchan 175
Chibchan languages of Cen-
tral America 176
Chibcha proper 178
Colombian subgroup 179
Inter-Andine group 179
Barbacoa group 180
Andaki (Andaquf) 181
Betoi group 181
Languages probably of Chibchan
aflBnities 184
Panzaleo 184
Cara and Caranki 184
Kijo (Quijo) 184
Misumalpan 184
Cofdn (Kofane) 186
Languages of doubtful Chibchan
relationships 186
Coche (Mocoa) 186
Esmeralda 187
Tairona and Chimila 187
Yurumanguf 188
Timote 188
Candoshi, Chirino, and Mur-
ato 191
Chol6n 192
Hibito 192
Copall^n 192
Aconipa (Akonipa) 193
PAGE
Yunca-Puruhdn 193
Yunca 194
Puruhd 195
Canari (Canyari) 195
Ataldn 195
Sec, Sechura, or Talldn 196
Kechumaran 196
Quechua 197
Aymara 200
Chiquitoan 200
Macro-Guaicuruan 201
Mataco-Macd 202
Mataco 202
Macd (Enimagd, Coch-
aboth) 203
Guaicurii (Waicurii) 204
Lule-Vilelan 206
Tonocote, Matard,, and Gua-
card 208
Arawakan 208
Chan6 and Chand, 216
Languages of probable Arawakan
affinities 216
Araud group 216
Apolista or Lapachu 217
Amuesha 217
Tucuna (Tikuna) 218
Tarumd 218
Tacana
_ 218
Languages of possible Arawakan
relationships 221
Tuyuneri 221
Jirajara 221
Jfvaro 222
Uru-Chipaya-Pukina 224
Ochosuma 225
Chango and Coast Uru_ 225
Cariban 226
157
158 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Languages of probable Cariban
aflSliations 231
Choc6, and Cariban of Co-
lombia 232
Peba-Yagua 233
Arda 234
Yuma 235
Palmella 235
Yuri (Juri)._ 235
Pimenteira 236
Macro-Tupf-Guaranian 236
Tupf-Guaranian 236
Yurimagua (Zurima-
gua) 240
Arikem 240
Miranyan or Boran 243
Witotoan 244
Nonuya 245
Muenane 246
Fitita 246
Orej6n 246
Coeruna 246
Andoke 246
Resigero 247
Zdparoan 247
Omurano (Roamaina?). 250
Sabela.__ 251
Canelo 251
Awishira 252
Northern tropical Lowland fami-
lies of presumed independence. 252
Warrauan 252
Auak^an 253
Calianan 253
Macuan 253
Shiriandn 254
Sdlivan, Macu, and Piar6a-_ 254
Pamigua and Tinigua 255
Otomacan, Guamo or Guama
and Yaruran 255
Guahiban 256
Puinavean or Macii 257
Tucanoan (Betoyan) 258
Goto 261
Cahuapanan 261
Muniche 262
Panoan 262
The Chama languages.. 263
Cashibo 264
Mayoruna 269
Itucale, Simacu, and
Urarina
__. 270
Northern tropical, etc—Con.
Panoan—Continued
Aguano 271
Chamicuro 271
Southern tropical Lowland fami-
lies of presumed independence. 271
Unclassified languages of
Eastern Peru 271
Small "families" of Bolivia. 272
Itonaman 272
Canichanan 272
Cayuvavan 273
Moviman 273
Mosetenan 274
Lecan 274
Yuracarean 275
Small languages of the
Brazil-Bolivia border
(Havari, Masdca, Capi-
shand., Purubord, Ma-
shubi, etc.) 275
Catukinan 276
Chapacuran 277
Wanyam (Huanam) and
CabishI (Kabidi) 279
Mascoian 279
Zamucoan 280
Guatoan 281
Bororoan and Otuke 282
Coravecaand Covareca;
Curucaneca and Cu-
ruminaca 283
Nambicuaran 283
Cabishi 285
Muran 285
Matanawl _ 285
Trumaian 286
Carajdn 286
Caririan 286
Macro-Ge 287
Ge 288
Caingang 291
Camacdn, Mashacali, and
Puri (Coroado) 293
Camacdn 294
Mashacali 295
Purl (Coroado) 295
Patash6 296
Malall. 297
Corop6 298
Botocudo - 298
Shavant6 (Chavant6, Savante)-- 299
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 159
PAGE
Shavant^—Continued
Oti 299
Opay6 300
Cucurd 300
Guaitacdn 300
Small languages of the Pernam-
buco region (Fulni6, Natu,
Pancaruru, Shoc6, Shucurii,
Tushd, Carapat6, Payacii, Te-
rememb6, and Tarairiu or
Ochucayana) 301
Southernmost languages 302
Ataguitan 302
Atacama 302
Omawaca (Omahuaca)_ 303
Diaguita or Calchaquf _ 303
Charrua, Kerandf, Chand,
etc - 304
PAGE
Southernmost languages—Con,
Charrua, Kerandf, Chand,
etc—Continued
Chand__ 305
Allentiac or Huarpean 306
Sanavir6n and Come-
ching6nan 307
Sanavir6n__ 307
Comeching6n 307
Araucanian 307
Chono 309
Puelchean 309
Het (Chechehet) 309
Chonan or Tewelche (Tehuel-
che) and Ona 310
Yahganan 311
Alacalufan 311
Bibliography 312
INTRODUCTION »
Even a relatively short sketch of the linguistic conditions of a
large area should cover such points as: general features
—
phonetic,
morphological, and lexical—that characterize the languages, and the
main points in which they differ from languages of other regions; brief
digests of the grammar and phonetics of each independent famUy or
at least of the more important ones; a classification of these families
in groups according to phonetic and morphological type; a classification
of the component languages of each family in their proper subdivisions
as dialects, languages, groups, and stocks, according to degree of
linguistic relationship; and a reconstruction of linguistic history and
migrations. As regards the aboriginal languages of South America
it must be understood at the outset that, as comparatively little
reliable data are available upon them, none of the above points can
be treated with any approach to thoroughness, and on most of them
little can be said at present.
South American Indian languages have no uniform or even usual
characteristics that differentiate them from North American lan-
guages. The same may be said of American languages fundamentally,
as opposed to Old World languages. Languages were formerly
grouped into categories according to morphological pattern: isolating,
agglutinating, polysynthetic, and inflective, with an implication of
evolution and betterment toward the inflecting ideal—of course, of
• Under the title of "Status and Problems of Research in the Native Languages of South America" this
Introduction, with slight revision, was read at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science at Cleveland, Ohio, September 15, 1944, as the author's vice-presidential address as
incoming chairman of Section H, the section on anthropology. It was later published in Science, vol. 101,
No. 2620, pp. 259-264, March 16, 1945.
160 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
our own Indo-European languages. However, research has shown
that, so far as there has been any evolution, the isolating is the last,
not the first stage. American languages were once classed with the
polysynthetic, with agglutinative tendencies. No such hard-and-fast
distinctions can be made; few languages belong definitely to one or
another class, and most of them show traits of several classes. This
applies equally well to American and to Old World languages; some
show tendencies toward inflection, more toward polysynthesis. It
is impossible to give any description that would characterize the
majority of American Indian languages or contrast them with Old
World languages, either from a morphological or a phonetic point of
view. Incorporation (of the nominal or pronominal object) was
formerly considered one of the characteristics of American languages;
this also is missing in many of them.
A classification of languages according to patterns and types being
impossible, the only possible one is genetic, based on relationship,
common origin, and linguistic history.^
The classification of human groups according to their languages is
now accepted as the best system for reconstructing historical connec-
tions. Cultural elements are too easUy adopted to have much histori-
cal value; somatological characteristics, though more permanent than
Unguistic ones, are less readily identifiable in mixture. On the other
hand, a proved relationship of two languages at present widely sepa-
rated indicates a former close connection or identity of the ancestors
of their speakers and thus affords important data on human migration.
But proof of linguistic relationship is fraught with innumerable
difiiculties. It is seldom absolute, but depends on acceptance by
scholars; on the other hand, it is impossible to prove that two lan-
guages are not related.
Merely to ascertain the connection between two languages is far
from sufficient to establish a good historical picture. If we knew no
more than that Spanish, Italian, German, and Russian are related it
would mean little. All the languages of South America may be
related; all those of aU America may be; conceivably aU languages in
the world may eventually be proved to have a common descent. In
the same sense, all mammals are related, all animals are related, all
life had a common origin. Relationship means little unless we
know degree and nearness of relationship.
A direct comparison of two distantly related languages seldom
yields convincing proof of their connection. A comparison of Polish
and English would probably result in a negative decision; it is only
because we know the historical linguistics of the Indo-European lan-
> On the classification of languages, and of American Indian languages in particular, see Boas, 1911; Hoijer,
1941; Mason, 1940; Voegelin, 1941; and references and bibliographies therein.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 161
guages well, with reconstructed roots of words, that the relationship
can be proved. On the other hand, no proof would be needed of the
relationship of French, Spanish, and Italian; even if we did not know
their descent from Latin, the resemblance is obvious. The relation-
ship of dialects such as Catalan, Provengal, and Gallego is even closer
and more evident.
Related languages are grouped in "families" or "stocks," presumed,
on present evidence, to be unrelated. These families are then sub-
divided into divisions, groups, branches, languages, types, dialects,
varieties, etc. The terminology is indefinite and there are no estab-
Hshed criteria. When families heretofore considered independent are
determined to be related, a more inclusive term is required; phylum
has been accepted. For instance, if Indo-European, Hamito-Semitic,
and Finno-Ugrian are "proved" to be related, as has been posited
with considerable ground, they would compose a phylum. Most of
the 85-odd "families" of North America, formerly considered in-
dependent, are now grouped in relatively few phyla.
Good scientific grammars of South American languages are prac-
tically nonexistent, and grammars of any Idnd, even of the older type
based on analogy with Latin grammar, are very few. Comparisons
of morphology, one of the important criteria for linguistic connections,
are, therefore, in most cases impossible. Most of the classifications
are based on lexical grounds, on vocabularies, often short, usually
taken by travelers or missionary priests, and generally with the help
of interpreters. The recorders were almost always untrained in
phonetics and each used the phonetic system of his native language—
•
Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, or English; sometimes Dutch
or Swedish. Scientific deductions made on the basis of such material
have httle claim to acceptance. Yet on many languages, extinct or
living, nothing else is available. An independent family should not
be posited on the basis of one such vocabulary, no matter how ap-
parently different from any other language. (Cf. Mashubi.)
Of many extinct languages, and even of some living ones, nothing
is known; of others there are statements that the natives spoke a
language of their own, different from that of their neighbors, but
without any suggestion as to how different, or that the language
was intelligible or unintelligible or related to that of other groups.
Of some, only place and personal names remain; of others, recorded
lexical data ranging from a few words to large vocabularies and
grammatical sketches.
Owing to the magnitude of the field it has been possible for me to
make very few independent studies and comparisons of lexical and
morphological data with a view to establishing linguistic connections,
and even most of the articles published by others in support of such
162 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
relationships have not been critically studied and appraised. The
greater number, and by far the most cogent, of these studies have
been written by the dean of South American linguists, Dr. Paul
Rivet. Similar studies in Macro-Ge languages have been published
by Loukotka. In almost all of them the authors were, unfortunately,
limited to comparing vocabularies collected by others and pregnant
with the faults already herein set forth. Words from lists in one group
of languages are compared with words from languages of another
group. Rarely are the roots or stems isolated or known, and morpho-
logical elements may often be mistaken for parts of stems. Rarely
has it been possible to deduce any rules of sound-shift, the best proof
of linguistic relationship, or the examples given are too few in pro-
portion to the munber of comparisons to carry conviction. Few
of these proposed linguistic relationships can be said to be incon-
trovertibly proved; good cases have been made for many, and many
or most of them have been accepted by later authorities, and are
accepted herein. Others are of doubtful validity, and all require
reappraisal, and reworking, especially those in which new data may
later become, or may already have become, available.
It is a truism of linguistic research that, given large enough vocabu-
laries to compare, and making allowances for all possible changes in
the form of a word or stem, as well as in its meaning, a number of
apparent similarities, convincing to the uncritical, can be found
between any two languages. Especially is this true if the comparison
is made between two large groups, each consisting of languages of
admitted relationship. To carry conviction, laws of sound-shift must
be deduced, obeyed by a large proportion of the cases in question, and
a basic similarity in morphological and phonetic pattern must be
shown. Few of the comparative works on South American languages
attempt such obligations, and almost all suffer from the faults above
listed. There is not a really thorough comparative grammar of any
South American, or for that matter of any American, native linguistic
family, except possibly Algonkian.
One of the pitfaUs to be avoided in linguistic comparison is that of
borrowing. Languages easUy adopt words from neighboring languages
;
these must be discounted in seeking evidence on genetic relationship.
Words for new concepts or new objects are likely to be similar in many
languages; ^ generally their categories and very similar forms betray
their recent origin. Phonetic pattern and morphological traits are also
borrowed, but to a lesser degree. Grammatical pattern is the most
stable element in a language, phonology next; vocabulary is most
subject to change. There are several areas in America where a number
I See Nordenskiold, 1922; Herzog, G. 1941. Such words as those for banana, cow, telegraph, are pertinent.
I
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 163
of languages with little or no lexical resemblance have a relatively
uniform phonology, and/or similar morphological peculiarities.
Many American languages, North as well as South, show resem-
blance in the pronominal system, often n for the first person, moxp
for second person. Whether this is the result of common origin,
chance, or borrowing has never been proved, but the resemblance
should not be used as evidence of genetic connection between any two
languages. Many of the languages of central and eastern Brazil are
characterized by words ending in vowels, with the stress accent on the
ultimate syllable.
In some cases, the amount of borrowed words and elements may be
so great as practically to constitute a mixed language. Linguistic
students are in disagreement as to whether a true mixed language with
multiple origins is possible. Loukotka, in his 1935 classification,
considers a language mixed if the foreign elements exceed one-fifth
of the 45-word standard vocabulary used by him for comparison.
Lesser borrowings he terms "intrusions" and "vestiges." (See also
Loukotka, 1939 a.)
The situation is further complicated by the fact that, in a large
number of instances, the same or a very similar name was applied by
colonists to several groups of very different linguistic affinities. This
may be a descriptive name of European derivation, such as Orejon, "Big
Ears"; Patagon, "Big Feet"; Coroado, "Crowned" or "Tonsured";
5ar6af/os,"Bearded" ; Lengua^Tongne.^' Or it may be an Indian word
applied to several different groups in the same way that the Mayan
Lacandon of Chiapas are locally called "Caribs," and the rustic natives
of Puerto Rico and Cuba "Gibaros^' and "Goajiros," respectively.
Thus, "Tapuya," the Tupi word for "enemy," was applied by them
to almost all non-Tupl groups, ''Botocudo" to wearers of large lip-
plugs, etc. Among other names applied to groups of different languages,
sometimes with slight variations, are Apiacd, Arard, Caripuna, Gha-
vante, Guana, Guayand, Canamari, Carayd, Catavnshi, Catukina,
Cuniba, Jivaro, Macu, Tapiete, not to mention such easily confused
names as Tucano, Tacana and Ticuna. Many mistakes have been
made due to confusion of such names. (Cf. especially, Arda.)
America, and especially South America, is probably the region of
greatest linguistic diversity in the world, and of greatest ignorance
concerning the native languages. On the very probable presumption
that each homogeneous group, tribe, band, or village spoke a recog-
nizable variant dialect or variety, there may have been 5,000 such in
South America. The index of Rivet (1924 a) fists some 1,240 such
groups (including a few synonyms), and this is far from the total.
For instance, in the above index, Rivet fists 13 component members
of the small and unimportant Timote family of Venezuela; in his
794711—60 12
164 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
monograph on the Timote (Rivet, 1927 a) he mentions 128 names for
local groups, apart from the names of the villages occupied by them.
The multitude of languages in America has often been given as an
argument for a comparatively great length of time of human occupa-
tion of this hemisphere. This concept presupposes that the first
immigrants to America had a common speech. This is unlikely;
it is more probable that each migrating group had its specific language,
and that the number of presumably independent linguistic families
may originally have been even greater than at present. Such a
reduction has been the linguistic history of the rest of the world.
These "families" may either have had a remote common ancestry or
multiple unrelated origins; of the origin and early forms of speech
we know nothing. All known "prunitive" languages are highly
complex and evidently have had a long period of development. Of
course, the minor dialects and obviously related languages were
differentiated in America.
Since the main migration to America is believed to have been via
Alaska, we would expect to find in South America languages of older
migrations than in North America, the speech of the earliest migrants
forced to the peripheries and to cul-de-sacs by later and more aggres-
sive groups, and also small enclaves of moribund independent lin-
guistic families. This applies especially to southernmost and eastern-
most South America, and to the speech of natives of paleo-American
physical type, such as the Qe and the Fuegians.
Regarding extracontinental relationships, many ill-conceived at-
temps have been made to show connections between South American
native languages and Indo-European or Semitic ones; all these are
so amateurish that they have been accorded no scientific attention.
Dr. Paul Rivet is firmly convinced of the connection between Australian
languages and Chon, and between Malayo-Polynesian and Hokan.
Instead of by direct trans-Pacific voyages, he believes that the
Austrahan influence came via the Antarctic during a favorable post-
glacial period not less than 6,000 years ago.'* This radical thesis has
met with no acceptance among North American anthropologists.
The data offered in its support fall short of conviction, but probably
have not received suflicient careful consideration.
It is possible that some of the South American languages belong to
the great Hokan or Hokan-Siouan family or phylum of North America.
(Cf
. Yurumangui, Quechua.) Since isolated Hokan enclaves are found
as far south as Nicaragua, evidence of migrations across Panamd
would not be entirely unexpected. A number of languages from
Colombia to the Gran Chaco have Hokan-like morphological patterns.
Dr. J. P. Harrington is convinced of the Hokan affihations of Quechua,
* Eivet, 1925 b, and many other articles. (See bibliography in Pericot y Garcia, 1936, p. 432.)
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 165
but his published article (1943) fails to carry conviction, and no other
argument for Hokan in South America has been presented. Such
Hokan migrations, if proved, were probably at a relatively early
period.
On the other hand, several of the great South American families
have penetrated the southern peripheries of North America. Chib-
chan languages occupied a solid area, with possibly a few small enclaves
of other families or isolated languages, as far as the Nicaraguan border,
and the probably affiliated ^'Misumalpan" (Miskito-Sumo-Matagalpa)
would extend this area to cover Nicaragua. Arawak and Carib
extended over the Lesser and Greater Antilles, and the former may
have had a colony on the Florida coast.
In 1797 the native Carib Indians remaining in the Lesser Antilles,
mainly on St. Vincent Island, were transported to Roatan Island off
the coast of Honduras. Mixing with the Negro population there, they
have spread over much of the coast of Honduras and parts of British
Honduras. They now number some 15,000, most of them speaking a
Carib jargon.
The trend in the classification of American languages has been quite
opposite in North and in South America. In the former, radical
scholars believe that all the many languages formerly considered in-
dependent may faU into six great phyla: Eskimo, Na-Dene, Algonkian-
Mosan, Hokan-Siouan, Macro-Penutian, and Macro-Oiomanguean,
plus the South American phylum Macro-Chibchan. In South America,
on the contrary, the more recent classifications have increased rather
than reduced the number of families or groups given independent
status. Most of these new ones, it must be admitted, are one-
language families, many of them extinct, and generally based on one
or a few short vocabularies that show little or no resemblance to any
other language with which they have been compared. These should
be considered as unclassified rather than as independent families.
It is certain that the number will be greatly reduced as the languages
become more intensively studied, but doubtful if it will ever reach such
relative simplicity as in North America. Almost certainly the lin-
guistic picture will be found to be far more complex than in Europe
and Asia.
One of the main reasons for the great difference in the proposed
number of linguistic families in North and South America is that the
study of South American linguistics is now about in the same stage as
that of North American languages thirty years ago. Since that time
many trained students, both in the United States and in Mexico, have
studied the native languages intensively, largely under the direction
166 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
or example of the late Drs. Franz Boas ^ and Edward Sapir. Except
for the indefatigable Dr. Paul Rivet and the late Curt Nimuendajii,
South America has had few linguistic scholars of wide interests and
scientific viewpoint, and until recently very few trained younger men.
The North American languages have been grouped into six phyla,
mainly on grounds of morphological resemblance and intuition, and in
this the students have been aided by the fact that the languages are
fewer, and fewer of them extinct, so that such morphological studies
could be made. South America suffers not only from lack of students,
paucity of grammatical studies, multitudes of languages, extinction of
many of them, but also from the practical problems of linguistic
research: immense distances, poor transportation, difficulties and
expense of expeditions, lack of capable interpreters, and similar
handicaps.
The history of attempts to classify the languages of South America
was reviewed by Chamberlain in 1907. The earlier classifications,
such as those of Adelung and Vater, Balbi, Castelnau, Gilij, Hervas,
Ludewig, Von Martins and D'Orbigny, were not considered therein,
and need not be here. Modern classification began with Brinton in
1891 (1891 a). With his usual far-seeing good sense, not "curiously
enough" as Chamberlain remarks, Brinton refused to enumerate or list
his "stocks," but apparently recognized nearly sixty. In many later
short articles Brinton continued to alter his groupings. Other lists
published in the next few years were McGee, 1903 (56) ; Chamberlain,
[1903] (57); Ehrenreich, 1905 (52). All these differ more than the
slight variation in total would suggest. Chamberlain then gave his
own list, totalling 83. Later (1913 a) he published a revision of this,
which became the standard classification in English for a decade or
more. Though the total of 83 stocks is exactly the same as in his
earlier list (plus 77a), the number of alterations, deletions, and additions
is great.
Since 1922 a number of classifications have appeared. Krickeberg
(1922) stressed only the 15 most important families; based on this
Jimenez Moreno (1938) published a large distribution map in color.
P. W. Schmidt (1926) also wisely did not attempt to enumerate and
list every family, but discussed them under 36 families or groups.
The late Curt Nimuendaju never attempted a complete linguistic
classification of South America, and his unpublished map and index
do not include the far north, west and south, but his first-hand knowl-
edge of the rest of the continent is unexcelled. In this restricted
region he recognizes 42 stocks, 34 isolated languages, and hundreds of
» See especially "Handbook of American Indian Languages," edited by Franz Boas, Parts 1 and 2, Bulletin
40, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1911, 1922; Part 3, New York, 1933.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 167
unclassified languages, the latter generally without any known
linguistic data.
Two comprehensive classifications of all South American languages
have been made in the last 20 years. Paul Rivet (1924 a), com-
bining some of Chamberlain's families, separating others, reached a
total of 77. Pericot y Garcia (1936) follows Rivet very closely, but
not in numerical or alphabetical order. The most recent classifica-
tion and the most radical—or most conservative, according to the
point of view—is that of Loukotka (1935). Dividing more of Rivet's
famiUes than he combined, he enumerates 94 families with a total of
some 558 languages. Later he revised the details somewhat, but only
regarding the languages of Brazil. In this latter article he notes the
linguistic sources for each language (Loukotka, 1939 a).
In view of the great uncertainty regarding the relationships and
classification of the South American native languages, and the great
differences of opuiion, the example of Brinton, Schmidt, and Kricke-
berg is herein followed, in not attempting to enumerate and rigidly
to separate the genetic families.
The classification of the languages of South America herein given is,
therefore, presented without any pretense of finality or even of
accuracy ; the data are too insufficient. Future research will indicate
many errors and change the picture decidedly. It is hoped that the
present article incorporates all the accepted revisions since the appear-
ance of other classifications, and improves on the latter. As regards
exactitude and finality I can but cite the opinion of a great linguist:
To attempt to make an exact and complete classification of all languages in
rigorously defined families is to prove that one has not understood the principles
of the genetic classification of languages. [Meillet and Cohen, 1924, p. 10.]
South American linguistic history or philology does not extend
before the beginnings of the 16th century with the first words and
observations made by European voyagers. No native alphabets had
been developed; there were no hieroglyphs, and even pictographs,
petroglyphs, and picture-writing seem to be less than in North
America. The Peruvian quipus were arithmetical, astrological,
divinatory, and mnemonic. There was a tradition among the
Quechua at the time of the Conquest that they had once had a system
of writing on tree leaves that was later forbidden and forgotten
(Montesmos, 1920, chs. 7, 14, 15; Bmgham, 1922, ch. 16; 1930, ch. 9.),
but this is given httle credence by modern scholars, and no trace of it
remains. However, it has recently been suggested that painted
symbols were employed by some natives of the North Peruvian Coast
(Larco Hoyle, 1944). A system of writing has been claimed for the
Chibcha also, based, not on tradition, but on the peculiar, and appar-
ently nonpictorial character of many pictographs in Colombia; this
168 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A.E. BuU.143
also has received no credence among archeologists. On the other
hand, the modern Cuna of Panama have developed an interesting
existent system of mnemonic picture-writing.^
Two of the native languages merit special mention as having be-
come, after the Spanish Conquest, lenguas francas of wider extent
and use than formerly. The Tupi of the Brazilian coast became the
basis of the lingua geral, the medium of communication of priests
and traders throughout the Amazon drainage; it is now generally re-
placed by Portuguese. The Cuzco dialect of Quechua became the
culture language of the '^Inca" region and extended its area even
before the Conquest; after the latter it continued its spread and was
adopted as a second language by the Spanish in Peru. Neither
language has today, however, the cultm-al position of the Maya of
Yucatan, for instance, though both have added many native terms in
the Spanish and Portuguese of their regions, and even throughout the
world, such as tapioca, jaguar, llama, and quinine. It has been
estimated that 15 percent of the vocabulary of Brazilian Portuguese
is of Tupi origin. In Paraguay, Guarani is considered a culture
language, and some newspapers are published in it.
A description of the geographical area occupied by each language
would take too much space. The approximate region may be seen
by reference to the large linguistic map and to the tribal sections in the
other volumes of this Handbook. In this connection, the point of
temporal relativity must be taken into consideration. The habitat
given is that of earliest record. Great changes in population and
migrations took place during the 16th to 18th centuries and even
later, and migrations on a lesser or equal scale must have occm-red in
preceding centuries. These cannot be recorded on the map, but some
are noted in the regional articles in Volumes 1 to 4. These changes
took place especially in eastern Brazil and in the Andean region.
In the preparation of this article I have received help, great or
little, generally information through correspondence, from Messrs.
J. Eugenio Garro, Irving Goldman, John P. Harrington, Frederick
Johnson, Jacob Bridgens Johnson, Claude Levi-Strauss, Erwin H.
Lauriault, William Lipkind, Alfred S. Metraux, Bernard Mishkin,
Eugene A. Nida, Louis Rankin, A. F. Reifsnyder, Paul Rivet, John
Howland Rowe, David B. Stout, Harry Tschopik, Jr., and Charles
Wagley. My sincere thanks to these and to aU others who may have
assisted in any way. Two persons deserve especial mention, credit,
and thanks: Betty J. Meggers (Mrs. Clifford Evans, Jr.), who helped
greatly with the bibliography; and particularly Mrs. Maria Alice
Moura Pessoa, who is largely responsible for the linguistic map as
weU as for much of the bibliography. A large part, possibly the major
• Nordenskiold, "Comparative Ethnological Studies," 7, Qoteborg, 1928-1930.
Vol.6] LANGUAGES—MASON 169
part, of the latter was prepared by Works Progress Administration
Project No. 18369 in 1939 under the direction of the late Dr. Vladimir
J. Fewkes, Mr. Ronald J. Mason also assisted in checking the map.
SOURCES
In addition to earlier and outmoded classifications such as those of
Gilij (1780-84), Hervds y Panduro (1800), Adelung and Vater (1806-
17), Balbi (1826), D'Orbigny (1839), Ludewig (1858), and Martius
(1867), about a dozen authors have offered classifications of the South
American languages, or of those of large parts of South America.
Although their opinions are often mentioned in text, they are generally
omitted in the language bibliographies herein because of their con-
stant recurrence, except in those cases, particularly Adelung and
Vater (1806-17), Martius (1867), Lehmann, W. (1920), Tessmann
(1930), and Jijon y Caamano (1941-43), where they present source
material. The more recent classifications, with a brief note on their
natures, are as follows:
Alexander Chamberlain, "Linguistic Stocks of South American
Indians" (1913 a). This 12-page article is the last of several such by
Chamberlain. It enumerates his 84 families with several bibliographi-
cal references to each, all of which may be found in the references
herein. The accompanying map is small.
Paul Rivet, "Langues de I'Amerique du Sud et des Antilles"
(1924 a)—a 69-page part of Meillet and Cohen's "Les Langues du
Monde" (1924). Under each of his 77 families Rivet briefly notes the
component languages in their groupings and with their locations, in
text—not in tabular—form. Over a thousand languages (or dialects)
and synonyms are mentioned, and the very full index, containing
about 1,250 names of South American languages, is most useful.
The bibliography consists of only 82 items, all of which are included
herein. It is followed by a 4-page article on "L'ecriture en Amerique."
Several large folding maps are included.
Cestmir Loukotka, " Clasificaci6n de las Lenguas Sudamericanas"
(1935). This is a small and rare pamphlet of 35 pages. In tabular
form he lists his 94 families with the component lajiguages {Arawak
has 89) in groups or divisions. Extinct languages are so marked.
Loukotka notes languages that, in his opinion, are mixed, or that
have "intrusions" or "vestiges" of other languages. This is in accord
with his comparisons of a 45-word standard vocabulary; the language
is "mixed" if it contains more than one-fifth of foreign words, has
"intrusions" or "vestiges" if foreign words are few or very few.
There is no bibliography and no map.
Wilhelm Schmidt, "Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der
Erde" (1926). The South American section comprises 59 pages.
170 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Schmidt wisely does not enumerate his families but mentions most of
the languages with their locations, and has classificatory charts for
the larger families. Many references are given in text, some of which
may be missing in the bibliography herein. Maps are provided in a
separate atlas. The index is large. The second half of the book is
devoted to "Die Sprachenkreise und Ihr Verbaltnis zu den Kultur-
kreisen," where the phonologies, grammars, and syntaxes of the
languages of the world are compared. To my knowledge, this is the
only place where the little that is known about the morphology of
South American languages may be found in one work. A digest and
critique of Schmidt's kuliurkreis as it applies to South American
languages should have formed a section of the present monograph.
Daniel G. Brinton, "The American Race" (1891 a). Although
Brinton covers briefly all phases of American anthropology, his
groupings are on a linguistic basis and his linguistic interests very
great. He wisely does not enumerate his families but gives tables
of the component languages of the principal families, with their
locations. To prove relationships he gives comparative vocabularies
and considerable linguistic data, comments, and arguments. He was
the first to suggest some relationships but naturally much of his work
is out of date. The bibliographical references are rather numerous,
and probably some are missing in the bibliographies herein. No map
is provided.
L. Pericot y Garcia, "America Indigena" (1936). Like Brinton,
Pericot covers all phases of the American Indian. He follows Rivet
in mentioning very many small groups with their locations, also not
in tabular form. He has a section (pp. 94-106) on "Caracteres
lingiilsticos." Most valuable are his voluminous bibliographical
references with digests which, for South America, fill 36 pages (pp.
692-727) of concise data. Probably not all the bibliographical
references are included herein. There are many detailed maps of
parts of South America.
Walter Krickeberg, "Die Volker Siidamerikas" (1922) in Georg
Buschan's " lUustrierte Volkerkunde," vol. 1, pp. 217-423 (1922).
Krickeberg devotes some pages, especially 219-227, to linguistic
features, and other remarks, passim, but gives no classificatory
tables or charts. A small map, which formed the basis for the map
of Jimenez Moreno (Mexico, 1936), shows most of the families, and
the principal component members of each, according to his opinions,
which are generally those of consensus. The bibliography is relatively
small.
Although not including all of South America, the following four
works deserve especial mention for their large and full coverage:
Cestmir Loukotka, "Linguas Indigenas do BrasU" (1939 a). Like
Vol.61 LANGUAGES—MASON 171
Loukotka's pamphlet issued in 1935 (see above) this is a concise
table of families and component languages, rigidly restricted to
Brazilian territory. The name, locale, and principal references for
source material are given for each group. "Intrusions," "vestiges,"
and mixed languages are noted. Symbols denote whether a language
is extinct, and if the data on it are poor. A map is included, and 10
of the 28 pages are devoted to a large and excellent bibliography of
source material, all of which items are included herein.
Jacinto Jij6n y Caamano, "El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental"
(1943). This is volume 3 of Jij6n's monumental work of this title
(1941-43). Half of the volume, chapter 30 (pp. 390-654), is de-
voted to "Las Lenguas del Sur de Centro America y el Norte y
Centro del Oeste de Sud-America." It covers east to longitude 60°
(Wapishana-Nambicuara-Ashluslay), and to latitude 30° S. Thus
he largely supplements Loukotka (1939 a), though both omit the
Araucanian-P&tagoman region. He is especially strong in the Colom-
bia-Ecuador-Peru area. Territory and many source references are
given for each language, together with arguments regarding their
classification. Eight folding maps accompany the volume. Most if
not all of the bibliographical references are included herein.
Giinter Tessmann, "Die Indianer Nordost-Perus" (1930). Tess-
mann covers much of eastern Perii and Ecuador most thoroughly.
Fifty tribes are considered. His section 76 under each of these gives
the known linguistic data, together with vocabularies, known data
on morphology, and the most important source references, most of
which, naturally, are included herein. A special section (pp. 617-627)
is on "Sprachliche Verwandschaft" and includes (pp. 624-626) a
table giving his radical ideas regarding linguistic classification. The
accompanying maps are small.
Walter Lehmann, "Zentral Amerika; Die Sprachen Zentral-
Amerikas" (1920). These two large volumes afford a mine of infor-
mation on the languages from southern Mexico to western Ecuador.
All the source material, books, and documents have been studied,
mentioned, digested, and much of it reproduced. The bibliography is
probably nearly complete to that date. The several very large maps
contain much printed information, and cover a wider area than the
text, including parts of western Venezuela and Brazil and northern
Peril. Many of the bibliographical references are not included herein.
Curt Nimuendaju's unexcelled first-hand knowledge of the peoples
and languages of Brazil was apparently hardly superior to his knowl-
edge of the literature. He had definite ideas on the classification of
languages but, unfortunately, never published them. They often
disagreed with those of others but, since his opinions were often based
on actual acquaintance, they merit careful consideration. He sub-
172 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
mitted a very large and very detailed map, an alphabetical list of
tribes with references to location on map, and a very complete bibli-
ography. On the map the tribal names were underlined with color in
accord with a linguistic family color chart. As a great number of
colors were employed, it is possible that occasional errors were made
in transferring the familial linguistic affiliation, according to his
opinions, from the map to the tribal index. His map did not include
the Andean region, or the far south.
See also the following references, which are very incomplete, and
mainly relatively recent:
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Relationships with Old World.—Anonymous, 1930 d (Basque); Christian, 1932
(Peru-Polynesia); Dangel, 1930 (Quechua-Maori); Ferrario, 1933, 1938 (Altaic);
Gancedo, 1922 (Japanese); Imbelloni, 1928 b (Qwec/iua-Oceania) ; Koppelmann,
1929 (East Asia); Rivet, 1925 a, 1925 b, 1925 c, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1927 b, 1927 c,
1928 (Melaneso-Polynesian, Australian); Tavera-Acosta, 1930 (Asia); Trombetti,
1928 (Asia); Zeballos, 1922 a (Japanese).
America General.—Anonymous, 1928 a, 1929; Aza, 1927, 1930 a, 1930 b, 1931;
Brinton, 1885 a, 1885 c, 1886 a, 1886 b, 1887, 1889, 1894 a, 1894 b, 1898 c; Castro,
A., 1935; Clarke, 1937; Ferrario, 1937; Gorrochotegui, 1918; Mitre, 1909-10;
Rivet, 1921 b; Rochereau, 1932; Salas, 1918; Schuller, 1936; Vinaza, 1892.
South America General.—Bastian, 1878-89; Brinton, 1884, 1892 a; Cham-
berlain, [1903], 1907, 1910 a; Ferrario, 1927; Goeje, 1935; Hestermann, 1927 a,
1938; Lafone-Quevedo, 1912 a; Loukotka, 1939 b; Mason, J. A., 1945; Norden-
skiold, 1922; Oiticica, 1933, 1934; Penard, T. E., 1926-27; Romero, 1931; Schmidt,
W., 1925; SchuUer, 1925; Talbet, 1926.
REGIONAL
Antilles.—Bachiller y Morales, 1883; Goeje, 1939; Penard, T. E., 1927-28.
Argentina.—Boman, 1908; Campanella, 1938-39; Constancio, 1939; Diaz and
Diaz, 1939; Imbelloni, 1936; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1924; Martinez Orozco, 1938;
Portnoy, 1936; Selva, 1922; Serrano, 1941.
Bolivia.—Terdn, 1917.
Brazil.—Borba, 1904; Botelho de Magalhaes, 1946; Carvalho, 1929, 1931;
GUlin, 1940; Koch-Griinberg, 1922, 1928; Krug, 1925; Loukotka, 1939 a; Martius,
1867; Nimuendajii, 1925, 1931-32, 1932 a; Nimuendaju and Valle Bentes, 1923;
Pompeu Sobrinho, 1919, 1933; Santos, N. C. dos, 1935 a, 1935 b; Schuller, 1911 b;
Senna, 1932; Snethlage, E. H., 1931; Tastevin, 1924.
Chile.—Brand, 1941 c; Cuneo-Vidal, 1916; Latcham, 1939 b; Lenz, 1904-10;
Valenzuela, 1918-19.
Colombia.—Anonymous, 1934; Beuchat and Rivet, 1910; Castellvf, 1934 a,
1934 b, 1934 c; Fabo, 1911; Igualada and Castellvf, 1940; Jij6n y Caamano,
1941-43; Lehmann, 1920; Medina, M., 1919-20, 1920-21; Ortiz, 1937, 1938,
1938-39 a; Otero, 1938-39; Pinell, 1928; Rivet, 1912 a; Schuller, 1930 c; Triana,
1907.
Ecuador.—Buchwald, 1921, 1924; Grijalva, 1921; Jij6n y Caamano, 1919;
Le6n, A. M., 1930 a, 1930 b; Orejuela, 1934; Paz y Nino, 1936-37; Rivet, 1934;
Santa Cruz, 1921, 1923 a; Verneau and Rivet, 1912.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 173
Fuegia.—Brinton, 1892 c; Chamberlain, 1911 a; Cooper, 1917 a, 1917 b;
Gusinde, 1926 c; Hestermann, 1914; Lothrop, 1928; Skottsberg, 1915; Steffen,
1923.
Guiana.—Brett, 1868; Farabee, 1918 b, 1924; Im Thurn, 1883; Martins, 1867,
2:312-13 (Comparative vocabulary of 17 British Guiana languages); Schomburgk,
1847-48, 1849.
Paraguay.—Brinton, 1898 a; Hanke, 1938; Kersten, 1905.
Peru.—Bollaert, 1860; Farabee, 1922; Santa Cruz, 1922.
Uruguay.—Lothrop, 1932; Perea y Alonso, 1937; Serrano, 1936 a.
Venezuela.—Alvarado, 1919 b, 1921; Arcaya, 1918; Armellada and Matallana,
1942; Carrocera, 1935; Gillin, 1940; Jahn, 1927; Koch-Grunberg, 1922, 1928;
Lares, 1918; Raimundo, 1934; Salas, 1919; Tavera-Acosta, 1921-22.
THE MESO-AMERICAN LANGUAGES
In the Meso-American area considered within the scope of this
Handbook are found representatives of all four of the great linguistic
phyla of Mexico and Central America, the Hokan-Siouan, Macro-
Penutian, Macro-Otomanguean , and Macro-Chibchan. The first two
are also widespread in the United States. Only a very few of the
languages of the first three phyla are here included; none of them
extends south of Costa Rica. The Macro-Chibchan phylum is pri-
marily a South American entity and is mainly treated of later herein
;
it did not extend north of Honduras. These languages, with their
appropriate bibliographies, are discussed more fully in J. A. Mason
(1940) and Johnson (1940). (See also Johnson, Handbook, vol. 4,
pp. 63-67.)
HOKAN-SIOUAN
The two small Meso-American languages belonging to the great
Hokan-Siouan phylum are of the Hokaltecan (Hokan-Coahuiltecan)
subphylum. There are only a few small and widely separated enclaves
of this phylmn south of the large groups in northern Mexico. Never-
theless, there are indications of related languages in South America
(see especially Yurumangui, and J. P. Harrington, 1943), and many
"families" in a long belt from Colombia to the Gran Chaco seem to
have a Hokan type of morphology.
The two languages under consideration are Subtiaba and the tiny
enclave Maribichicoa. The true and earlier name for the language is
Maribio. They are grouped with the Tlapanec of Guerrero, Mexico,
under the name Supanec.
MACRO-PENUTIAN
The Macro-Penutian phylum is a rather hypothetical one, the rela-
tionship of the putative components not yet proved to general satis-
faction. One probable member, Utaztecan, has languages in the
Meso-American area; another, the Mayan, and a less certain member,
174 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
the Xincan, abut on this area. Another doubtful component, the
Lencan, is included in the region. Two other stocks in this area, Jica-
quean and Payan, are also possibly Macro-Penutian but more likely
Macro-Chibchan. However, all four, Xinca, Lenca, Jicaque, and Paya,
are best considered unclassified for the present.
UTAZTECAN
This stock, of great importance in Mexico, has several enclaves in
the Meso-American area. They probably belong to two different
migration periods, an older one of Nahuatl languages, including
Nicarao, Nahuatlato, Bagace, and Pipit, and a later one of Nahuatl,
consisting of a few small isolated enclaves, probably of Aztec traders
or colonists, known as Desaguadero and Sigua.
MACRO-OTOMANGUEAN
The Meso-American Macro-Otomanguean languages all belong to the
Manguean family. All are on the west coast and all extinct. Three
languages are distinguished: Choluteca or Chorotega, Mangue (with the
divisions or dialects Diria and Nagrandan), and Orotina (with the
divisions of Orosi and Nicoya).
LENCAN, JICAQUEAN, AND PAYAN
Authorities disagree greatly as to the affinities of these three "fami-
lies," which consist of one language each, the dialects being negligible.
Some see Chibchan elements in all, some Macro-Penutian (Mizo-
cuavean) elements in all. The former are naturally stronger in Paya,
the latter stronger in Lenca. AU three may be related, but the dif-
ferences between them, and between each and other languages, are so
great that they had best be considered isolated or unclassified for the
present.
MACRO-CHIBCHAN
Most of the languages of Panamd and Costa Kica are admittedly
Chibchan, and most of those of Nicaragua and southeastern Honduras
are Misumalpan, probably of the Macro-Chibchan phylmn. These are
treated later under Chibchan. The possible relationship of Paya,
Jicaque, and Lenca, in descending order of probability, is considered
above. Cacaopera is a Matagalpan enclave in Lenca territory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
This field is completely covered in Walter Lehmann's "Zentral-Amerika; Die
Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas, II" (1920). Lehmann not only gives practically
every source until that date but republishes all the lexical material. Only the
more important sources, all given in Lehmann, are noted here:
Hokan-Siouan.—Subtiaba: Lehmann, W., 1915; Sapir, 1925; Squier, 1853.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 175
Utaztecan.
—
(The bibliography of Utaztecan, especially of Nahuatl or Aztec,
is enormous, but that of the Central American groups is small.) Pipil: Scherzer,
1855. Nikira: Squier, 1853.
Macro-Otomanguean.
—
Chorotega: Squier, 1852, 1853. Mangue: Brinton, 1886 c.
Diria: Squier, 1852. Nagrandan: Squier, 1852, 1853.
Lenca.—Hernandez, E., and Pinart, 1897; Membreno, 1897; Peccorini, 1910;
Sapper, 1901; Squier, 1858; StoU, 1884.
Jicaque.—Conzemius, 1923; Membreno, 1897.
Paya.—Conzemius, 1927-28; Membreno, 1897; Stoll, 1884.
For Central America in general, especially Costa Rica, see: Ferndndez Guardia,
1892; Gabb, 1875; Gatschet, 1900; Grasserie, 1904; Herzog, W., 1886; Lehmann,
W., 1910 a; Sapper, 1901; Scherzer, 1855; Schuller, 1928; Squier, 1852, 1858; StoU,
1884; Thiel, 1882.
CHIBCHAN
Chibchan is one of the stocks of major importance in South America.
Its area is extensive, its members many and some of them large, and
in former days it probably covered a wider area, especially to the
south. Some of the languages have become extinct, a number of
them without linguistic record, so that their Chibchan relationships
are assumed from indications of geographical position, place names,
statements of early sources, etc. The language of highly cultured
peoples, among others the Chibcha or Muisca of the Bogota region, it
failed to become a standard language, hke Aztec or Quechua, or a
lingua franca like Tupi. The Chibchan languages occupy a promi-
nent position in the question of intercontinental relationships, since
the family is the only one that extends into North America. The
Chibchan languages extended over all Panamd, most of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua, and may have included the Jicaque and Paya of Hon-
duras. (See preceding section; also Mason, 1940; Johnson, 1940.)
They may have come into contact with the Maya. This is important
in view of SchuUer's belief in a great phylum that includes Maya,
Chibcha, Carib, and Arawak (Schuller, 1919-20 a, 1928).
The Chibchan "family" seems to be one of those (see Quechua) with
a morphology somewhat resemblmg Hokan, though lexical proof of
genetic connection still remains to be advanced. Jij6n y Caamano
(1941-43), therefore, proposes a great "super-phylum" Hokan-Siouan-
Macro-Chibcha. Rivet has been studying a new vocabulary of Yuru-
mangui (q. v.) and comparing it with Hokan with some favorable
results.
Formerly almost all the languages of highland and coastal Colombia
were considered to belong to the Chibchan group, but recent opinion
assigns the Choco ^ and most of the other groups of northern Colombia,
except for the Bogota Chibcha and the Arhuaco region, to the Carib
' The Cuna and Chocd are linked culturally, and apparently linguistically, in other sections of this Hand-
book (vol. 4, pp. 49-51).
176 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143]
(q. v.). This is presumed to be the result of a relatively recent but
pre-Columbian migration that supplanted former Chibchan-speaking
peoples.
The subdivisions of Chibchan differ very greatly in the former
classifications of W. Schmidt (1926), Loukotka (1935), W. Lehmann
(1920), Rivet (1924 a), and others, and the latter has changed his
opinion greatly. As a tentative basis, therefore, the latest classifica-
tion, that of the Ecuadorean Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43), who has
made a special study of this region, is herewith presented, without
implication of definite acceptance as proved.
Jij6n y Caamaiio places in his Macro-Chibchan phylum a number
of languages heretofore considered as independent "families, " and
divides it into eight primary groups:
A. 'Paleo-Chibcha (Esmeralda-Yarurd)
B. Chibcha
C. Timote
D. Cofan
E. Murato
F. Mosquito-Xinca
G. Puruhd-Mochica
H. Cholona
Of these, only group B was formerly considered Chibchan, and only
that is considered immediately below.
Jij6n y Caamano divides his Chibchan languages into four groups:
Archaic or Western, Pacific Intermediate, Inter-Andine Intermediate,
and Evolved or Eastern. Each of these is divided into subgroups
with numerous languages.
Rivet in his latest Chibcha classification (1943 a) divides the
Chibchan languages into 10 groups:
1. Barbacoa
2. Coconuco
3. Pdez
4. Chibcha Proper
5. Changina
6. Cuna
7. Guayml
8. Talamanca
9. Andaqui
10. Guatuso
Many of these represent one of Jijdn y Caamano's subgroups, but
there is considerable disagreement.
CHIBCHAN LANGUAGES OF CENTEAL AMERICA *
Most of the languages of Panamd and Costa Rica are of recognized
Chibchan aflBnities, and most of those of Nicaragua belong to the
8 See alternative classification in Handbook, vol. 4, pp. 64-66.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 177
"Misumalpan (q. v.) Stock," a hybrid name proposed by Mason (1940)
and Johnson (1940) for the Miskito (Mosquito), Sumo, and Matagalpa
families. The Paya and Jicague families of Honduras may also be
related to Chibcha, and members of the " Macro-Chibchan Phylum."
The true Chibchan languages of Central America are divided into
a number of groups. No authors agree upon this point. Mason
(1940) and Johnson (1940) propose fom- groups, Rivet (1943) six.
Rama (vide infra) Rivet places in his fourth or Chibcha Proper Group.
The other groups he terms " Changina," " Cuna," " Chiaymi," and
" Talamanca.'^
Jijdn y Caamano (1941-43) divides the Central American Chibchan
languages into five groups. The languages of the Talamanca, Guatuso,
and Cuna groups he places with the Barbacoan languages to form his
Western or Archaic Group. Jij6n y Caamano does not differentiate
Rivet's Guaymi and Changina groups but puts them together with
some western Colombian languages into his second, or Pacific, Group.
He agrees with Rivet in separating Rama and Melchora from the
others and places them, together with Chibcha Proper, in the Eastern
Group of evolved languages. He and Rivet are in relative agreement
as regards the component languages of each subgroup.
The Cuna group is often termed '' Cueva-Cuna." The subgroups
seem to be:
I. Island
A. San Bias {Tule or Yule)
B. Caimanes
II. Mainland
A. Cuna {Chucunake and Bayano)
B. Cueva (Coiba)
Cueva and Cuna were very closely related, yet separate. Chucunake
and Bayano are local names, not dialects. Mandinga is a hybrid
negroid group; Secativa is not a dialect.
Cuna is isolating in general character; word order is fundamental
in sentences. Reduplication is frequent. Suffixing clearly predomi-
nates over prefixing.
Mason's (1940) Guaymir-Dorasque subfamily is accepted by Jij6n y
Caamano, but Rivet (1943) divides it into two, Changina and
Guaymi. In the former group, together with Chumulu, Gualaca,
and Changina, probably go the extinct Dorasque (Torresque), and
probably Burica and Duy. Bukueta is a synonym or dialect of
Sabanero; Muite is a dialect in the Guaymi subgroup. W. Lehmann
(1920) gives the following divisions of Dorasque: Dolega, Chumulue,
Iribolo, Chiriluo, Suasimi, and Zuri. With Changina apparently
belongs Chaliva (Saliba, Soriba, Sariba, Shelaba).
Valiente, Talamanca, Viceita, Urinama, Tariaca, and Pocosi are
probably dialects of Bribri. Tojar, Teshbi, Depso, Lari, and Uren
178 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
seem to be dialects of Terraba. Boruca is a synonym of Brunca;
apparent dialects of this subgroup are the extinct Kepo, Coto, Burucaca,
Turucaca, and Osa. Important languages not mentioned by Rivet
that seem to fall in the Talamanca group are Guetar, Voto, and Suerre
(Turricia). With Cabecar, according to W. Lehmann (1920), goes
Corrhue; and with Tucurrike go Orosi, Cachi, Sakawhuak, and Seche-
whuak.
Guatuso, with its variety Corobici or Corbesi, and Rama with its
dialect Melchora, are obviously very different from each other and
from other Central American Chibchan languages, and Mason (1940)
was evidently in error in making a Rama-Corobici subfamily. Both
Rivet (1943) and Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) place Rama with the
languages of Chibcha proper. Rivet puts Guatuso in a class by itself,
and Jij6n y Caamano makes it a subgroup of his Western Group.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The standard work, reprinting most of the known vocabularies and citing the
published work to that date, together with hitherto unpublished material, is
W. Lehmann, 1920. Franco, 1882, and Pinart, 1887, also cover most of the
languages, as do Thomas, C, and Swanton, 1911. See also Lehmann, W., 1910 a;
1910 b; Sapper, 1905. For Cuna also see: Berengueras, 1934; Cullen, 1851 b,
1866, 1868; Gasso, 1908, 1910-1914; J. P. Harrington, 1925; Holmer, 1946, 1947;
Nordenskiold, 1928, 1928-30 b, 1929 b, 1932, 1938; Pinart, 1890 a; Pinart and
Carranza, 1890, 1900; Prince, J. D., 1912, 1913 a, 1913 b; Puydt, 1868, pp. 100-105;
Rivet, 1912 a; Stout, 1947; Uhle, 1890, p. 485; Wass6n, 1934 a, 1934 b, 1937, 1938.
For the other languages see Brinton, 1897 {Guetar); C^spedes Marin, 1923
(Guatuso); Ferndndez, L., 1884 (Guatuso); Gabb, 1886 (Bribri, Brunca, Terraba,
Tiribi); Gagini, 1917 (Bribri, Brunca, Guatuso, Guetar, Terraba); Pinart, 1890 b
(Dorasque, Changuina, Chamula, Gualaca), 1892 b (Guaymi, Muoi, Move, Peno-
nom6); Pittier de Fabrega, 1898 (Bribri), 1903 (Terraba); Pittier de Fabrega and
Gagini, 1892 (Terraba); Skinner, 1920 (Bribri); Thiel, 1882 (Guatuso), 1886
(Terraba, Brunca, Guatuso); Zeled6n, 1918 (Guetar).
CHIBCHA PROPER
The Chibchan languages that have been grouped in the Chibcha
Proper group are widely scattered, containing not only some in central
Colombia but those of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and some
of Nicaragua. Rivet (1943) hsts the following five main languages:
Muisca or Chibcha (Muysca, Mosca)
Tunebo or Tame
Guamaca
Cdgaba (Koggaba) or Arhuaco (Aruaco, Aruak)
Rama
Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) also places all of these languages in his
Eastern or "Evolved" group, which he divides into three subgroups,
Cundinamarca (Muisca-Tunebo) , Arhuaco (Cdgaba-Guamaca) , and
Central American (Rama-Melchora).
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 179
Other important languages or dialects of the Muisca-Tuneho sub-
group are Duit, Sinsiga, Pedrazd, Guasico, Chita, Fusagasucd, and
Morcote. Duit seems to be closely related to Muisca. Pedrazd is
claimed to be a Tuneho dialect. Morcote seems to be rather variant.
Though Sinsiga is generally considered closely related to Tuneho, W.
Lehmann (1920) believes it closer to the Cdgaha-Arhuaco group, and
to form a connecting link between the latter and the central Chibchan
languages.
Languages or dialects of the Cdgaha-Arhuaco subgroup are Guamaca,
Atanke {Atangue), Bintucua, and lea (Busintana). Chimila (q. v.)
has been placed by some in the Dorasque-Guaymi group. W. Schmidt
(1926) places Tuneho, Andagui, and Betoi in this central Chibchan
subgroup.
If the Rama on the border of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, apparently
the northernmost of the true Chibchan languages, really belongs in the
central subgroup, this has important historical implications. Melchora
is apparently a dialect.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chibcha (Muisca).—Acosta Orteg6n, 1938; Adam, 1878; Adelung and Vater,
1806-17; Bernal, 1919; Beuchat and Rivet, 1910; Forero, 1934, 1939; Grasserie,
1904; Lugo, 1619; Restrepo Canal, 1936; Rivet, 1920 c; Rozo, 1938; Uricoechea,
1854, 1871 (Duit, Sinsiga).
Tunebo.—Rivet, 1924 b; Rivet and Oppenheim, 1943; Rochereau, 1926-27;
Anonymous, 1926-27.
CSgaba.—Anonymous, 1919 e; Bolinder, 1925 (lea); Celed6n, 1886 {Koggaba,
Guamaca, Bintukua, Atankez), 1892 a {Atanquez), 1892 b {Bintucua)', Isaacs,
1884 {Binticua, Guamaca); Preuss, 1919-27, 1925.
Rama.—Conzemius, 1929 a, 1930 a; Lelimann, W., 1914.
COLOMBIAN SUBGROUP
Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) divides his Pacific Group into an
Isthmian subgroup of Central American languages, and a Colombian
group. In the latter he places Chimila, Yurumangui, and possibly a
number of unimportant languages: Timba, Lile, Yolo, Jamundi,
Yarned, and Aburrd. None of these is classified by Rivet in 1943.
(See separate sections on Yurumangui, Chimila, and Tairona.)
INTER-ANDINE GROUP
Jij6n y Caamano 's Inter-Andine Group consists of a number of
languages that Rivet (1943) divides into two groups, the Coconuco
and the Pdez. Like Barhacoa, independent Coconucan and Paniquitan
(Pdez) families were formerly accepted. Some authorities placed all
this group in their Barbacoan family. Totoro, Coconuco, Moguex, and
Guanaco are the important and generally accepted members of the
794711—50 13
180 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
Coconuco subgroup. Other probable members are Gvximbiano,
Polindara, and Pvben or Pubenaro. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) places
in this or a closely related group Popaydn (Popayanense) , Malvasa,
Timbia, and possibly Panzaleo (q. v.) and Quijo (Kijo) (q. v.).
Pdez and Paniquitd are apparently closely related, as both Rivet and
Jij6n y Caamano agree. Otero (1938-39) calls Paniquitd a subdialect
of Pdez. W. Lehmann (1920) wrote that the relationship between
Pdez and Moguex (Coconucan) is quite evident. Formerly Pijao,
Panche, and Patdngoro (Palenque) were also placed in this group, but
both Rivet and Jij6n y Caamano agree that these belong, together with
Choco, to the Carib family.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PSez and Paniquitd.—Anonymous, 1879; Beuchat and Rivet, 1910; Castillo y
Orozco, 1877; Lehman, H. 1945; Narvdez, 1944; Ortiz, 1938-39 b; Pittier de
Fabrega, 1907; Rivet, 1912 a; Uricoechea, 1877.
Mogeux.—Beauchat and Rivet, 1910; Donay, 1890; Rivet, 1912 a.
Coconuco.—Beauchat and Rivet, 1910; Mosquera, 1866; Rivet, 1912 a, 1941.
Totord, Guambiano.—Anonymous, 1879; Beauchat and Rivet, 1910; Eraso
Guerrero, 1944; Ortiz, 1938-39 b; Rivet, 1912 a.
BARBACOA GROUP
Barbacoa was considered a separate stock by Brinton (1891 a) and
Chamberlain (1913 a), but is now generally accepted as related to
Chibcha. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) places the Barbacoa languages
with Talamanca, Guatuso, and Cuna to form his Western Group, and
divides them into two divisions, Pasto and Caranki-Cayapa-Colorado.
Rivet (1943) mentions only Coaiquer {Cuaiker), Cayapa, and Colorado.
These seem to be the most important languages, but Jij6n y Caamano
(1941-43) mentions Nigua in the Cayapa-Colorado branch, and Pasto,
Colima, and Muellamuese in the Pasto branch. Rivet (1924 a)
thinks that Pasto is Tucano. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) states that
Telembi is the same as Coaiquer and that W. Lehmann (1920) was
wrong in distinguishing them, but that Cayapa and Iscuande are not
the same as Coaiquer, as Barrett (1925) believed. Pichilimbi probably
belongs in this group. Other languages placed in this group by some
authors but not accepted by either Rivet or Jij6n y Caamano are
Manabita and Latacunga. In his 1943 classification, Jij6n y Caamano
places Quillacinga (Killacinga) and Sebondoy with his Eastern Group,
but in a map (map II) he groups them with the Barbacoa languages.
(See Coche.)
The relationship of the Barbacoa languages to the doubtful Esmer-
alda family and the Yunga-Mochica has been largely discussed;
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 181
Esmeralda may well be Chibchan. W. Lehmann (1920) compared
Colorado and Mochica and found only three words that hint at aflBnity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbacoa.—Beuchat and Rivet, 1910; Rivet, 1912 a; Schuller, 1930 b.
Paste—Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941-43, 1:144-234; 2:104-107; Ortfz, 1938.
Colima.—Sudrez de Cepeda, 1923.
Cayapa.—Barrett, 1925; Beuchat and Rivet, 1907; Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941—43,
2:289-384; Seler, 1902 b; Verneau and Rivet, 1912; Wilczynski, 1888.
Colorado.—Beuchat and Rivet, 1907; Buchwald, 1908 a; Jii6n y Caamafio,
1941-43, 2:119-288; Rivet, 1905; Seler, 1885, 19C2 b.
ANDAKf (ANDAQUf)
The'"extijnct Andaki of the southern Colombian Highlands must not
be confused with the living Andoke of the southeastern Colombian
forests; the latter are either Witotoan or independent linguistically.
The Andaki were also formerly considered independent; following
Brinton (1891 a), Chamberlain (1913 a) put them in the Andaguian
family. All modern authorities agree that their language was Chib-
chan, probably of the Chibcha-Arhuaco subgroup. Jijdn y Caamafio
(1941-43) and Schmidt (1926) place the language with the Chibcha
Proper Group, Rivet (1924 a) in a class by itself. Loukotka (1935)
considers it a mixed idiom and sees vestiges of Mashacali and Cain-
gang in it, a rather unlikely possibihty. Igualada (1940) says that no
Andaki-speaking Indians were found up to 1940 in the Colombian
Caquetd area; the modem Andaki and Aguenunga descendants speak
"Inga" (Quechua) and Spanish. (See also Hernandez de Alba, Hand-
book, vol. 2, p. 922.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albis, 1860-61; Igualada and Castellvf, 1940; Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941-43; Rivet,
1912 a, 1924 c.
BETOI GROUP®
The extinct Betoi adjoined the Tucanoan Betoya, from whom the
Tucano (q. v.) family was formerly named (Betoyan). The Betoi
language is now generally believed to have been Chibchan in aflGLnities.
Jij6n y Caamafio (1941-43) and Schmidt (1926) place Betoi with the
Chibcha Proper languages. With them were probably associated
Qirara and Lache. W. Lehmann (1920) beheves that Caguetio,
generally classed as Arawak, was also related. Nimuendajii (index)
leaves Lache unclassified. Loukotka (1935) adds Situfa.
* See Hemtodez de Alba, Handbook, vol. 4, pp. 393-394.
182 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Bibliography.—Gumilla, 1745.
Chibcha '
I. Western
A. Talamanca
1. Guetar
2. Quepo
3. Cabecar
4. Estrella
5. Chiripd
6. Tucurrike
7. Suerre
8. Bribri
a. Pocosi,
b. Tariaca
9. Terraba
10. Brunca (Boruca)
11. Tirribl
12. Foto
13. Coto
B. Barbacoa
1. Pasfo
a. Pastoif)
b. Coaiker{?)
c. Muellamuese
d. Colima
e. Patia
f. Sindagua (Malba)
2. Cayapa-Colorado
a. Colorado
b. Nigua
c. Cayapa
d. Caranki
C. Guatuso
1. Guatuso-Corobici
D. Cwna
1. Cwna {Coiba, Cueva, San Bias)
II. Pacific
A, Isthmian (Guaymi)
1. Murire
2. Afwoi
3. Moye
4. Valiente
5. Penonomeno
6. Changuena
7. Dorasco
8. Chumula
9. Gualaca
' Based on Jijon y Caamafio, 1941-43.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 183
Chibcha—Continued
II. Pacific—Continued
B. Colombian ^
1. Timba
2. Lile
3. Yolo
4. Jamundi
5. Yarned
6. Aburrd
III. Inter-Andine
'
A. Pdez
1. Pdez
2. Panikitd
3. Killa
B. Coconuco
1. Toiord
2. Polindara
3. Moguex (Guambia)
4. Coconuco
5. Guanaco
6. Pubenaro (?)
C. Popayanense
1. Popaydn
2. PuracS
IV. Eastern*
A. Cundinamarca
1. Chibcha-Muisca
2. Duit
3. Sinsigd
4. Tunebo
B. ^r/iuaco
1. Cdgaba
2. Bintucua
3. Guamaca
4. Atankez
5. Sanha
6. /ca
C. Central America
1. Rama
2. Melchora
2 All of the below are of very questionable affinities. Jijon y Caamaiio (1941-43) also places in this group
Chimila and Yurumangut, on which see separate articles herein.
3 Hernandez de Alba (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 922) places the Pdez and Coconuco subgroups, together with the
Pijao subgroup (see "Choco and Other Possibly Cariban Languages of Colombia" herewith) in the Tala-
manca-Barbacoa group of Chibcha. Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) places in his Inter-Andine group also
Pavzaleo and Quijo. on which see separate articles herein.
* Jijon y Caamafio (1941-43) also places in this group Andaki and Betoya, on which see separate articles
herein, and Ouilla, Quillacinga, and Sebondoy-Mocoa, for which see Coche herein.
184 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A.H.BuU. 143
LANGUAGES PROBABLY OF CHIBCHAN AFFINITIES
Several other extinct languages of western Colombia and Ecuador
are generally believed to have been of Chibchan affinities. Among
these are:
PANZALEO
Jij6n J Caamano (1941-43) beheves that Panzaleo was most likely
related to Chibcha, though it may have been affiliated with Puruhd-
MocMca (Yunga). He places it questionably in his Inter-Andine
group, probably most closely related to the Coconuco subgroup. Uhle
suggested a relationship with Subtiaba (Hokan)
. (See Murra, Hand-
book, vol. 2, p. 795.)
Bibliography.—Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43, vol. 1, ch. 10; vol. 3, ch. 29.
CARA AND CARANKI
The cultured Cara (Scyri) had apparently given up their original
language in favor of Quechua even before the Spanish Conquest.
There are some reasons for the opinion that it was of the Barbacoa
Group, where it is placed by Rivet (1924 a), but its affiUation will prob-
ably never be certainly known. Murra (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 792)
states that it was similar to Pasto and Cayapa.
Bibliography.—Buchwald, 1908 b; Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43, 1:234-285.
KIJO (quijo)
The Kijo abandoned their native tongue in favor of Quechua very
early, possibly before the Spanish Conquest; its nature is, therefore,
very controversial. It is generally placed with Cqfdn (q. v.) , but may
have been more closely related to Chibcha. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43)
places it questionably with Panzaleo in his Inter-Andine Group of
Chibcha. (See Steward and Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 652.)
Bibliography.—Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43; 1:290-295; Tessmann, 1930, p. 237 flf.
MISUMALPAN
"Misumalpan" was the new hybrid term proposed by Mason
(1940) for the group consisting of the former linguistic families
Misguitoan (Miskito),^^ Suman, and Matagalpan in Nicaragua and
southern Honduras. They were there considered to compose a stock
of the Macro-Chibchan phylum. Paya and Jicague of southern
Honduras may be related more distantly. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43)
lists them as group F of the phylum. This group he terms "Group
Misquito-Xinca," evidently including in it the Xinca of San Salvador,
and by inference the Lenca of Honduras, two groups considered by
w The earlier term Is Mosquito; Mason preferred the more modem form Miakito, but the editors of thl»
volume, the former. Both forms of the word are used therein.
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 185
Mason (1940) to be more likely affiliated with the Macro-Penutian
phylum of North America.
MiSUMALPAN
I. Miskito
A. Miskito
1. Tawira
a. Tawira
b. Mam
c. Wanki
d. Baldam
e. Cabo
II. Sumo
A. Ulva
1. Ulva
a. Ulva (Ulua)
b. Prinsu
c. Cucra
B. Yosco
1. Yosco
C. Sumo
1. Tawahca
a. Twahca
b. LacM
c. Coco
d. Wasabane
e. Pispi
2. Panamaca
a. Panamaca
b. Carawala
c. Tunki
3. Boa
4. Bawahca
III. Matagalpa
A. Matagalpa
1. Matagalpa
a. Matagalpa
b. Cacaopera
c. C/io<o (?)
d. Z)«Ze (?)
e. Pantasma (?)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
W. Lehmann (1920) republishes most of the known vocabularies and other
original material, and cites most of the published works. See also Thomas and
Swanton (1911). Especially important, or of recent date, are the following:
Miskito.—Adam, 1891, 1892; Bell, 1862; Berckenhagen, 1894, 1905, 1906;
Brinton, 1891 b; Conzemius, 1929 b, 1932; Cotheal, 1848; Fellechner, Muller,
and Hesse, 1845; Heath, G. R., 1913, 1927; Henderson, A., 1846; Henderson,
G., 1811, pp. 227-229; Young, T., 1842, pp. 170-172; Zidek, 1894.
(5^
Sumo.—Conzemius, 1929 b, 1932; Membreno, 1897.
Matagalpa.—Brinton, 1895 b; Sapper, 1901.
Ulua.—Squier, 1853.
186 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
cofXn (KOFANE)
The extinct Cojdn has heretofore been considered by all authorities
an independent family, though this is unlikely in view of their small
area. The language has probably long been extinct, though there are
a few hundred Cojdn still living. Both of the principal authorities on
this region, Rivet and Jij6n y Caamaiio, are now convinced that
Cojdn is related to Chibchan. Rivet has not yet presented his proof
or intimated his opinion as to the closeness of the connection. Jij6n
y Caamano (1941-43) makes Cofan one of the eight members of his
Macro-Chibchan phylum. He gives no subsidiary languages. Con-
nections with the Barbacoa Group of Chibcha have also been suggested.
Two adjacent groups that have often been considered as Cqfdn
languages are Kijo and Latacunga, These have sometimes been
identified with the historical Cara or Syri. Both may be more purely
Chibchan. The Kijo (Quijo) (q. v.) were Quechuaized long ago.
Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) places them in his Inter-Andine group of
Chibcha.
Bibliography.—Castellvi, 1938; Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43.
LANGUAGES OF DOUBTFUL CHIBCHAN RELATIONSHIPS
COCHE (MOCOA)
Synonyms: Koche, Kotse, Ko6e, Mocoa, Mokoa, Sebondoy, Sihundoy, Kamsd,
Ouillacinga, Kilasinga.
The more important historical name Coche seems to have sup-
planted Mocoa(n), which Brinton (1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a)
gave to this supposedly independent family. Mocoa is retained by a
few modern authorities, such as Krickeberg (1922) and Loukotka
(1935). Most of them have accepted its independent position, but
in his recent thorough study Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) reached the
conclusion, occasionally previously suggested, that it is Chibchan, in-
fluenced by Carib, closest to Chibcha Proper, to Cdgaba, and to Tala-
manca, in this order. However, Ortiz (1941), the most recent writer,
refuses to accept Jijon y Caamano's conclusions and insists on the
independence of Coche. He believes that the rather extensive Chib-
chan resemblances are due to borrowing. Rivet has also not yet, to
my knowledge, accepted the Chibchan affinities or decided to remove
Coche from his list of independent families. The language is some-
times called Camsd; the principal tribe is the Sebondoy; the related
Quillacinga and Mocoa are extinct, but there are said to be some 1,700
Sebondoy, though probably not all speaking their native tongue. The
Mocoa have adopted Quechua and are now known as Ingano,
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 187
Jijdn y Caamano (1941-43) does not recognize the Cache as a separate
group or mention the name in his classification, but Hsts the languages
Quilla,^^ Quillacinga, and Sebondoy-Mocoa together with the Chibcha
Proper languages in his Cundinamarca subgroup of the Eastern
Group. In his map II, however, he places them with the Barbacoa
subgroup (Western Group).
The lexical data are^considerable (see Ortiz, 1941; Jij6n y Caamano,
1941-43), but grammatical material is badly needed.
CocHE (Mocoa)
1. Sebondoy.
2. Quillacinga.
3. Patoco.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buchwald, 1919; Castellvf, 1934 a, 1934 b; Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 191-192;
Ernst, 1891; Igualada and Castellvf, 1940; Jii6n y Caamano, 1938, 1939, 1941-
43, 1:97-144; Ortiz, 1938, 1941 a; Rivet, 1912 a; Sanudo, 1923.
ESMERALDA
A tiny extinct group of the coast of Ecuador that has been considered
as forming an independent family since the classification of Chamber-
lain (1913 a). The data upon it are very few. Pericot y Garcia
(1936) gives Atacame as a synonym; this can have no relation to the
Atacama of the Chilean desert region. W. Schmidt (1926) believes
that it may belong with the Barbacoa Group of Chibcha, a very probable
connection, but it is unlikely that its exact affiliations will ever be
proved. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) believes it to be distantly related
to Chibcha, forming, wiih^^Yaruro, ihejPaleo-Chibchdj^ division of his
Macro-Chibcha phylum. (See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 802.)
Bibliography.—Buchwald, 1920, 1922; Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43; Rivet, 1912 a;
Seler, 1902 a, 1902 b.
TAIRONA AND CHIMILA
The long-extinct Tairona have generally been classified as Chibchan,
doubtless because of their close geographical proximity to the Chib-
cAan-speaking Cdgaba. The same is true of the living Chimila, some-
times regarded as the modern descendants of the Tairona. Thus
Park (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 868) says that the Tairona and Chimila
"although linguistically related, are not included in this [i. e., Cdgaba-
Arhuaco] designation." Both of these are low-altitude peoples, coast,
foothill, or lowland-dwellers, the culture of the Chimila being mainly
that of a forest people. The language of the Tairona is utterly im-
" HemSndez de Alba (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 922) places Quilla in the Pdez subgroup of the Talamanca-
Barbacoa group, but Quillacinga as a member of the Cochean family.
188 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
known; they may well have been Cariban or Arawakan}^ Reichel-
Dolmatoff has recently done work among the Chimila. His linguistic
material has not yet been published, but he informs me (personal
communication) that Chimila is Arawakan. Arawakan affinities of
Tairona would not be unexpected, since they were coterminous with
the Arawakan-sj>esikiD.g Goajiro.
Bibliography.—Bolinder, 1924, 1925; Celed6n, 1886.
YURUMANGUf
This hitherto neglected and almost unknown group and language
of the Colombian west coast has recently assumed considerable im-
portance. A manuscript vocabulary was recently discovered in the
Archivo Nacional in Bogotd and published. Dr. Paul Rivet has been
studying it for some years, finds no resemblances with any nearby
language, and believes it to heHokan and therefore related to Melaneso-
Polynesian (Rivet, 1943). Ortiz (1946) does not consider the point
as proved, and prefers to consider Yurumangui as an independent
tongue.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archive nacional . . ., n. d.; Arcila Robledo, 1940; Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941-43,
vol. 3, appendix 2; Ortiz, 1946; Rivet, 1943.
TIMOTE
This small gi'oup of the Venezuelan highlands has been much more
thoroughly investigated than most, but unfortunately the linguistic
data are still limited to a few small vocabularies. No running text or
grammatical study is known, and one is urgently needed. Rivet (1927 a)
has assembled aU the information available. Regarding the opinion
of Ernst (1885) that Timote is related to Chibcha, Rivet reaches the
same conclusion that Brinton (1891 a) did earlier, that there is some
lexical resemblance, but not enough for proof, and that Timote had
best be considered independent. In this all other authorities agree
with him, except Jijdny Caamano (1941-43), who believes in the re-
lationship and makes Timote Group C of his Macro-Chibcha phylum.
Muku is a synonym for the family. There seem to be two main
languages, Timote and Cuica {Kuika). With Timote are probably
related Mirripu {Maripii), Mukuchi (Mocochi), Miguri, Tiguino, and
Escaguey; with Cuica, Tosto, Escuque, and Jajo. However, Brinton
(1891 a) lists 29 groups, the names taken from Ernst (1885), and
" I wish here to make public confession and express regret that I Identified the Santa Marta archeological
culture with the Tairona. In this Handbook (see vol. 2, p. xxix) the Santa Marta archeological culture is
considered as one of the few that have been tied up with an historic people. This identification has not yet
been proved, but seems probable. A careful study of the original historical sources, a thing I have not
yet found time to do, will be the major factor in determining the question.—J. A. M.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 189
Rivet (1927 a), making a more thorough study, compiles a list of
names, synonyms, and variations of 99 dialects and 29 varieties, each
probably linguistically distinguishable. This is one example of the
tremendous complexity of language in South America.
TiMOTB Family (Venezuela) »
I. Cuica (Kuika)
A. Cuica Proper
B. Tostd
1. Tostd Proper
2. Ttranjd
3. Tomoni
C. Eskuke (Eskukey)
1. Eskuke Proper
2. Bombd
3. Moka
4. Tirandd
a. Cobii
b. Gdcike
c. Galu
d. Tirandd Proper
e. Estiguate (Estiguati)
D. Jajd (JakSn, Jajdn)
1. Jajd Proper
2. Esnijaque
3. Kikoke (Kikoki)
4. Mapen {La Vega)
5. Duri
6. Mikimboy
II. Timote (Timoti)
A. Timote Proper
1. Mukurujiln
2. Mukusi
3. Mokoyupu
4. MukuarsS
5. Ciribuy
6. Miyoy
7. MMA;«m6(i
8. Kindord
9. Ta/aW^
10. Mukumbaji
11. ^zno
1 From Rivet, 1927 a, 4:137-167. In this article, which includes a large map and bibliography, the Timote
Family is divided into two groups: Timote Proper and Caika. The Cuika he divides into the four groups
above noted.
The Timote group is divided into numerous subgroups, of which the only one he names is the Timote
Proper. The five groups above; Timote Proper, Chama, Mocochi, Mvcutu, and Tapano are distinguished
on basis of Rivet's grouping in text into five paragraphs of very different lengths. Names are mine, choosing
a name in this group shown on his map, except Chama, which is accepted generic.
Loukotka (1935) makes a fourfold division: (1) Timote; (2) Mokoii; (3) Miguri; (4) Cuika. His (2) and (3)
are included in Rivet's Timote group. Miguri is probably equivalent to Chama.
190 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
TiMOTE Family (Venezuela)*—Continued
II. Timote (Timoti)—Continued
B. dama (Miguri f)
1. Mokunle (MukunSe, Mukunehe)
2. Mukurubd {Mokurugud)
3. Tabay {Mukunuidne, Tabayon ?)
4. Mukurumagua
5. Guake (G^iakl)
6. Mukumba
7. CiBuy
8. Mukunoke (Mukuno, Miguri f)
a. Mukurufuin
b. Mukd
c. Mukumpi
d. Mukutiri
e. Mukusnandd
f. Mukaikuy
g. Mukusd, etc.
9. Mukurandd
10. Mukuhuun {Mukupine, Mokoion)
11. Giguard
12. Insnumhi (Insumbi)
13. Estankes
14. Mukuci {Makuli, Mokociz)
a. Misantd
b. Mokao
c. Mosnacd
d. Misikea, etc.
15. Eskaguey
16. Mukujtin
17. Ta/M?/ (Taiey ?)
18. Mukaria
19. Mukaketd
20. Mukusiri
21. Kaparti
22. /aji {Mukundu)
23. Alukubace {Mirripil, Mirripuy, Alaripu Pi
24. MukiXun {Mnkumpil, Lagunillas)
a. KasSs
b. Mukuinamo
c. Arikagua
d. Tibikuay
e. Makulare
f. Mukusumpii
g. Barbudos
h. Jamu^n, etc.
i. Kinard
j. Tiguind
25. Guaruni {Guaruri)
'For footnote 1, see page 189.
Vol. e] LANGUAGES—MASON 191
TiMOTE Family (Venezuela) ^—Continued
II. Timote (Timoti)—Continued
C. Mocochi (Mokoci)
1. Miyuse
2. Tukani
3. MokoH (Torondoy)
D. Mukutu {Escaguey)
1. Eskaguey
2. Kanagud
3. Kind
4. Mokoino (Mokino)
5. Mombun
6. Yarikagua
7. Arikagua
8. Mukutuy
9. Mukwpati
10. Mukucaci
11. Trikagua
12. Mokoto (Mukutu, Mukuti)
a. Guarake
h. Bailadores
E. Tapano
1. ^i^z'amo
2. Mokombd {Mokobo)
3. Tapano
III. Unclassified tribes
A. Kirord
B. Mijure
C. Montun
D. Iguino
• For footnote 1, see page 189.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Briceno-Iragorry, 1929; Brinton, 1892 a; Chamberlain, 1910 a; Ernst, 1885;
Fonseca, 1914 (1920); Jahn, 1927; Mdrcano, 1891; Dramas, 1920; Rivet, 1927 a;
Tavera-Acosta, 1907.
CANDOSHI, CHIRINO, AND MURATO
Each of these extinct or little-known languages of western Ecuador
has been linked by some recent authority with some other, or others.
Rivet (1924 a) considered Chirino as forming an independent family.
Loukotka (1935) calls the family Candoshi (Kandosi), and composes
it of two groups, one consisting of the Candoshi and Shapra, the other
of the extinct Chirino (Cumbaraja), Sacata, and Rabona. He con-
siders Murato a synonym of Candoshi. Tessmann (1930) makes
Shapra and Murato divisions of Candoshi, which language, synonymous
with Maina in his opinion, he considers a mixture of Ge, Arawak, and
Pano. Rivet thinks that Chinchipe is a synonym of Murato, and
Steward and M^traux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 615) believe that
192 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
Chinchipe and Bagua are probably related to Patagon. Brinton (1891
a) long ago placed Murato witb Zdparo, and Steward and Metraux
(Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 629, 633) call it a subtribe of Zaparoan Andoa.
Jijdn y Caamaiio (1941-43) regards this group, ''Lenguas Muratas,"
as related to Chibcha, composing Group E of his Macro-Chibcha
phylum.
Bibliography.—Anonymous, 1897; Le6n, A. M., 1928-29; Rivet, 1930 b; Tess-
mann, 1930.
chol6n
Synonyms: Cholona, Tsolona, Goldn, TschoUn.
Cholon (an) is one of the small families early distinguished (Chamber-
lain, 1913 a) and universally accepted. According to the majority
of authorities, it consists of two languages, the Cholona Proper or
Tinganes and the Hibito {Xibito, Chibito, etc.). Brinton (1891 a)
quotes early sources to the effect that the Cholon spoke a different
language from the Hibito. Tessmann (1930) calls it a language
mixed with Quechua; he gives a vocabulary of 30 words. Jij6n y
Caamano (1941-43) makes Cholona the last (H) component member
of his Macro-Chibchan phylum.
A grammar has been recently published by Fr. Pedro de la Mata
(1923); an earlier work on Cholon by Fr. Francisco Gutierrez is
mentioned. J. P. Harrington has recently compared Cholon with
Quechua and believes them related. His evidence has not been
published.
Bibliography.—Beuchat and Rivet, 1909; Brinton, 1892 a; Chamberlain, 1910
a; Mata, 1923; Tessmann, 1930.
HfBITO
The extinct Hibito {Chibito, Xibito, Jibito, Zibito, tbito, etc.) is
classed with Chol6n{a) by most authorities. Brinton (1891 a) quotes
the old sources to the effect that the Cholon spoke a different idiom
from the Hibito. Tessmann (1930) ^^ calls it a mixed language
(Pano-Ge), while Cholon he considers mixed with Quechua. He gives
a 33-word vocabulary. Loukotka (1935) also believes it mixed with
Panoan. It became extinct about 1825. A grammar was written
by Fr. Jose de Araujo.
Bibliography.—Izaguirre, 1927-29; Tessmann, 1930.
COPALL^N
Apparently only four words are known of the extinct Copallen, of
Copallen, Llanque, Ecuador. Jijon y Caamano (1941-43), who has
made a most thorough study of the languages of western Ecuador,
u Pages 458-459. This was unfortunately omitted from his Table of Contents.
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 193
dismisses it with a word, but accords it independent position in his
final classification (1943). The data on which Loukotka (1935)
assigns it to an independent family must, therefore, be very slight;
it had better be left unclassified. It seems to be ignored by all other
authorities.
Bibliography.—Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941-43.
ACONIPA (AKONIPA)
Aconipa is one of the almost unknown languages considered as an
independent family by Loukotka (1935) and apparently mentioned
by no other compiler. In his recent exhaustive study of pre-Columbian
western Ecuador, Jij6n y Caamafio (1941-43) merely mentions it as
one of the languages of Ecuador; he leaves it independent in his
final (1943) classification. Extinct, the data on it are very few, and
insuflScient to warrant its classification, at any rate as a distinct family.
Bibliography.—Jimenez de la Espada, 1897, p. 32.
yunca-puruhAn
If the validity of the group of languages under consideration were
established, ^'Yuncahd" would be proposed as a cogent hybrid term.
The classification of the extinct coastal languages of Ecuador and
northern Peru has always been—and may always be—uncertain and
controversial. The "family" consists of the five groups that were
given independent status by Rivet (1924 a) under the names Ataldn,
Canari, Puruhd, Sek, and Yunka. Yunca and Canari are families
of long standing, at least since the classification of Chamberlain
(1913 a); Sek is prpposed by Rivet alone (1924 a). Jijon y Caamafio
(1941-43) comes to the conclusion, as a result of his exhaustive studies
of pre-Columbian western Ecuador, that Puruhd, Canyari, and
Mantena {Manabita) are closely related and go with Yunga to form
an independent family. He claims that all these differ hardly more
than dialecticaUy. As all these "families" and their component
languages are extinct with practically no lexical data, except for
Yunca, and as Jijon y Caamafio reaches these conclusions mainly
on the basis of proper names, the degree of relationship will probably
never be proved. The family also includes, in his opinion, Huancavilca,
by which he apparently implies Rivet's Ataldn family. He proposes
the name Puruhd-Mochica for this family, which he considers a major
division (G) of his Macro-Chibcha phylum.
Jij6n y Caamafio is by no means the first or only one to propose
such a consolidation. W. Schmidt's (1926) Yunca-Huancavilca
Group consists of Huancavilca (Ataldn), Tallan and Seckura (Sec),
and Yunca, Mochica-Chanco, Chimu, and Eten {Yunca); he does not
194 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
mention Puruhd or Canari. Loukotka (1935) establishes a Chimu
family with a Yuncan southern division, and a Puruhd-Canari
northern division.
YUNCA
Synonyms: Yunga, Mochica, Chimu.
The Yunca, Mochica, or Chimu language of the Northern Coast of
Peru is fairly well known through De la Carrera's grammar (1644).
It is practically extinct, but a few words are said still to be used by
some of the Coast fishermen. A relationship to Chibcha (Barbacoa,
Colorado) has been suspected, but W, Lehmann (1920) compared
Mochica with Colorado without any result. Uhle has suggested a
relationship with Uro (q. v.). Chamberlain (1913 a) and Brinton
(1891 a) both posited a Yunca{n) family.
The former extent of the Yunca languages to the south and inland
is much disputed. Some authorities believe it extended south to lea,
including practically the entire Peru Coast. According to Jij6n y
Caamafio (1941-4,:,), it reached to south of Lima. He also believes that
it included the North Peru Higlilands, including the provinces of Ca-
jamarca and Ancachs, a region ordinarily ascribed to Quechua, and
impinged on the Hibito and Cholona of the Montana to the east.
These deductions are drawn from study of place names and traditions,
since these regions were Quechuaized in very early, probably pre-
Conquest, days.
The following regions or ethnic groups are thus of uncertain original
language and are left unclassified on the linguistic map: Ayavaca,
Huancapampa, HuamboJ^iChachapoya, ICajamarca, Huamachuco,
Conchuco, Huacrachuco, Huayla, Pinco, Ocro, Huamali, Huanuco,
Cajatampo, Atavillo, Chinchaycocha, Tarma, and Yauyo.
Dr. J. P. Harrington, after a study of De la Carrera's grammar
(personal communication), reports that the phonetics are almost
identical Avith Quechua, and that there are many vocables and other
features like Quechua. Most nouns, and also most verbs, are mono-
syllabic, generally ending in a vowel. The morphological mechanism is
generally by suffixes.
Less acceptable is the opinion of Zeballos Quinones that the place
names of the region show Maya and Zapotec resemblances, and present
proof of Central American influences in the Chimu region.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Altieri, 1939 a, 1939 b; Bdrcena, MS.; Bastian,
1878, pp. 169-173; Bruning, 1913; Buchwald, 1915; Carrera, 1939 (1644);
Christian, 1932; Harrington, J. P., 1945; Jij6n y Caamafio, 1941-43; Kimmich,
1917-18; Larco Hoyle, 1938-39; Middendorf, 1892; Ore, 1607; Tschudi, 1884;
Villareal, 1921.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 195
puruhX
A small group, established as an independent family by Rivet
(1924 a) and accepted as such by a few others. It became extinct
about the close of the 17th century. There is general agreement that
it is related to Caiiari. (See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 797.)
Bibliography.—Jij6n y Caamano, 1923-24, 1941-43, 1: 410-455, 3: 88-136.
CANARI (CANYARl)
Also a small group, but one of longer standing as an independent
family, since at least the time of Chamberlain (1913 a). No linguistic
subdivisions have been suggested. (See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2,
p. 799.)
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a; Cordero Palacios, 1924; Jij6n y Caamano,
1921, 1941-43, 2: 3-78, 3:5-140; Moreno-Mora, 1922; Rivet, 1912 a.
ATALAN
Apparently Ataldn and Talldn must be distinguished, although the
languages are adjacent in coastal Ecuador. Confusion and disagree-
ment are great. The linguistic data on both are so slight that their
true affiliations will probably never be certainly known. Ataldn was
first proposed as an independent family by Rivet (1924 a), consisting
of the languages Manta, Huancavilca, Pvna, and Tumbez. It is one
of four language groups that Loukotka (1935), with unusual reticence,
left unclassified, Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) after thorough study
placed the group with his Puruhd-Mochica group of Macro-Chibchan,
a classification provisionally accepted herein. It is uncertain whether
the Caraca group goes with the Ataldn Manta or with the Barhacoan
Cara. Dialects of Ataldn seem to be Apichigui, Cancebi, Charapoto,
Pichote, Pichoasac, Pichunsi, Manabi, Jarahusa, and Jipijapa.
Bibliography.—Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43.
Yunca-PuruhX
I. Yunca-Puruhd (Yunca-Wancavilca, Puruhd-Mochica)
A. Yuncan
1. North Group (Puruhd-Canari)
a. Puruhd
b. Canyari (Canari)
c. Manabila (Mantenya)
2. South Group {Yunca)
a. Yunga
b. Morrop^
c. Eten (?)
d. Chimu
e. Mochica (Chincha)
f. Chanco
794711—50 14
196 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Yunca-PxjrxjhX,—Continued
I. Yunca-Puruhd (Yunca-Wancavilca, Puruhd-Mochica)—Continued
B. Ataldn
1. WancavilcaiHuancaidlca) •
a. Mania *
b. Tumbez •
c. Puna 1
d. Carake: Apichiki, Cancebi
« See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 806.
' See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 803.
« See Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 807.
SEC, SECHUEA, OR TALLAN
The small Sec "family" of restricted area in westernmost Ecuador
was first proposed by Rivet (1924 a). Loukotka (1935) accepts the
proposed family and calls it Sechura (Secura). W. Schmidt (1926)
puts it in his Yunca-Huancavilca group, together with several others
of Rivet's "independent" families in this region. Brinton (1891 a)
also grouped it with Yunca. Jij6n y Caamaiio (1941-43) who, in his
very complete study of pre-Columbian western Ecuador, accepts the
Yunca-Huancavilca group imder his proposed alternative name
Puruhd-Mochica, passes Sec off with the brief note that it was a
language of Tallana, Ecuador, extinct in the last century, implying
that not enough is known of it to classify it with any degree of finality;
this is probably true at present. In his final classification (1941-43),
Jij6n y Caamano makes Talldn a separate phylum.
The extinct languages Talldn, Chira (Lachira), Colan, Piura, and
Sechura are generally classed with Sec. The Catacao, a little further
inland, are said still to speak their presumably related language; their
investigation is a great desideratum. There is an ipso facto presump-
tion of connection between Talldn and the extinct Ataldn "family"
just to the north, but the differentiation must be kept in mind. The
linguistic data seem to be limited to 40 words collected by Spruce
and published in Markham (1864 a).
Bibliography.—Markham, 1864 a.
KECHUMARAN
"Kechumaran" is a hybrid term here proposed for the first time to
designate the yet unproved but highly probable subphylum consisting
of Quechua and Aymara. It has long been believed that Aymara and
Quechua have linguistic as well as cultural relations. The extent of
this relationship still awaits study. Phonetics and morphology show
a relatively common pattern and many close similarities, but the lexical
roots_seem to have little in common except a large number, possibly
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 197
as much as a quarter of the whole, obviously related and probably
borrowed by one or the other language. They have been in close
contact for probably several thousand years. Aymara is generally
termed the "older" language, that is, that of wider extent in pre-Inca
days, and one that has yielded ground to the Quechua. The two will
probably eventually be found to be members of a large phylum; the
Hokan-\\kQ traits that have been claimed for Quechua probably apply
also to Aymara.
Jij6n y Caamaiio (1941-43) presents cogent arguments for his
adoption of a Quechua-Aymara phylum. Both may possibly be mem-
bers of Hokan-Siouan, one of the great phyla of North America;
J. P. Harrington (1943) is convinced of the connection. This would
not be entirely unexpected since scattered Hokan enclaves are found
as far south as Nicaragua (Subtiaba), and Rivet has considered the
possibility that Yurumangui (q. v.) may also be Hokan.
QUECHUA
Quechua {Kechua, Quichua, Keshwa, etc.) is the South American
analogue of Aztec. That is, it was the language of a relatively small
group, the so-caUed Inca, who established a great military empire,
conquered surrounding peoples, and to some extent imposed their
language upon the latter. In Colonial days it became a lingua franca
over an even wider area, displacing still other aboriginal languages,
and this process has continued until the present. Today probably
several millions of Indians in Peru, southwestern Ecuador, western
Bolivia, and northwestern Argentina speak Quechua, and most of them
nothing else. As many Peruvians speak Quechua as Spanish. Prac-
tically the entire population of the provinces of Cuzco and Ayacucho
can speak Quechua. Of course, it is slowly losing ground to Spanish.
Quechua probably occupied a comparatively small area in the upper
Apurimac and Urubamba drainage untU the era of the great Inca
conquests under Pachacuti about 1450; it was then merely one of
many possibly unrelated languages in the Andean region. It over-
whelmed and supplanted many of these other languages, which prob-
ably survived in local use until after the Spanish Conquest and then
became extinct during the Colonial Period. (Personal letter from John
Rowe; see also Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 183-470.)
In 1530, although Inca military sway extended from Ecuador to
Chile and Argentina, the native languages had not yet been replaced
by Quechua, which apparently occupied only a small region in the
Cuzco region, represented by the groups Cavina, Cuzco, Chilgue, Lare,
Quechua, Paucartampo, Vilcapampa, and Yanahuara (see Handbook,
vol. 2, map 3, facing p. 185). In a few years, however, Quechua
198 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
replaced'the native languages'^throughout'the northern^ghlands to
Ecuador\nd even to^southern Colombia, those of the central and
southern coasts, and those of a considerable part of the highlands to
the south. Jijon j Caamano (1941-43) believes and presents some
evidence that the former languages of the northern highlands and the
coast were related to Yunca (q. v.). The Quechua dialects that
replaced these are known as Chinchaisuyo, the autochthonous dialects
of the Cuzco region as Tahuantisuyo. The Huanca seem to have
been a group apart. To the south, Quechua replaced many Aymara
groups. The extension of Quechua to the central coast was apparently
a rather early one and many authorities accord it some littoral in
earliest days.
The following regions or groups in the Peruvian highlands speak
or spoke (at least in part) Quechua at some post-Conquest period but
were presumably origiaally of other linguistic affiliations, possibly
many of them Yunga, and are, therefore, left unclassified on the
linguistic map : Calva, Ayavaca, Huancapampa, Huambo, Chachapoya,
Cajamarca, Huamachuco, Conchuco, Huacrachuco, Huayla, Pinco,
Huamali, Ocro, Huanuco, Cajatampo, Chinchaycocha, Atavillo, Tarma,
Yauyo, Huanco, Angara, Chocorvo, Choclococha, Vilcas, Rucana,
Chanca, Sora, Parinacocha, Aymara (distinguish from Aymara
family), Contisuyo, Omasuyo (distinguish from Aymara Omasuyo),
Cotapampa, Cavana, Chumpivilca, and Arequipa; also Cochapampa
and Yampara to the east, and Chicha and Lipe to the south.
The Quechua languages do not differ greatly, and none varies much
from the norm—additional evidence of the relatively recent spread.
There are a great number of dialects, probably a slightly variant one
for each of the many Quechua-sY>eak.m.g villages, and these form
regional groups, but probably none is absolutely unintelligible to any
other. That of Cuzco was and is the standard. Those of the Ayacu-
cho group are the most diversified, individualized, and in some
respects most archaic.
The list of Quechua-si^eaking tribes and groups depends greatly on
the temporal period; ever since about 1450, Indian groups on the
peripheries of the Quechua region in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and
Argentina have been abandoning their native languages in favor of
Quechua. This presumably produces somewhat mixed languages but
not true dialects. Among these Quechuaized groups the most promi-
nent are the Cara or Quito (Kito) of Ecuador, the Chicha and Lipe of
Bolivia, the Allentiac, the Sanaviron, and the Vilela-Chulupi of Argen-
tina. (See also Handbook, vol. 2, map 3.)
The Quechua dialects are Imown only by the names of the villages
where they are spoken; the groups of dialects, by the names of the
provinces in which they center.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 199
Modern Quechua Classification
I. Northern (Chinchaysuyu)
A. Ayacucho
B. Junfn
C. Hudnuco
D. Ancash
E. Huamachuco {Cajamarca)
F. Chachapoya
II. Southern (Tahuantisuyo)
A. Cuzco
B. Puno
III. Coastal
A. Arequipa
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Like that of Aztec, the bibliography of Quechua is very large, both early and
recent. The best grammar seems to be that of Middendorf (1890).
Adam, 1878; Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Aguilar, 1939; Anchorena, 1874;
Anonymous, 1905 (Chinchaysuyo), 1914, 1919 c, 1919 d, 1927 b, 1928 c; Astete,
1936-37, 1937 a; Azpilcueta, 1938; Barcena, MS.; Barranca, S., 1876 (Cauki);
Barranca, J. S., 1915-20; Berrfos, 1919 a, 1919 b; Brinton, 1892 a, pp. 52-88;
Cordero Palacios, 1924; Cuneo-Vidal, 1914, 1915 a, 1915 b, 1915 c, 1920 a,
1920 b, 1922; Dangel, 1931 a, 1931 b; Dijour, 1931-32; Dorsey, 1898; Durand,
1915-18, 1921; Farfdn, 1939, 1941-42, 1943; Ferrario, 1934; Figueredo, 1701;
Fuhrmann, 1922; Garro, 1939, 1942; Gonzdlez Holgufn, 1607, 1608, 1901;
Grig6rieflf, 1935; Guzmdn, 1920 a, 1920 b; Harrington, J. P., 1943; Harrington,
J. P., and Valcdrcel, 1941; Herrera, 1941 b; Jduregui Rosquellas, 1937; Le6n,
A. M., 1939; Lizondo Borda, 1927; Markham, 1864 a; Martinez, B. T., 1917;
Martins, 1867, 2:289-296; Medina, J. T., 1930 a; Middendorf, 1890; Navarro,
1903; Ortiz, 1940 c; Paris, 1924; Paz Solddn, 1877; P6rez Guerrero, 1934; Pulgar
Vidal, 1937; Rivet, 1912 a (Lama); Rodriguez, M. C, 1921; Rowe and Escobar,
1943; Sala, G., 1905-06; Santo Thomds, 1891; Steinthal, 1890; Swadesh, 1939;
Tello, 1931; Tessmann, 1930, p. 221 (Lamisto), p. 235 ff. (Chasutino); Torres
Rubio, 1603, 1619, 1754; Tschudi, 1853, 1884; Valcdrcel, 1933.
Also: Aguero, 1929; Anonymous, 1917, 1918-19, 1925, 1930 b, 1936; Barranca,
S, 1868; Barranca, J. S, 1922; Basadre, J., 1939; Bruning, 1913; Christian, 1932;
Chuqiwanqa, 1928; Cook, O. F., 1916; Cosio, 1916, 1919, 1923, 1924;Cuneo-Vidal,
1930 a, 1930 b; Dangel, 1930; Englert, 1934; Espinoza, 1938; Farfdn, 1942,
1944; Feijoo Reyna, 1924; Ferrario, 1933; Gonzdles Sudrez, 1904; Guerrero y
Sosa, 1932; Herrera, 1916, 1919, 1923, 1933, 1933-34, 1939 a, 1939 b, 1941 a;
Hocquart, 1916; Imbelloni, 1928 b; Jimenez Borja, 1937; Jorge, 1924; Lemos,
1920; Le6n, A. M., 1922, 1927, 1928-29, 1929, 1929-31, 1932-33, 1939-40;
Lizondo Borda, 1928; Macedo y Pastor, 1931-35, 1936, 1939; Matto de Turner,
1926; Mercante, 1924; Morales, 1929; Mossi, 1916; Mostajo, 1923; Murrieta,
1936; Ollanta, 1878; Palavecino, 1926, 1928; Patr6n, 1918; Patr6n and Romero,
1923; Rojas, 1942; Ruiz Palazuela, 1927; Schuller, 1917-18; SoUz Rodriguez,
1926; Sudrez, 1930; Talbot, 1931-32; Tascdn, 1934; Tola Mendoza, 1939; Torres,
A. M., 1931; Tulcdn, 1934 a, 1934 b; Vara Cadillo, 1931; Vdzquez, 1921-24;
Velazco Arag6n, 1923; Wechsler, 1917.
200 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
AYMARA
Aymara is one of the great living languages of South America; there
may be half a million speakers in Bolivia and Peru. A number of
Aymara "dialects" are distinguished. The differentiation of the mod-
ern ones is apparently not great, and none seems to vary greatly from
the norm. Those most different are around Lake Titicaca. No sug-
gestions have been made of the grouping of these dialects into major
divisions. The most important ones are apparently Collao and Lupaca.
The Aymara region was certainly originally larger than at present,
and probably many Aymara dialects in addition to the few recorded
have been replaced by Quechua. In many towns Aymara and Quechua
are both spoken, and occasionally Aymara enclaves have been left in
a present-day Quechua-SYt&Bkmg region. Similarly Uro groups are
surrounded by Aymara. Apparently, however, Aymara was always
limited to the Highlands of Bolivia and Peril, and its former extension
to the Pacific seaboard in the Tacna-Arica-Arequipa region is no longer
credited, nor the Aymara affinities of the Cauki {Caugui, Huarochiri)
group in the neighborhood of Lima, Perii.
Aymara is spoken today by the historic subtribes Colla, Collagua,
Cana, Canchi, Ubina, and parts of the Charca and Collahuaya (Hand-
book, vol. 2, p. 503). The Caranga, Lupaca, Quillaca, Omasuyo,
Pacasa, Paria, and Sicasica have given it up in favor of Quechua or
Spanish. It was also spoken, together with Quechua, in Sora, Chanca,
Arequipa, Chicha, Lipe, Chumpivilca, and Vilcas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Anonymous, 1914, 1921, 1928 c; Ayllon, 1926;
Barcena, MS.; Barranca, J. S., 1922; Bertonio. 1879 a (1603), 1879 b (1612);
Brand, 1941 c; Brinton, 1892 a; Diaz Romero, 1918; Dorsey, 1898; Englert, 1934;
Farfdn, 1939; Feijoo Reyna, 1924; Franco Inojosa, 1937; Garcfa, J. A., 1917;
Iturry Nunez, 1939; Markham, 1871; McKinney, Medina, and Penaranda, 1930;
Medina, J. T., 1930 a; Middendorf, 1891; Mitre, 1909-10, 2: 236-262; Paz Solddn,
1877; Penaranda and Medina, 1923; Ripalda, 1923; Saavedra, 1931; Solfe, 1923,
1928; Soliz Rodriguez, 1926; Steinthal, 1890; Swadesh, 1939; Torres Rubio,
1603 a, 1603 b, 1616; Tschudi, 1891.
CHIQUITOAN
The Chiguito (Chikito) form a solid small group in southeastern
Bolivia. This Spanish word, meaning "very small," has always been
applied to the family; Tarapecosi may be a synonym. It has been
accepted as independent since earliest writers, but not unlikely may
later be found to tie with other groups into a major phylum. Lafone-
Quevedo (1910) notes many resemblances to Guaycuru (q. v.) and
believes them related, Mbayd being the closest of the GuaycurUb
languages to Chiguito both geographically and pronominally. He
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 201
notes resemblances also with many other important families : Quechua,
Mataco, Macd, Araucanian, Tupi-Guarani, Arawak, and Carib, and
apparently believes that all these and others are related. As his de-
ductions are based mainly on resemblances in the pronominal systems
they cannot be accepted as more than suggestions at present. A
connection with Bororo has also been suggested.
Hervas y Panduro (1800) gives the names of some 35 Chiguito
bands divided into 4 dialects; most of these are presumably extinct.
(See Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 383.) Modern writers mention
up to seven groups in two main divisions. There is general agreement
regarding the modern divisions. Loukotka (1935) and Jij6n y Caa-
mano (1941-43) place the Sansimoniano, generally regarded as Carib,
with Chiquito; Kivet calls it Chapacuran. Of the extinct Manacica,
Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 388) says that Lucas Caballero (1933)
identifies them with Tapacura and Quitemoca, which, if true, would
make them Chapacuran.
Chiquito
I. North: Chiquito
A. Manasi (Manacica)
B. Penoki (Penokikia)
C. Pinyoca:
1. Kusikia *
D. Tao:
1. Tabiica'
II. South: Churapa
> Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 383) says that D'Orbigny (1839) reported that the Kusikia dialects were
full of foreign words, mainly Arawakan Paiconeca.
i Possibly the same as the Tapii, who also may have spoken either Zamucan or Otukean.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam and Henry, 1880; Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Caballero, 1933; Cardus,
1886; Lafone-Quevedo, 1910 (1912); M6traux, 1942 a, pp. 114-120; Mitre,
1909-10, 2: 279-280; Nordenskiold, 1911 b, pp. 231-241 (Churapa); Pauly,
1928, pp. 184r-185 (Churapa); Tagliavini, 1928.
MACRO-GUAICURUAN
Macro-Guaicurd is a name here proposed for the first time for a
phylum that includes several families, heretofore considered independ-
ent, in the general region of the Gran Chaco. As at present consti-
tuted it consists of Mataco, Macd (Enimagd, Cochaboth) (see Mataco-
Macd), and Guaicuru. The latter, probably the most important of
the three, has been taken as the basis for the name. Doubtless other
families in this region, at present regarded as independent, will even-
tually be joined to it; one of the first may be Chiquito (Lafone-Que-
vedo, 1910) ; Lule-Vilela is a possibility. Evidence for the connections
will be given in the family articles. That for Mataco-Macd is mainly
202 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
lexical; that for Guaicuru (and Chiguito) morphological. The mor-
phologies have a Hokan-like aspect.
MATACO-MACA
Matako-Makd was first suggested as a name for the combined
Mataco-Mataguayo and Enimagd (Cochaboth, Makkd) "families" by
Metraux (1942 b). No thorough linguistic proof of this connection
has yet been presented, but it is herein accepted as probable, though
not as certain or proved.
A comparison of Vejoz and Towothli vocabularies shows a large
number of correspondencies, many of them practically identical, but
not a large proportion of the entire vocabularies. The possibility of
extensive borrowing cannot be discounted, but the resemblances are
mainly in common and fundamental words. No sound-shifts were
noted with enough examples to warrant any suggestion of rules, but
a number of cases of Vejoz j to Towothli k, ch to k, s to ts, e to ai, e to i,
u to were noted. At the same time vocabularies of Suhin-Chunupi
and Choroti were compared. These seem to be about equidistant from
Vejoz (Mataco) and from Towothli {Macd), a little closer, as would
be expected, to Vejoz.
MATACO
This family has always been accepted as independent under the
name Mataco or Mataco-Mataguayo. It is herein considered a member
of the Macro-Guaicuru (q. v.) phylum, which includes also Macd
(q. v.; also Mataco-Macd) and Guaicuru. The evidence of the rela-
tionship of Mataco and Guaicuru is outlined by Henry (1939), who
stated that the grammatical structures of Ashluslay and Pilagd are
so similar that an ancient historical relationship should be posited.
He decided, however, not to place Ashluslay in the Guaicuru stock
since the lexical difference is so great. There seem to be no doubts
of the Mataco afl&nities of Ashluslay. Suggestions of relationships
between Mataco and Guaicuru had previously been made by D'Orbigny
(1839), Lafone-Quevedo (1893), Hunt (1913 a), and W. B. Grubb
(1913), but had not met with general acceptance.
Several Mataco languages are still spoken by considerable numbers
of Indians in the Gran Chaco; others are extinct.
Mataco is considered by some ^* the oldest linguistic family in the
Chaco, and as having had great influence on "newer" groups. Lafone-
Quevedo thought it a very mixed language, with grammar from one
stock and lexicon from another.
M Brinton, 1891 a; Hunt, 1916 b.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 203
There is no great disagreement regarding the component languages of
the family. All the Mataguayo are now known as Vejoz. The north-
west Mataco were called Nocten in the 18th century. ThePilcomayo
Mataco are known as Guisnay today. Probably each of the bands
mentioned by Lozano (1941, p. 81) had a shghtly divergent and
characteristic dialect; their names are not repeated here. The Ash-
luslay have many synonyms, some of which must be distinguished
from similar names of other groups; one, Chunupi or Choropi may be
confused with the Lule-Vilela Chunvpi; they are also incorrectly
given the Tupi name Tapiete.
Loukotka (1935) puts the extinct Guentuse with Mataco; most
authorities place them with Macd (Enimagd). W. Schmidt (1926)
includes the extinct Matard (Amulald) (q. v.) and Malhald; Kivet
(1924 a) agrees as to the latter, but Matard he'considers Lule-Vilela;
Metraux (Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 231-232) and Nimuendajii (map
and index) think it best to consider both of uncertain affihation.
The Matard were related to and understood Tonocote (q. v.), which
also W. Schmidt (1926) and Nimuendajii (map and index) place with
Mataco. Brinton (1891 a) adds Akssek, a group nowhere else men-
tioned.
MACX (ENIMAGA, COCHABOTH)
Macd is herein postulated as a member of the Mataco-Macd family
of the Macro-Guaicuru phylum (q. v.). The history of the stock and
of its nomenclature is most confusing. It was first called Guand,
causing confusion with Arawak Guand. Later it was termed Ennimd
or Enimagd, but most of the languages included therein differed
greatly from Enimagd proper. Rivet (1924 a) split these off to form
his Mascoi family, retaining the name Enimagd for the present group.
Probably to avoid this confusion, W. Schmidt (1926) adopted the
term Cochabot, the Enimagd self-name, which is preferred also by
Metraux herein; most of the others stick to Enimagd. Of recent years
the name Macd or Makkd has had some vogue. Max Schmidt (1936 a)
demonstrated that the modern Macd or Towothli speak a language
related to the old Enimagd and are probably the descendants of the
latter (Enimagd-Macd). Nimuendaju (map and index), however,
although admitting an Enimagd family, puts Macd with Mataco,
Toosle (Towothli) with Enimagd. Much of the confusion is due to
the Lengua, a name applied to several different groups. The "old"
Lengua are Cochaboth; the "new," Lengua Mascoi. (See fuller dis-
cussion in Metraux, Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 236-237.)
204 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
Mataco-Maca
I. Mataco
A. Mataco-Mataguayo
1. Mataco
a. Guisnay
b. Nocten (Octenai)
2. Mataguayo
a. Northern: Hueshuo, Pesatupe, Abucheta
b. Southern: Vejoz
B. Chorotl-Ashluslay
1. Choroti (Yofuaha)
2. Ashluslay {Chulupl, Chonopi, Sukin, Sotiagay, TapieU)
II. Macd (Enimagd, Cochaboth, Guand, Lengua)
A. Enimagd
1. Macd {Towothli, Toosle)
B. Guentus6
C. Cochaboth-Lengua
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mataco.—Anonymous, 1919 b (Vejoz), 1930 c, 1931, 1933 b, 1933 c (Vejoz);
Brinton, 1898 a; Cardus, 1886, pp. 390-391; Grubb, W. B., 1913; Hunt, 1913 a,
1913 b (Veroz), 1937, 1940; Huonder, 1902; Kersten, 1905; Lafone-Quevedo, 1893,
1895 b {Nocten), 1896 a, 1896 b {Vejoz), 1910; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1926; M^traux,
1942 b; Nusser-Asport, 1897; Orbigny, 1839; 1896 {Vejoz); Pelleschi, 1881, pp.
359-423, 1896; Remedi, 1896, 1904; Schmidt, M, 1937 a (Gmsnay) ; Schuller, 1906.
Chorotl-Ashluslay.—Henry, 1939; Hunt, 1915 a; Karsten, 1932, pp. 225-230;
Lehmann-Nitsche, 1910-11, 1936-37; Nordenskiold, 1912, pp. 28-31; Pape,
1935; Rosen, 1904, p. 13.
Macs.—Belaieff, 1931-34, 1940; Brinton, 1898 a {Enimagd); Hunt, 1915 b
{Towothli); Huonder, 1902 {Enimagd); Kersten, 1905 {Lengua, Enimagd, Guen-
tuse) ; Koch-Griinberg, 1902 b {Enimagd) ; Kysela, 1931; M^traux, 1942 b; Schmidt,
M., 1936 a, 1937 b.
GUAICURtJ (WAICURTJ)
Guaicuril was an important linguistic family of the Chaco region,
but most of the languages are now extinct, and the surviving groups
reduced to three or four with relatively few speakers.
The family has always been accepted as independent, though several
arguments for wider relationships have been made. When more care-
ful linguistic studies are made it is not unlikely that Guaicuru and
Mataco will fall together into a larger phylum to which Chiquito may
also be added. This is the opinion of Lafone-Quevedo (1910), who
considers Mataco a subgi-oup of Guaicuru, and both related to Chiqudto;
he also believes Quechua related to Guaicuru. All these languages
have a superficial Hokan-like aspect which is not borne out by a
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 205
hasty comparison of vocabularies; phonetics, morphology, and pro-
nominal systems are somewhat similar. ^^
Guaicuru, of com"se, must be distinguished from the Baja California
language of identical or similar name. The languages fall into two,
possibly into three, main groups. There is httle disagreement among
the various authorities regarding the relationships, and the adjoined
table, compiled from these, varies httle from any. Names of small
groups or bands, ignored here, may be found elsewhere (Lozano,
1941, p. 62). The affinities between the various "dialects" are said
to be very close.
Possible or doubtful members of the family are:
Guachi.—Traditionally included but of doubtful affiliation. They
may originally have had their own language, later abandoned for
Mbayd. Loukotka (1935) considers it a language mixed with Chiquito.
Omitted by W. Schmidt (1926).
Layana.—Generally considered Arawak, but placed by Nimuendajii
(map and index) in Guaicuru.
Juri (Suri).—Perhaps Guaicuru, probably sedentary Tonocote.
Querandi (q. v.).—Placed by Rivet (1924 a) in Guaicuru without
any certainty. Others include Charrua (q. v.).
Mahoma or Hohoma.—Judging by linguistic position, according
to Metraux (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 225), they may have been related
to Toba or Mocovi.
The relationships of Aguilot and of Cocolot are based on historical,
not on linguistic, evidence.
Brinton (1891 a, p. 315) adds to his Guaicuru Family: Chica,
Orejon, Churumata, Malhalai, Matagayo-Churumata, Quiniquinaux,
Tereno, and Yapitilagua or Pitilaga. Some of these are probably
synonyms, others generally placed in other families. Loukotka
(1935) lists the language Karraim, apparently mentioned by no other
of the authorities consulted.
A number of the tribes in this region seem to have adopted Guaicuru
relatively recently. Prominent among these are the Tereno, Kini-
kinao, Layand, and some of the scattered groups of Guand (q, v.),
who apparently originally spoke Arawakan. They might therefore
be classified in either of these "families," and are often differently
classified by different authorities. On the accompanying linguistic
map they are given as Arawakan.
It See especially J. P. Harriogton's opinions (1943) on Qiuchua.
206 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
GUAICUR^
I. Guaicurtl
A. Northern
1. Mbayd-Guaicurti
a. West: Caduveo (Cadiguegodl) , Guetiadegodi (Guetiadeho)
b. East: Apacachodegodegi {Mbayd Mirim), Lichagotegodi
{Icachodeguo f), Eyibogodegi, Gotocogegodegi
(Ocoteguebo f)
c. Payagud (Lengua):
a. North: Sarigu^ (CadiguS)
b. South: Magach {Agac^, Siacuds, Tacumbti)
II. Frentones
A. Middle
1. Toba {Tocowit)
a. Toba: Guaztl, KomUk, Michi (Miri), Cocolot, Lanyaga-
chek, Mogosma, Chirokina, Natica
b. Pilagd
c. Aguilot
B. South
1. Abipdn (Callaga)
a. Mapenuss (Yaukanigd)
b. Mepene
c. Gulgaissen (Kilvasa)
2. Mocovi (Mbocobi)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guaicuru.—Brinton, 1898 a; Hermann, 1908; Huonder, 1902; Imbelloni, 1936;
Koch-Grunberg, 1902 b; Lafone-Quevedo, 1910 (1912); Lozano, 1941; Martins,
1867, 2:127-129; SchuUer, 1906.
Mbaya—Caduveo—Payagua.—Adam, 1899; Aguirre, 1898, pp. 490-501
(Lengua); Boggiani, 1895, 1900; Castelnau, 1852, pp. 280-282; Gilij, 1780-84,
pp. 367-371; Kersten, 1905; Koch-Grunberg, 1903, pp. 45-70; Lafone-Quevedo,
1892 b, 1896 c, 1897 b; Loukotka, 1929-30, pp. 99-106, 1933; Sdnchez Labrador,
1896; Vellard, 1937; VeUard and Osuna, 1934.
Toba.—Adam, 1899; Aguirre, 1898; Anonymous, 1933 a; Barcena, 1893; Cardus,
1886, p. 321; Ducci, 1904, 1905, 1911-12; Karsten, 1923, 1932, pp. 127-223, Ker-
sten, 1905 {Toba, Pilagd, Aguilot); Koch-Grunberg, 1903, pp. 70-82; Lafone-
Quevedo, 1893; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1925 a; Loukotka, 1929-30 (Toba, Pilagd);
Nusser-Asport, 1897; Palavecino, 1931-33 (Pilagd); Tebboth, 1943.
Abipon—Mocovi.—Adam, 1899; Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Aguirre, 1898,
pp. 491-504; DobrizhoflFer, 1784; Ducci, 1911-12; Kersten, 1905; Lafone-Quevedo,
1892 a, 1892 b, 1892-93, 1893 a, 1893 b, 1896-97; Larranaga, 1924 a; Tavolini,
1856.
Guachi.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 278-280; Kersten, 1905; Martins, 1867, 2:131-
133.
Tereno.—Baldus, 1937.
LULE-VILELAN
"Lulela^' would be a good mellifluous hybrid term for this "family"
if its validity is finally definitely established. The two groups have
been linked in classifications since earliest days, but Loukotka (1935)
separates them into two families. This suggests that they differ
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 207
greatly, with a possibility of nonrelationship. The terms applied to
the joint group, however, have been many: Brinton (1891 a) and
Chamberlain (1913 a) called it Lule, Nimuendaju (map, index)
prefers Vilela; Loukotka (1935) uses both Lule and Vilela. Kivet
(1924 a) and Pericot (1936) term it Vilela-Chunupi; W. Schmidt
(1926) and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 227) prefer Lule-Vilela,
here adopted.
Though it may be possible that a few Vilela-speaMng Indians
remain, the languages of the group are practically extinct. The
linguistic data are relatively few. There is so much disagreement
regarding the aflSliations of languages in this region that it is not
unlikely that many "families" will eventually be found to be related.
Metraux suggests that a careful comparison with Mataco might prove
significant. Other possible distant relatives are Diaguita, Macd,
Sanaviron, Comechingon, Charrua, etc.
Even for this region there is an unusual amount of disagreement
and question regarding the component languages of the group. Some
authorities place Tonocote (q. v.) with Lule; others put this language
under Diaguita, but most consider it related to Mataco. There were
two groups of Lule; the sedentary mountain Lule, the Lule of Barcena,
spoke Quechua, Tonocote, and Diaguita; the Lule of Machoni spoke
Lule-Vilela. The Lule-Vilelan Chunupi (Chulupi, Sunupi) of the
Bermejo Kiver must be distinguished from the Mataco Chunupi
(Choropi) of the Pilcomayo River. Loukotka (1935) includes Cacdn
{Diaguita) and Sanaviron (q. v.) with Vilela; Jijon y Caamano
includes Sanaviron. Nimuendaju (map and index) apparently
includes Guenoa, which all others consider as Charrua. Possible
members of the family, according to Metraux, are Matard (q. v.)
(Rivet, 1924 a: Vilela-Chunupi; Nimuendaju: unclassified), who
were probably related to the Tonocote (q. v.); Malhald (Rivet, 1924 a:
Mataco; Nimuendaju: unclassified), who were associated with the
Vilela; Palomo.
Lule-Vilela
I. Lule
A. Great Lule (of Miraflores, of Machoni)
B. Small Lule
1. Isistin6
2. TokistinS
3. OristinS
II. Vilela
A. Atalald
B. Chunupi (Sinipi, Chulupi)
1. Yooc {Yoo, Wamalca)
2. OcoU
3. Yecoanita
208 SOUTH AMEMCAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Ltjle-Vilela—Continued
II. Vilela—Continued
C. Pasain {Pazaine)
D. Omoampa {Umuapa)
E. Vacaa
F. Vilela
G. Ipa
H. Takete
I. Yoconoampa (^Yecunampa)
J. Wamalca
(K. Malbald ?)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lule.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Brinton, 1898 a; Calandrelli, 1896;
Huonder, 1902; Kersten, 1905; Lafone-Quevedo, 1894; Machoni de Cerdefia,
1732, 1894; Techo, 1673.
Vilela-Chunupi-Choropi.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Lafone-Quevedo,
1895 a; Lizondo Borda, 1938.
TONOCOT^, MATArA, AND GUACArX
These three extinct languages had best be left unclassified. All
may be related. Rivet (1924 a) places them under Vilela-Chunupi,
others with Mataco. Tonocote is especially in dispute. M6traux
(Handbook, vol. 1, p. 232) believes that the Matard spoke TonocotS,
which is included in the Lule region in the linguistic map herewith.
Nimuendajii places Tonocote with Mataco; the resemblance between
the terms Tonocote and Nocten is suggestive. They might also have
been related to Diaguita, as Schmidt (1926) suggests. (See also
Handbook, vol. 2, p. 657.)
Bibliography.—Calandrelli, 1896; Lizondo Borda, 1938; Machoni de Cerdefia,
1732.
ARAWAKAN
Arawak is probably the largest and most important linguistic
family in South America, both in extent and in number of component
languages and dialects. It extends, or extended, from Cuba and
the Bahamas, perhaps even from Florida, to the Gran Chaco and the
sources of the Xingii, possibly even to Uruguay (Chand), and from
the mouth of the Amazon to the eastern foothills of the Andes, possibly
to the highlands (Uru), or even to the Pacific {Change). In various
groups, sometimes continuous, sometimes isolated, it ranges through-
out this area. The distribution is very similar to that of the other
great family of the tropical lowlands, the Carib. The original home
and point of distribution is supposed to have been the Orinoco and
Rio Negro region of the borders of Guiana, Venezuela, and Brazil. If
the Uru-Puguina languages are actually related to Aravxik, that may
Vol.6] LANGUAGES—MASON 209
have been the first migration. Arawak languages seem to have been
supplanted in places by Carib tongues, in other parts by Highland
languages, Aymara and Quechua. The numbers of Arawak-speaking
peoples are rapidly diminishing, and many tribes and languages are
now extinct.
Other names applied to the family have been Maipure (Gilij,
1780-84) and Nu-Aruac (Steinen, 1886). Several suggestions for
wider relations have been made. If Arawak is ever linked in a phylum
with other recognized families other than with small groups of present
questionable independence, it will probably be with the Carib, A
suggested tie-up with Tupi is less likely. Schuller (1919-20 a, 1928)
believes in a great phylum including at least Arawak, Carib, Chibcha,
and Maya, but he never presented cogent proof; his opinion has been
accorded little consideration.
A typical Arawakan language (Campa) shows absence of nominal
incorporation. The pronominal subject is prefixed, the object suf-
fixed. There are temporal suffixes and modal prefixes. Verbal
suffixes precede the pronominal object. The nominal plural is ex-
pressed by a suffix. The same stem is generally employed for verb,
noun, and adjective, the distinctions made by affixes. Arawakan
languages generally have gender distinctions. The first person
pronoun is usually nu, whence the generic name Nu-Arawak; the
second person is generally p or pi.
The correct grouping of the hundred-odd Arawak languages is an
impossible task. Many of the extinct ones will never be classified
with certainty, and the data on most of the living tongues are insuffi-
cient. No comprehensive classification on a linguistic basis ac-
companied by evidence has ever been attempted. ^^
Probably because of the large number of Arawak languages, and
the poverty, both quantitative and qualitative, of the data upon
them, no comparative Arawak grammar has yet been published.
Rivet (1924 a), W. Schmidt (1926), and Loukotka (1935) have pre-
sented classifications. These vary greatly; each contains certain
languages considered independent by the others. Schmidt's is the
most detailed, with 7 main divisions and 16 subgroups. Loukotka
has 14, 4 of which consist of a single "mixed" language. Rivet
makes seven principal divisions. The main points of difference are:
One of Schmidt's groups is the Jivaro (q. v.), generally accepted as
independent. Loukotka makes an independent family, the Araudf
of some of the languages of the Araud or Jurud-Purus group. Schmidt
considers the Tacana group as an independent family. Loukotka
includes the Chamicuro, generally considered as Pano or Aguano.
Rivet links the Goajiro and the languages of the Orinoco and the
" One may be eipected In one of the promised volumes by Perea y Alonso (1942 et teq.).
210 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
northern branches of the Amazon to those of the upper Xingii and
the Paressi and Saraveca of Bohvia. In another division he joins the
Arua group of the Jurud-Purus region with the Guana Group of the
Paraguayan Gran Chaco. Since Rivet seems not to have presented
the evidence for these unexpected groupings, and since they were
not accepted in the later classifications of Schmidt and Loukotka,
the more common geographical grouping has been herein accepted as
the basis for classification, using the more detailed and less radical
divisions of Schmidt as a base. There is general, but far from com-
plete, agreement on the composition of the minor subdivisions.
Arawakan Classification
I, Northern
A. Insular *
1. Lesser Antilles
a. Igneri
b. Cabre^
2. Greater Antilles
a. Taino
b. Sub-Taino
c. Ciquayo
d. Lucayo
B. Northwestern
1. Goajiro '
a. Goajiro: Cosina(?)* Gobnxegual, Gimbvxegual
b. Guanebucan
c. Parauhano: Toa, Alile
d. Taironai?) ^
e. Chimilai?) «
2. Caquetio
a. Caquetio:^ Guaicari
b. Achagua: Tayaga, Yaguai, Chucuna, Amarizana, ^
Caouri
c. Tecua(f)
d. Molildn of Catatumbo and Rio de Oro (?) ^
3. Guayup^
a. Guaywp^
b. Eperigua
c. Sae
1 Rivet (1924 a, pp. 249-250) does not mention this group in his classification of Arawak languages.
« Probably identical with the Cabre or Caberre of the Orinoco.
» Rivet puts Goajiro, Paressi, and Saraveca of Bolivia, the languages of the upper Xingti, and those of the
Orinoco and northern Amazon in the same group.
* Reichel-Dolmatofl (personal communication) says that, although located in the middle of the Goajira
Peninsula, surrounded by Goajiros and always considered as Goajiran, the Cosina are not Goajiro and do not
speak Arawakan.
• See separate article on "Tairona and Chimila" in the Chibchan section. Reichel-DolmatofE (personal
communication) believes that the Chimila are Arawakan; if so, the Tairona probably were also.
« W. Lehmann (1920) considers Caquetio as Chibchan, related to Betoi.
' W. Schmidt (1926) classifies Amarizana as Carib.
« Reichel-Dolmatofl (personal communication) says that, although the Motilon of the Sierra de PerijS
are pure Cariban, those of Catatumbo and Rio de Oro are very diflerent and seem to be Arawakan, though
the linguistic materials are very scarce.
Vol.6] LANGUAGES—MASON 211
Arawakan Classification—Continued
I. Northern—Continued
B. Northwestern—Continued
4. Piapoco (Dzase)
a. Piapoco
b. Cabre (Caberre) »
c. Mitua
II. Northern Amazon '"
A. Arawak
1. Arawak
2. Araua (n) "
B. Palicur
1. Palicur
2. Marawan
C. Rio Branco
1. Wapishana {Wapiana, Wapityan)
a. Wapishana
b. Amariba
2. .4/orai (Dauri)
a. j4<orai
b. Mapidian (Mayopityan)
D. Orinoco Group '^
1. Guinau (Quinhao, Inao)
a. Guaniare
2. Maipure ^'
3. Mawacud
4. Fawiero (Paraene, Yavita)
E. Indeterminate Group ^*
1. Baniva '^
a. -4t;ani
b. Quirruba
2. i5ar^ i»
a. Bar^
b. Barauna
3. ylreA;ena (PFare&eno)
4. Cariaya
» Eelated to and probably identical with the Cabre of the Insular Group.
11 Most of the languages below are listed by Gillin (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 801-804). A few are added from
other sources. Quite a number given by Gillin are here omitted. Tarumd and Parauien are considered
later herein. In addition to those that Gillin admits to be of questionable Arawak affinities
—
Apirua,
Aramisho, Macapa, Marourioux, Pino, Purui, Tocoyen—other authorities doubt three more. Nimuendajfl
leaves Arekena unclassified, Rivet considers Parauana as Cariban, and Nimuendajli believes Pauishana
to be Cariban.
" The Araua. migrated from Marajo Island to Guiana. (See Nimuendajfl, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 195.)
» This group contains only those languages that Rivet (1924 a) and W. Schmidt (1926) place in their
Orinoco Group and Loukotka (1935) in his Guiana Group, except for Guinau which Loukotka places in the
present Group C, the Rio Branco languages.
13 Gilij (1780-84) applied the name Maipure to the Arawak family.
" Consisting of languages placed by Schmidt (1926) in his Orinoco Group, by Rivet (1924 a) in his Northern
Amazon Group.
" Baniva is a generic term employed for all Arawak-speaking groups in the Northwest Amazon region.
The larger number of so-called Baniva languages are listed in the Rio Negro Group and the entire bibliog-
raphy is therein.
" Distinguish Bari from Bolivian Bauri,
794711—50 15
212 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Akawakan Classification—Continued
II. Northern Amazon—Continued
F. Rio Negro Group
1. Izaneni {Baniva) Division
a. Carutana (Cazuzana): Yawareie-Tapuya, Baniva do
Icana, Wadzoli dakenai, Mapache dakenei, Urubu-
Tapuya, Dzawi-minanei, Adaru-Minanei, Arara-
Tapuya, Yurupart-Tapuya.
h. Catapolitani {Kadaupuritana)
c. Caua- Tapuya (Maulieni)
d. Cuati {Costi-Tapuya, CapiU-Minanei)
e. Huhuteni (Hohodene)
f. Mapanai (Ira-Tapuya)
g. Moriwene {Sucuriyu- Tapuya)
h. Payualiene (Payoarini, Pacd-Tapuya)
i. Siusi {Walip^i-Tapuya): Ipeca-Tapuya {Cumaia'
Minanei)
j. Tapiira
2. Miritiparand Division
a. Cauyari (Karyarl)
b. Matapi
c. Yucuna
d. Menimehe
3. Mawaca Division
a. Adzaneni (Tatu-Tapuya)
b. Mandawaca
c. Masaca
d. Yabaana
4. Tariana Division
a. Tariana
h. Itayaine (lyaine)
5. Yapurd Division A
a. Wainumd (Uainumd)
b. MariaU
6. Yapurd Division B "
a. Cayuishana {Cawishana)
h. Pas6 (Passi)
c. Yumana (Chimana)
d. Manao
e. Aruaki
7. Wirind^^ (Uirina)
III. Pre-Andinei»
A. Amazonian
1. Marawa^'^
2. Waraicii (Araiku, Uraicu, Wareku)
" Loukotka (1935) separates the Yapura Group as generally accepted, and places the last three languages
In a separate group as "Languages mixed with Macu."
I' Schmidt places Wirind in a group by itself.
» W. Schmidt (1926) distinguishes between the Pre-Andlne (Montana) and the JuruS-Purfis languages,
but his division of these is greatly at variance from that of M6traux and Steward (q. v.) generally accepted
herein. Loukotka (1935) considers them all as Pre-Andine. The division is probably purely a geographical
one, with border-line instances; linguistically probably all fall together. The Pre-Andine languages are
said to diSer little from those of the North Amazon. (See Rivet and Tastevin, 1919-24.)
*> Distinguish from Moravian of Quiana.
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 213
Arawakan Classification—Continued
III. Pre-Andine—Continued
B. Cutinana Group
1. Cutinana
2. Cuniba^^
3. Cujisenayeri (Cujigeneri, Cushitinert)
C. Jurui-Purds
1. Canamari^^
2. Catukina^^
3. Catiana
4. Inapari
6. Ipurind ^ (Hypurina)
a. Cangutu
b. Casharari
6. Maniieneri
7. Wainamari (Uainamari)
D. Montafia (Chuncho)
1. Campa
a. Anti
b. Antaniri (Unconino)
c. Camatica
d. Campa (Atiri)
e. Catongo
f. CMcheren
g. Chonta
h. Kimbiri
i. Kirinairi
j. Pangoa
k. Tampa
1. Ugunichiri
m. Unini
2. P«Vo
a. Manatinavo
b. Chontakiro
c. Simirinch
d. Upatarinavo
3. Machiguenga (Amachengue)
4. Masco 2*
5. Sirineri
6. Wachipairi (Huachipari)
7. Puncuri
8. Pucpacuri
IV. South
A. Bolivia
1. Bolivia
a. Afojo (ilfoso): Muchojeone
h, Baur4
2. Chiquito
a. Paiconeca, Paunaca
>' Distinguish from Panoan Conibo.
" Distinguish from Panoan and from Catukinan Canamari or Canowiare.
« Distinguish from Catukina "family."
" Formerly considered an independent family by Chamberlain (1913 a) and Brmton (1891 a).
»• Aia (1935) writes of the "Arasaire or Mashco." The former are generally regarded as Panoan.
214 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS IB. A. B. Bull. 143
Arawakan Classification—Continued
IV. South—Continued
B. Paressi 2« (Ariti)
1. Cashiniti
a. WaimarS
2. IrancM^''
a. Sacuriii-ind
b. Tahuru-tnd
c. Timaltid
3. Cozdrini
a. Wild Cabishi
b. Paressl-Cabishi
c. Mahibarez
C. Saraveca
D. Parand28
1. East: Gwcnd 2' (Chuala, Chand)
a. Layand (Niguecactemigi)
b. Tereno
c. Echoaladi {Echenoana, Chararana)
d. Kinihinao {Equiniquindo)
2. West: Chani'^^
a. Izoceno
E. Xingd
1. Xingii
a. Mehinacu
h. Yaulapiti (Jaulapiii)
c. Custenau (Kustenahti)
d. Waurd (Uaure)
2« M6traux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 349, ftn. 1) says that Paressi is closer to Afeftfnocii than to Afo/o.
" M. Schmidt (1942) claims that Iranchi is not Arawakan (M6traux, Handbook, vol. 3, ftn. 2, p. 349).
s' Many of these groups, such as the Layand, Tereno, Kinikinao, and probably some others have abandoned
their former Arawak speech and now speak GuaicurH. They are, therefore, properly placed under Ouaicuru
in some classlflcatory systems.
" See following article on "Chanfi and ChanS."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General and unidentified.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Brinton, 1869 a,
1871; Chamberlain, 1913 b; Farabee, 1918 b; Goeje, 1928 b, 1929-30; Gumilla,
1745; Koch-Grunberg, 1911, pp. 33-153, 203-282; Perea y Alonso, 1937, 1938 a,
1942; Quandt, 1807, 1900; Roth, 1924; Schmidt, M., 1917; SchuUer, 1919-20 a;
Schultz, 1850 T.; 1850; Tello, 1913 b; Williams, J., 1924.
Insular.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17 (Haiti); Goeje, 1939; Martins, 1867,
2:314-319 (Cuba, Haiti); Tastevin, 1919.
Goajiro.—Candelier, 1893; Celed6n, 1878; Isaacs, 1884; Jahn, 1914, 1927, pp.
355-376; Marcano, 1890 b; Gramas, 1913 a, 1918 a; TeUo, 1913 b; Uteaga, 1895.
Parauhano.—Jahn, 1914, 1927, pp. 190-197; Gramas, 1918 a, 1918 b.
Caquetio.—Jahn, 1927, pp. 199-223.
Achagua.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Alemany y Bolufer, 1929 a, 1929 b;
Gilij, 1780-84, p. 346; Jahn, 1927, pp. 377-378; Gramas, 1916.
Piapoco.—Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 242-249; Koch-Griinberg,
1928, pp. 287-301; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 85-95.
Cabre.—Gumilla, 1745; Roth, 1924.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 215
Arawak.—Brinton, 1871; Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882; Ferreira-Penna,
1881 (Aruan); Goeje, 1928 a; Martius, 1867, 2:307-311; Mordini, 1935 (Aura'an);
Penard, T. E., 1926-27; Stahel, 1944; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 333-335.
Palicur-Marawan.—Martius, 1867, 2:324; Nimuendajii, 1926; Rivet and Rein-
burg, 1921.
Wapishana.—Coudreau, H., 1887, pp. 477-87; Farabee, 1918 b, pp. 13-132,
183-274; Grupe y Thode, 1890, p. 254; Koch-Griinberg, 1922, p. 220 {Amariba);
Koch-Grunberg and Hubner, 1908, pp. 35-39, 44; Schomburgk, 1847-48,
{Amariba).
Atorai-Mapidian.—Farabee, 1918 b, pp. 158-164, 274-277, 283-286; Schom-
burgk, 1847-48, pp. 515-523.
Yavitero and Orinoco Group.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17 {Mai-pure); Chaff-
anjon, 1889 (Guinao); Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882; Gilij, 1780-84, pp.
185-90, 202-13, 375-82 (Maipure); Koch-Grunberg, 1909-10, 1928 (Guinao);
Loukotka, 1929-30, p. 85; Martius, 1867, 2:312-313 (Guinao); Montolieu, 1882,
pp. 281-284; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 63-74.
Bare Group.—Chaffanjon, 1889, pp. 330-333; Chamberlain, 1910 a {Cariaya);
Cr6vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 251-252; Koch-Grunberg, 1909-10, pp. 5&-
153 (Bars, Warekena), 1913, p. 455 (Arecuna), 1928, pp. 246-257 (Arecuna), pp.
272-278; Martius, 1867, 2:230-231, 285-286, 231-232 (Cariay); MontoUeu, 1882,
1895; Nimuendaju, 1931-32, pp. 592-595 (BarS, Uarekena); Tavera-Acosta,
1907, pp. 63-84 {Bar6, Uarekena); Tello, 1913 b.
Baniva.—Chafifanjon, 1889, pp. 337-341; Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp.
253-255; Gumilla, 1745; Koch-Grunberg, 1909-10; La Grasserie, 1892; Martius,
1867, 2: 261-263; Montolieu, 1882, pp. 276-280; Nimuendaju, 1931-32, pp. 590-
592; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 53-62.
Baniva-Tapuya Group.—Cardona Puiz, 1945 (Karro); Koch-Griinberg, 1909-
10, 1911, pp. 56-153, 203 (Carutana, Katapolitani, Siusi); Nimuendaju, 1931-32,
pp. 596-618 {Karutana, Kadaupuriiana, Moriwene, Waliperi-Dakenai, Hohodene,
Mapanai, Matilieni, Payualiene, Kumada-Mnanai, KapiU-Mnanei); Tavera-
Acosta, 1907, pp. 76-84 {Carvtana); Wallace, 1853.
Cauyari-Yucuna.—Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882; Koch-Griinberg, 1909-10,
1911, pp. 56-153, 203-257; Martius, 1867, 2: 253.
Adzaneni-Mandawaca.—Koch-Grunberg, 1928, pp. 288-301; Loukotka, 1929-
30, p. 85; Nimuendaju, 1931-32, pp. 613-614; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 63-74.
Tariana.—Coudreau, H., 1887; Koch-Grunberg, 1909-10, 1911, pp. 268-281;
Martius, 1867, 1: 628-629 (Yaboana), 2: 260; Wallace, 1853.
Wainuma-Mariate.—Martius, 1867, 2: 245-249, 266-268; Wallace, 1853.
Yapura Group.—Brinton, 1892 a (Manao); Martius, 1867, 2: 221-222 (Manao),
229 {Uirina), 250-252 (Jumana), 254-256 (Passi), 257-260 (Cauixana).
Marawa-Waraicu.—Martius, 1867, 2: 223-225, 233-234.
Cuniba.—Nimuendaju and Valle Bentes, 1923, pp. 215-217.
Jurua-Purus.—Chandless, 1866 {Canarnari, Maniteneri); Martius, 1867, 2: 161-
163 {Catukina), 235-236 (Canamari); Rivet, 1920 b (Catukina); Rivet and Taste-
vin, 1919-24; Stighch, 1908 (Inapari).
Ipurina.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 188; Chandless, 1866, p. 118; Ehrenreich,
1897 b; Koch-Grunberg, 1914-19; Nusser-Asport, 1890, p. 795; Polak, 1894;
Steere, 1903, pp. 378-380; TeUo, 1913 b.
Campa-Anti.—Adam, 1890 b; Cardus, 1886, p. 325; Carrasco, 1901, pp. 205-211;
Castelnau, 1852, pp. 290-291; Delgado, E., 1896-97; Farabee, 1922, pp. 21-52;
Marcoy, 1875, 1: 548; Pauly, 1928, p. 151; Reich, 1903, p. 135; Sala, G., 1905-06;
Steinen, 1906; Tello, 1913 b; Tessmann, 1930, p. 83; Touchaux, 1908; Weiner,
1880.
216 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [S. A. B. Bull 143
Piro-Chontakiro.—Alemany, 1906 a; Carrasco, 1901, pp. 205-211; Castelnau,
1852, pp. 291-292; Farabee, 1922, pp. 62-76; Marcoy, 1875, pp. 579-580; Reich,
1903, p. 135; Tessmann, 1930, p. 366.
Machiguenga.—Anonymous, 1933 d; Aza, 1923, 1924 a, 1924 b, 1924 c, 1933 a;
RoseU, 1916.
Masco.—Aza, 1935; Farabee, 1922, pp. 77-78.
Mojo-Baure.—Adam and Leclerc, 1880 {Bauri) ; Adelung and Vater, 1806-17
(,Moxo); Cardus, 1886, pp. 317-318; Magio, 1880 (Baur4); Marban, 1894 (Mojo);
M6traux, 1942 a, pp. 53-80; Pauly, 1928, pp. 157-158; Tello, 1913 b.
Paiconeca-Paunaca.—Cardus, 1886, pp. 319-320, 327; Pauly, 1928, pp. 164-166.
Paressi.—Rond6n, 1910, pp. 19-28; Schmidt, M., 1914 a, pp. 242-250; Steinen,
1894, pp. 542-547.
Saraveca.—Cardus, 1886, p. 327; Pauly, 1928, pp. 164-166; Crdqui-Montfort
and Rivet, 1913 c.
Parana Region.—Bach, 1916; Baldus, 1937 (both Tereno); Boggiani, 1896;
Castelnau, 1852, pp. 274-276; Martins, 1867, 2: 129-131; Schmidt, M., 1903 (aU
Guand); Taunay, 1868, pp. 131-148.
Xingu Group.—Steinen, 1886, pp. 357-360 (Custenau); 1894, pp. 523-532
{Mehinacu, Yaulapiti, Custenau Waura).
CHANE AND CHANX
The name Chani is applied especially to several small isolated
enclaves of Arawak-speaking peoples, the southernmost Arawak
groups. It is, however, unfortunately, frequently confused with
Chand. Thus Brinton (1891 a) lists the Chane among the Charrdan
(q. V.) tribes of Uruguay; these are today known as Chand (q. v.).
It was probably this analogy that led Perea y Alonso (1942) to claim
the Charrua to be Arawak. On the other hand, certain Arawak
groups, especially the Layand, seem to be known as Chand. Guand
is probably a term related to Chand.
LANGUAGES OF PROBABLE ARAWAKAN AFFINITIES
ARAUX GROUP ^'^
The nature and composition of the group of Araud languages are
much disputed. Brinton (1891 a, p. 293) made an Aravd stock,
composed of Araud, Pama, Pammary, and Purupuru. Loukotka, in
his 1935 classification, also proposed an Araud family, but made it
composed of Araud, Yamamadi, and Pammarl; however, in 1939 he
put the group back under Arawak and added the languages Kulina
and Madiha. Nimuendajii (map) accepts Yamamadi, Pammary-
Purupuru, Yuberi, and Culino as Arawak but refuses to classify Araud,
Sewacu, Pama, and Pamana. Rivet (1924 a) includes all these in
his Araud group of Arawak, and considers the languages to fall with
" The Arawakan Araud must be distingviished from a small Panoan group on the Madre de Dios River
and from several other groups with somewhat similar names.
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 217
the Ouand-Tereno-Layand group of Paraguay. The following classifi-
cation is, therefore, very tentative:
218 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
(1941-43) gives it independent status as a phylum. Steward and Me-
traux herein (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 536) call the Amuesha" ImguisticaWj
similar to the Campa"; this statement does not seem to be borne out
by the evidence. Mr. Louis Kankin writes (personal correspondence)
from personal acquaintance, that, ''The Amuexias to the west of the
Campa are said to be a subtribe, but their language is quite different."
They have for some time spoken Quechua. The Lorenzo and Pana-
tawa are,^or_were probably related.
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 191 (Lorenzan); Farabee, 1922; Iza-
guirre, 1927-29; Sala, G., 1897, 1905-06; Tello, 1913 b; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 367-
368, 617.
TUCUNA (tIKUNA)
Nimuendajii (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 713) advances arguments for his
opinion that, following Chamberlain (1910 a) and Tessmann^(1930),
Tucuna, should be considered independent or isolated, not placed
under Arawak, following Rivet (1912 b, 1924 a), who thinks it a very
altered Arawakan tongue. However, W. Schmidt (1926), Krickeberg
(1922), Loukotka (1935), and Igualada and Castellvi (1940) accept
the Arawakan connection. Loukotka thinks it is mixed with Mura
and Tucano.
Bibliography.—Brinton, 1892 a, pp. 7-20; Castelnau, 1852, pp. 298-299;
Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 198; Marcoy, 1875, p. 379; Martius, 1867, 2:159-161
(Tecuna); Nimuendajii, 1931-32, pp. 573-580 (Tikuna); Rivet, 1912 b; Tessmann,
1930, pp. 564-565, 617 (Tikuna).
tarumX
Tarumd has been generally classed as an Arawakan language (Rivet,
1924 a; Loukotka, 1935; W. Schmidt, 1926; Gillin, Handbook, vol.
3, p. 803), but Nimuendaju (map) places it among his isolated lan-
guages; this opinion is apparently based on no new published data.
If Arawakan, it is apparently an unusually variant form, since Lou-
kotka (1935) puts it in a subgroup of its own as a mixed language
(other element not stated), and with vestiges of Camacdn; the latter
is most doubtful. Rivet (1924 a) states that it was related to the
extinct Parauien.
Bibliography.—Farabee, 1918 b, pp. 135-138, 277-283.
TACANA
Synonyms: Takana, Tecand.
There are three linguistic groups in northwestern South America
known by variations of the t-k-n phonetic combination; with the
inevitable vowel modifications they are, therefore, liable to confusion.
The standard spellings of these three tribes are Tacana, Tucunxi or
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 219
Tikuna, and Tucano; each has been formerly accorded mdependent
position.
The linguistic position of the Tacana group is a most uncertain and
controversial question, and one that will require much intensive study
for a definitive opinion. Tacana v^as accorded independent status by
the early authorities, Brinton (1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a). As
a result of an exhaustive comparative study, Cr^qui-Montfort and
Rivet (1921-23) put it under Arawak, in -which opinion they are
followed by Rivet (1924 a), Pericot y Garcia (1936), and Loukotka
(1935). W. Schmidt (1926), Krickeberg (1922), K. G. Grubb (1927),
and the authors of the monographs in this Handbook wisely prefer to
leave it as independent, or at least unclassified and doubtful.
Coterminous with both Panoan and Arawakan languages, the
Tacanan languages show resemblances to both ; the resemblance to one
should be genetic, to the other the result of borrowing. Morpholog-
ically, the resemblance is much greater with Panoan, a fact that
should carry great weight for genetic connection. Some 65 of the 101
words compared by Rivet are either identical or very similar in
Tacanan and Panoan, so similar that the presumption is for recent
borrowing, although the words are mainly basic ones, and few are in
modernistic categories. Of the 101 words compared, 60 occur in only
one language, or in one small group of languages, either Panoan or
Tacanan, and are, therefore, presumably not original in these stocks;
another 17 seem to be common also to Arawakan, leaving only 24 really
pertinent cases.
Regarding the Arawakan resemblances, since 25 Tacanan vocabu-
laries are compared with 65 Arawakan ones, a large number of fortui-
tous apparent resemblances would be expected; many of them occur
in only one language; in many others the meaning is greatly changed.
Of the 178 examples only a dozen or so would qualify as apparent
certainties, and half of these are of domesticated plants or animals,
such as dog, cotton, maize, manioc, and tobacco. No rules of sound
change are suggested and none are apparent. The genetic relation-
ship of Tacanan to Arawakan requires much more careful study before
it can be accepted. Tacanan has also many words in common with
Aymara and Quechua, but these are almost certainly borrowings,
mainly from Aymara.
Armentia (1902) gives the names of some 40 subtribes or dialects of
Araona, some of which are also found in the table below. Araona and
Cavina are inextricably mixed, but some groups are pure Araona, and
some pure Cavina. Cavina and Covineno are not synonymous, ac-
cording to Rivet, and the latter not a subdivision of Araona. Rivet
also does not group Guacanagua, Sapibocona, or Maropa with any other
languages. He distinguishes between Toromona and Turamona, the
220 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
latter a Tacana subgroup. There are no data on Chmcanahua, but
the Tacana affinities are vouched for by Cardus (1886) and Norden-
skiold (1905). The extinct Sapibocona are probably the same as the
Maropa. Rivet considers Chiragua a subgroup of Tacana. Some of
the Arasa speak Tacanan, but the group is reaUy Southwestern Pano
(Arasaire), and is also classified under Pano; the habitat is the same.
Nordenskiold's (1905) Arasa vocabulary is Tacanan; Llosa's (1906)
Arasaire vocabulary, Pano.
Brinton (1891 a) also gives as subtribes Eguari, Samachuane,
Carangue, Hucumano, and Torococy, which Rivet claims cannot with
certainty be identified with Tacarian, as being extinct without re-
corded data, or known by other names.
No one has attempted to subdivide the Tacana group or to classify
the component languages on a scientific linguistic basis. The following
table incorporates the opinions of aU authorities consulted, and greatly
contravenes none.
Tacana
A. Araona Arauna, Ardhuna)
1. Capachene (Kapaheni)
2. Cavina (Kavina)
5. Cavineno
4. Mabenaro
6. Machui (Machuvi)
B. Arasa
C. Chirigua {Chiriba, THrigua, Tsiriba)
1. Chumana
2. Maropa
5. Sapibocona (Sapiboka)
D. Guariza {Guaziza)
E. Tacana (Takana, Tucana)
1. Ayaychuna
2. Babayana
3. Chiliuvo
4. Chivamona
6. Idiama, Isiama
6. Pamaino
7. Pasaramona
8. Saparuna
9. SiLiama
10. Tumapasa or Maracani
11. Turamona (Toromona)
12. Uchupiamona
IS. Yabaypura
14. Yubamona
F. Tiatinagua (Tambopata-Guarayo)
1. Guacanahua (Guanacanahua, Guarayo^)
• Distinguish from Tupl-Guarani Quarayo (Huaraya, Quarayu, etc.; some of the bibliographical references
there noted possibly apply here instead, or vice versa).
Vol.61 LANGUAGES—^MASON 221
Tacana—Continued
F. Tiatinagua (Tambopata-Guarayo)—Continued
2. Chama
5. Baguaja (Baguajairi)
4. Chunchu
6. Echoja
6. Huanayo
7. Kinaki
8. Mohino
G. Yamaluba
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(For full bibliography to that date, see Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1921-23.)
Adelungand Vater, 1806-17 (Sapibocona) ; Armentia, 1888, 1902, 1904; Aza, 1928,
1930-32 (Huaraya); Brinton, 1892 a, pp. 7-21; Cardus, 1886, pp. 311 (Tacana),
414-415 (Maropa) ; Farabee, 1922, pp. 154-161 (Tiatinagua), 163-164 {Mabenaro);
Giacone, 1939; Gilij, 1902; Groeteken, 1907; Heath, E., 1883 (Tacana, Maropa);
Hoeller, 1932 a, 1932 b (Guarayo); M6traux, 1942 a, pp. 30-45; Nordenskiold,
1905, pp. 275-276 (Arasa), 1911 b, pp. 235-239 (Maropa) ; Pauly, 1928, pp. 121-124
(Tacana), 130-131 (Maropa), 133-134 (Cavina), 147 (Guacanagua) ; Schuller,
1933; Teza, 1868, pp. 117-143 (Guarisa).
LANGUAGES OF POSSIBLE ARAWAKAN RELATIONSHIPS
TUYUNERI
The most recent compilers, Nimuendajti (map and index) and
Loukotka (1935), prefer the spelling Tuyoneri to the standard
Tuyuneri. This group is of later and less generally accepted standing
than Itonama, Canichana, Cayuvava, Momma, and Yurucare (q. v.) in
this region, and distant from them; it was discovered by Nordenskiold
(1906) in the early years of this centiu-y . Tuyumiri, assignedbyBrinton
(1891 a) to Tacanan, is probably an orthographical error; it is not
mentioned by Chamberlain (1910 a, 1913 a). Markham (1910) identi-
fies the Tuyuneri with the Chunchos, a generic name for Indians of the
Montana and hence a meaningless association. Rivet (1924 a),
Pericot y Garcia (1936), Loukotka (1935), and Nimuendajii (map and
index) accept it as an independent family or as isolated; Loukotka
sees vestiges of Panoan in it. However, Steward and Metraux (Hand-
book, vol. 3, p. 541) place it unequivocally among the Arawakan
groups.
Bibliography.— Nordenskiold, 1905, pp. 275-276.
JIRAJARA
Not mentioned by earlier writers, Jirajara has been accorded
independent position by Rivet (1924 a), Loukotka (1935), and some
other recent authorities. W. Schmidt (1926) follows Oramas (1916)
in considering it related to Arawak, which may well be found to be
222 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
the case when more scientific studies are made on its vocabulary and
grammar. Hernandez de Alba (Handbook, vol. 4, p. 469) dogmatically
states that "the Jirajara . . . speak an Arawakan language (Oramas,
1916)." The most recent opinion, however, that of Febres Cordero
(1942) is that it is not Arawakan, though containing many Arawak
words, probably borrowed. Also about 10 percent of the words seem
to show Chibchan connections. The Ajdgua, given as a component
language, may be synonymous with the Achagua, generally considered
as Arawak. They may, however, be a separate group. The Cuiba,
probably distinct from the Guahibo group of the same name, may be
an Ajagua dialect.
Jirajara
1. Gaydn {Cayon)
2. Ayomdn
3. Xagua
a. Cuiba (?)
4. Jirajara
Bibliography.—Febres Cordero, 1942; Jahn, 1927, pp. 379-395; Oramas, 1916.
JIVARO
The Jivaro family has always been known by orthographic variants
of this name, such as Xivaro and Chiwaro; it is probably a corruption
of Shuara or Shiwora, their own term. The resemblance to the name
of a neighboring family, Zdparo, may be significant, but no genetic
relationship with the latter has been suggested. The name apparently
became used to imply a wild rustic person and is applied in Puerto
Rico to the native countryfolk of the interior mountains. They must
be distinguished from the Cawapanan Chebero (Xebero) and from the
Hibito. The language is still spoken by some thousands of Indians,
but several groups have adopted Quechua.
Except for a few borrowed words, Jivaro seems to have nothing in
common with Quechua, Tupian, Cawapanan, Zdparoan, or Panoan.
There are, however, a large number of apparent correspondences with
Arawakan, the resemblance with Campa being especially strong. This
may possibly be due to borrowing, especially since there are some
important morphological differences. Beuchat and Rivet (1909-10)
hesitatingly decided to place Jivaro in the Arawakan family, but in
his later classification (1924 a) Rivet again gave it independent status,
in which he has been followed by all other authorities except W.
Schmidt (1926). J. P. Harrington (personal correspondence), how-
ever, believes that the Arawak resemblances are genetic and that
Jivaro is a very divergent form of Arawak.
Jivaro is said to be clear and harmonious. The phonetic pattern is
more like that of Amazonian than that of Andean languages. There
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 223
is a quasi-inflection, that is, terminal changes or suffixes for person and
tense. Mechanism for pluraHzation is absent, and there is no trace of
gender. Both classificatory prefixes and suffixes are found, and post-
positions. Monosyllables are rare, and accent unimportant.
There may be said to be but one Jivaro language, relatively homo-
geneous, but very many dialects. Apparently no attempt has ever
been made to subdivide the language, or to group the dialects. The
subdivisions as generally given are presumably political and geo-
graphic, but the presumption is that the linguistic division would be
roughly similar.
JfVARO
I. Jivaro
224 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BuU. 143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous, 1918 b, 1924, 1939, 1941; Beuchat and Rivet, 1909-10; Bruning,
E., 1904; Bruning, H., 1928 (Aguaruna); Caillet, 1930-33; Cordeiro, 1875;
Delgado, A., and Vacas Galindo, 1929; Domville-Fife, 1924, pp. 20^218; Duroni,
1924, 1928; Dyott, 1926, pp. 153-212; Farabee, 1922, pp. 125-135; Flornoy
1938; Ghinassi, 1938, 1939; Gonzdlez Sudrez, 1904, pp. 51-62; Hassel, 1902
^Aguaruna) ] Jij6n y Caamano, 1919, pp. 380-388; Jos6 de Maria, 1918-19;
Karsten, 1919, 1920 a, 1920 b, 1921-22, 1922, 1935; Le6n, A. M., 1928-29;
Magalli, 1890, 1891 (1912); Prieto, 1885, pp. 63-68; Rimbach, 1897, pp. 360-409;
Rivet, 1907-08, 1912 a, Romero y Cordero, 1930; Simson, 1886, pp. 87-100,
1899; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 338-365 {Chiwaro); Vacas Galindo, 1895, 1903 a,
1903 b, pp. 402-418; Verneau and Rivet, 1912.
URU-CHIPAYA-PUKINA
The relationship of Uru (Uro) and Pukina {Puquina) to Arawakan
is quite illogical. The Uru-Puquina inhabit the region of Lakes
Titicaca and Poop6 in Bolivia, about the highest, coldest, and most
inhospitable area in South America; the majority of the Arawak
languages are in the Tropic lowland forested regions. The evidence
advanced for the affiliation (Tello, 1913 b; Crequi-Montfort and
Rivet, 1921, 1925-27) falls far short of proof, but it has been accepted
by practically all the recent authorities on classification: W. vSchmidt
(1926), Pericot y Garcia (1936), Loukotka (1935), Jij6n y Caamano
(1943), etc. The relationship was first suggested by TeUo (1913 b),
the data for proof presented by Crequi-Montfort and Rivet (1925-27).
Several of the "Handbook" authors (see La Barre, Handbook, vol.
2, p. 575), including the present one, consider the evidence advanced
insuflScient, doubt the connection, and think that the data should be
reviewed. Dr. J. P. Harrington, however, is convinced of its vahdity.
Uhle (1896) suggested a relationship to Yunca-Mochica, and Loukotka
(1935) calls them mixed languages, with vestiges of Pano and Mose-
tene. Many writers beheve that the present Uru group is but a tiny
remnant of a very early or autochthonous population that once occu-
pied a much larger region, extending to, and including a large area on,
the Pacific Coast. (See Jijdn y Caamano, 1941-43, map 3.) If the
result of an Arawak migration, it was probably the first of these.
Three languages, Uru, Pukina, and Chipaya, are ordinarily placed
in this group. The published vocabularies, however, show such
differentiation that even the interrelationship of these is not beyond
question. Uhle (1896), Polo (1901), and Boman (1908) believed
Pukina and Uru distinct, and Chamberlain (1910 a, 1913 a) distin-
guished Puquinan and Uran families. Posnansky (1915) considers
Chipayan an independent family distinct from the others. La Barre
(Handbook, vol. 2, p. 575) says that the Uru "call their language
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 225
Puquina," but that the Uru language "is not the same as the Puquina-
Uro of La Grasserie (1894)."
The data on the Uru group of languages seem to be exclusively
lexical; grammatical material is a great desideratum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Bacarreza, 1910, pp. 477-480; Barcena, MS.
Basadre, M., 1884, pp. 196-205; Brinton, 1890 (all Puquina); Chamberlain, 1910
a, pp. 196-197, 200, 1910 b; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1921, 1925-27; Franco
Inojosa, 1937; La Grasserie, 1894 (Puquina); M6traux, 1936 a, 1936 b; Polo,
1901, p. 456; Posnansky, 1915, 1918 (both Chipaya), 1931, 1934; Tello, 1913 b;
Uhle, 1896.
OCHOSUMA
Ochosuma or Uchuzuma may be a dialect of Uru, but had best be
left with the unclassified languages.
CHANGO AND COAST URU
InsuflBcient data are available to classify Chango, an extinct lan-
guage of miserable fishermen on the Chilean coast. As probable
remnants of an early archaic population, an independent language is
not unlikely, but this possibility is insufficient to justify the establish-
ment of a separate family for them as Chamberlain (1913 a) did.
The only data seem to be place and personal names, and the state-
ment that they spoke a language different from their neighbors.
Different opinions have placed them with the Atacameno, Chono, and
Alacaluf. The most recent and thorough studies link them with the
Uru (q. V.) of the Bolivian lakes, which linguistic group Rivet believes
to be of Arawakan affinities. The argument is apparently based
mainly on the fact that some groups adjacent to the Chango were
known as Uru, and on a comparison of Chango names with Bolivian
Uru. It is probable that the name Uru was applied to a number of
nonrelated linguistic groups, just as the Lacandon in Chiapas are locally
called "Caribs," and Puerto Rican countryfolk "Jivaros," and the
existence of a group of true Uru on the Chilean coast is unlikely. At
any rate the sources do not equate Chango and Uru, The suggestion
that the Bolivian Uru had seasonal fishing colonies on the coast is
improbable. Brand (1941 c) distinguishes between the Northern
Chango or Uru, whom he believes to be linguistically Uran, and the
Southern or True Chango, sometimes wrongly termed Uru, who were
of unknown language. (See Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 575, 595-597.)
Bibliography.—Boman, 1908; Brand, 1941 c; Chamberlain, 1910 a; Ciineo Vidal,
1913; Garcilaso de la Vega, 1723; Knoche, 1931; Latcham, 1910; Lozano-
Machuca, 1885; Santa Cruz, 1913.
226 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
CARIBAN
The Carib is one of the great linguistic families of South America,
both in number of component languages and dialects and in extent,
which is only less than that of the Arawak and Tupi. Carib languages
are (or were) found from the Greater Antilles to central Mato Grosso,
and from eastern Peril to central Para. Cariban and Arawakan groups
have much the same distribution, but isolated Carib groups are much
fewer. The great mass of the Cariban are north of the Amazon, occu-
pying a great area that includes much of the Guianas, Venezuela,
northern Brazil, and lowland Colombia. Nevertheless, the point of
origin and dispersion is claimed to have been the region between the
upper Xingii and the Tapajoz.
Suggestions have been made that Carib and Arawak may eventually
be tied up in one great phylum. SchuUer (1919-20 a, 1928) proposed
the further inclusion of Chibcha and Maya. Though comparative
studies on the Carib languages have been made by Adam (1893) and
De Goeje (1910), the classification of the many Carib languages is still
to be done on a thorough linguistic basis, and those proposed are mainly
arranged geographically. Rivet (1924 a), W. Schmidt (1926),
Loukotka (1935), and Simpson (1940) have offered such classifications,
with major and minor subdivisions. Those of Schmidt and Simpson
are the most detailed and have been here adopted as a basis, incorpo-
rating also some of the opinions of the others as well as those of Gillin
and the other Handbook authors. Disagreements are, on the whole,
few and minor.
In addition to many languages, mostly extinct, on which data are
insufficient and the classification, therefore, in doubt, there are several
large groups whose Carib affiliation is questioned. One such is the
Yagua-Peba group (q. v.), long considered independent and so still
regarded by Loukotka (1935) and Nimuendajii (index) but accepted
as Cariban by W. Schmidt (1926) and Simpson (1940) on the basis of
Rivet (1911 b). Rivet (1943) has also presented cogent arguments
for the inclusion of Choco (q. v.) and many other languages of Colom-
bia formerly considered as affiliated with Chibcha (q. v.).
In the Guiana-Venezuela region, Gillin (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 804-
813) lists some 80 tribes—and presumably dialects—that he considers
of Cariban affinity, as well as some 30 more, probably all extinct, that
are questionably Carib. Most of these are small groups, many of them
mentioned by no other authority except Nimuendaju, who includes
them on his map. Not all of these groups will be listed here again.
Among those considered as Cariban by Gillin, and this affiliation not
disputed by others, are:
Acuria, Cashuena, Chikena, Cuacua (Mapoyo), Gabinairi, Heurd, Kirikiripc,
Panare, Paraviyana, Puricoto (Catawian), Saluma, Tereciimd, Tivericoto^
Tonayena, Waiwai.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 227
Other Carihan groups of undisputed relationship mentioned by
Nimuendajii, Loukotka, and others, but not by GilHn, are:
Azumara, Carib of Maturin, Mutuan, Wayewe *', Zurumata.
A number of Guiana groups, considered as Carihan by GiUin and
others, are left unclassified by Nimuendajii, probably for lack of suf-
ficient linguistic data. Among these are:
Acokwa, Aracaret (Racalet), Ichu, Nourage (Norak), Pariki, Pirio (Apouroui),
Pishaucd, Sapai (Suppaye), Taira, Wai(Ouaye), Waikeri (Guaiqueri) , Waya-
cuU (Oyaricoulet, Amibouane (?)), and Yapacoye.
The Carib affinities of the following groups are disputed, mainly by
Nimuendajii:
Attaraya.—Given by Gillin both as Cariban and as a synonym of Arawakan
Atorai.
Asepangong.—Nimuendajii apparently considers Arawakan.
Cariniaco.—Remarks same as for Seregong.
Pawishana (Paushiana)
.
—Cariban according^to Nimuendajii and^^Loukotka;
Arawakan according to Gillin and Rivet.
Serecong.—Arawakan according to Nimuendajii; generally considered Cariban.
Yao.—Cariban according to most; Nimuendajii believes Arawakan or unclassified.
Taparito.—Nimuendajii and Rivet agree with Gillin in considering Taparito as
Cariban. Kirchhoff (Handbook, vol. 4, p. 439) makes Tapariia a variety
of Otomacan (q. v.). W. Schmidt (1926) considers Taparito as isolated.
Carib Classification
I. Northern
A. Coastal
1. Insular
Carib, Calino
2. Mainland
a. Carib: Caribisi, Calinya, Galibi
b. Cumanagoto
c. Palank (Palenque, Guarine)
d. Pariagoto (Paria, Guayuno)
e. Oyana (Upurui, Wayana): Rucuyen, Urucuiana
f. Chacopata
g. Piritu
h. Cunewara
i. Shiparicot, Chipa
j. Core
k. Chaima (Sayma, Warapiche): Tagare, Cuaga
1. Carinapagoto
B. Central
1. Roraima Group
a. Acawai: Patamona
b. Purucoto 1 (Porocoto)
0. Arecuna ^ {Jaricuna, Pemon) : Camaracoto, Taulipang
1 Loukotka (1939 a) distinguishes Parukatu from Purukoto.
' Nimuendaju lists an Arawakan Arecuna in the same region.
18 Loukotka distinguishes Wayewe, Wayaway, and Vayamar.
794711—50 16
228 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
Cakib Classification—Continued
I. Northern—Continued
B. Central—Continued
1. Roraima Group—Continued
d. Arinagoto
e. Macushi {Macusi): Teweya
f
.
Waica '
g. Ingaricd
h. Sapard
i. Wayumard
j. Paraviyana
k. Kenoloco
1. Monoicd
m. Azumara
n. Paushiana
o. Mapoyo
p. Taparito
2. Ventuari Group
a. Makiritare: Yecuand {Mayongong) , Maitsi, Ihuruand,
Decuand (Wainungomo)
, Cunuand
b. Yabarana: Curasicana, Wokiare
C Amazon
1. Eastern
a. Pianocotd
b. Apalai: Aracuayu *
c. Waiwai (Ouayeoni)
d. Pauxl
e. Trio
f. Diau
g. Shikiana (Chikena)
h. Tivericoto
i. Catawian {Parucutu)
j. Cumayena
k. Urucuena
2. Western
a. Carijona ( Umawa, Omagua) : • Hianacoto, Guake,
Tsahatsaha (Saha), Guagua, Riama (?), Caicushana,
Mahotdyana, Yacaoyana (?)
D. Bonari
1. Bonari
2. Fawaperf (Crishand)
a. Atroahy
3. TFaimtVy
4. Mutuan
» Distinguish from Shiriandn Waica.
* Rivet (1924 a) believes that the Apalai are identical with the extinct ^racwajd, but the language of the
latter seems to be mixed with Tupl, and Loukotlia (1935) has put it in an independent subgroup for that
reason.
» Distinguish from Tupian Omagua.
Vol. «] LANGUAGES—^MASON 229
Carib Classification—Continued
II. Southern
A. South
1. Arara
a. Arara (Ajujure) •
b. Apiacd (Apingui) ^
c. Parirl {Timirem)
B. Xingri
1. Bacairi
2. Nahucua (Anaugua)
a. Guicuru (Cuicutl)
b. Apalakiri (Calapalo)
c. Mariape-Nahuqua
d. Naravute
e. Yarumd
f. Yamarikuma
g. Akuku
III. Northwestern
A. Maracaibo-Magdalena
1. "Motilones"^
a. Chaki: Macoa, Tucuco, Parirl, ChakS
b. Map4: Macoa, Macoita, Manastara, Yasa, Chapara,
Sicacao, Tucuco, Cunagunsata, Maraca, Aguas
Blancas, Aricuaisd, Catatumbo, Irapeno
c. Carate
d. Zapara •
2. Bubure {Coronado)
3. Yarigui
a. Quiriquire (Kirikire): Topocoro, Topoyo, Chiracota,
Araya, Guamaca, Tholomeo
4. Op6n
5. Carare '"
a. Colima (Tapas): Murca, Marpapi, Curipa
b. Naura
c. Nauracoto
6. Muso (Muzo)
7. Burede
8. Guanao
9. Penieno
10. Patag&n
11. Camaniba
• Distinguish between Panoan, Chapacuran, and Cariban Arara. Nimuendajfi (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 214)
states that the speech of the /Irora is very close to that of the Farwmd (vide infra).
' Distinguish from Tupian Apiacd of the Tapajoz.
' Motildn classification according to Jahn, 1927, p. 80. Reichel-DolmatofE (personal communication) states
that the Motildn of Perija, of Bolinder and de Booy, are pure Cariban of the Chaima-Cumanagoto group, but
those of Catatumbo and Rio de Oro are very different and seem to heArawakan, though the linguistic data
are scarce.
• Hem&ndez de Alba (Handbook, vol. 4, p. 469) calls Zapara Cariban; Rivet (1924 a) considers it Arawakan.
10 Nimuendajfl (map) leaves Carare unclassified. W. Schmidt (1926) places Amarizano in this North-
western Group; most other authorities consider this language Arawakan (q. v.).
230 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Carib Classification—Continued
B. Choconn
1. Chocd
a. North
a. Empera: Funucund, Dabeibe,^^ Urubd
b. Catio: Ibexico, Pequi, Norisco, Ituango, Teco,
Peneco, Carnrita, Cuisco, Araque, Pubio,
Guacufteco, Tuin, Nitana, Pevere
b. South
a. Nonamd (Noanumd): Chanco
2. Cenu
a. Nutabnre (Nutab^): Tahami
b. Cenufana
3. Cauca
a. Qidmbaya: Quimbaya, Carrapa, Picara, Paucura
b. Ancerma: Ancerma, Caramanta, Cartama, Nori, Guaca
c. Antioquia: Antioquia, Buritica, Corome, Evejico
d. Arma: Arma, Pozo
C. Southwest
1. Gorrdn "
2. Buga
3. Chanco "
D. Southeast
1. Arvi
2. Patdngoro (Palenque): 12
a. Tamana
b. Guarino
c. Guagua
d. Zamana
e. Doyma
3. Panche
a. Guazqida
b. Guali
c. Marquelon
4. Pijao
a. Quindio
b. Cutiba
c. /rzco
d. Toc/ie
e. Cacataima
•1 Rivet, 1943, excludes these from his CAocd group.
12 KirchhofiE (Handbook, vol. 4, p. 339) groups Amani, Palenque, Zamand, Punchina, and Marquesote
with Patdngoro, and considers them of Chibchan relationship.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General and unidentified.—Adam,1878, 1879, 1893; Adelung and Vater, 1806-
17; Ahlbrinck and Vinken, 1923-24; Alvarado, 1919 a; Bertoni, M. S., 1921;
Farabee, 1924; Gniin, 1936; Goeje, 1906, 1908, 1910, 1924, 1928 b, 1932-33;
Mitre, 1909-10, pp. 280-314; Penard, A. P., 1928-29; Quandt, 1807; SchuUer,
1919-20 a.
Insular and Honduras.—Adam, 1906; Bererdt, 1874 a; Breton, 1665, 1666,
1669, 1877; Conzemius, 1930 b; Galindo, 1834; Henderson, A., 1847, 1872;
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 231
Lehmann, 1920; Rat, 1897-98; Rochefort, 1658 (1667), pp. 652-680; Sapper,
1897; StoU, 1884, pp. 35-36; Taylor, 1938, 1946.
Coastal Mainland.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17 (Tamaiaco); Coudreau, H.,
1887, 2:491-492 (Rucuyen), 1892; Coudreau, O., 1903 a (Ouayana, Rucuyen);
Cr6vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882 {Rucuyen, Galibi); Gilij, 1780-84, pp. 375-389
(Tamanaco) ; Goeje, 1906 (Upurui); Martius, 1867, 2:327-370 (Galibi); Tastevin,
1919 (Galibi); Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 325-332, 1921-22 (Tamanaco, Palenke,
Guaykeri, Chaima, Chacopata, Piritu).
Cumanagoto.—Platzmann, 1888; Ruiz Blanco, 1888 a, 1888 b, 1892, 7:161-168,
191-228; Tapia, D., 1888; Tauste, 1888 (Chayma, Core, Paria); Yangues, 1888.
Roraima group.—Adam, 1905 (Acawai); Armellada, 1936; Armellada and
Matallana, 1942 (Arecuna, Pemon) ; Barboza-Rodriguez, 1885 (Purucoto) ; Farabee,
1924 (Purucoto, Azumara); Koch-Grunberg, 1913, 1915, 1928 (Purucoto, Tauli-
pdng, Ingarico, Sapara, Wayumara); Martius, 1867, 2:227-228 (Paraviyana)
;
Salath6, 1931-32 (Paushiana, Carime); Simpson, 1940 (Camaracoto) ; Tavera-
Acosta, 1907, 1921-22 (Mapoyo, Arecuna, Waica).
Macushi.—Barboza-Rodriguez, 1885; Coudreau, H., 1887, pp. 487-491; Farabee,
1924, pp. 121-152; Grupe y Thode, 1890; Koch-Grunberg and Hubner, 1908, pp.
15-35; Martius, 1867, 2:225-227; Schomburgk, 1847-48, 2:515-523; Williams,
J., 1932.
Ventuari group.—Makiritare: Chaffanjon, 1889, pp. 342-344; Oramas, 1913 b;
Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 109-119, 1921-22, pp. 226-227. Yabarana: Koch-
Griinberg, 1928, 4:233-242.
Eastern Amazon.—Coudreau, H., 1887, pp. 491-492 (Uayeue); Coudreau, O.,
1901, pp. 165-168 (Pianacoto); Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 39-40
(Trio); Farabee, 1924 (Waiwai, Urucuena, Trio, Diau, Chikena, Cumayena,
Catawian-Parucutu) ; Martius, 1867, 2:17-18 (Aracayu), 312-313 (Pianacoto,
Waiwai, Tivericoto)
.
Apalai (Aparai, Yauapiri).—Coudreau, H., 1887, 1892, pp. 60-75; Coudreau, 0,
1903 b, pp. 41-51; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 32-34; Farabee, 1924,
pp. 229-241; Hiibner, 1907; Payer, 1906; Rice, 1931.
Western Amazon.—Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 35-38 (Carijona);
Koch-Griinberg, 1906 c, p. 203 (Carijona), 1908 c, 1909 (Hianacoto-Umaua).
Bonari group.—Barboza-Rodriguez, 1885, pp. 247-260 (Crishana) ; Brinton,
1892 a, p. 44 (Bonari); Hiibner, 1907, pp. 238-246 (Yauaperi); Payer, 1906, p.
222 (Waimiry); Pompeu Sobrinho, 1936 (Mutuan); Souza, A, 1916 a, pp. 77-78
(Bonari)
.
Arara group.—Coudreau, H., 1897 c, pp. 199-210 (Arara); Ehrenreich, 1888,
1894r-95, pp. 168-176 (Apingi); Krause, 1936, pp. 39-41 (Apingi); Nimuendaju,
1914 b (Pariri), 1931-32, pp. 549-551 (Arara), 1932 a, pp. llfr-119 (Pariri).
Xingu group.—Abreu, 1895, 1938 a (Bacairi); Krause, 1936 (Bacairi, Nahucua,
Yaruma) ; Souza, A, 1916 b, pp. 71-73 (Bacairi) ; Steinen, 1892, pp. 1-160 (Bacairi),
1894, pp. 524-527 (Nahucva).
Northwestern group.—Motil6n-Macoa-Chake: Bolinder, 1917, 1925; Booy,1929;
Ernst, 1887 b; Goeje, 1929-30; Isaacs, 1884, pp. 213-216; Jahn, 1927, pp. 340-354;
Reichel-Dolmatoflf, 1945 b (Mo<z7dn) ; Tavera-Acosta, 1921-22, pp. 221-230.
Jahn, 1927 (Kirikire, Bubure) ; Jimenez de la Espada, 1897, pp. 28-30 (Patagdn);
Lengerke, 1878 a (Op6n), 1878 b (Carare); Oramas, 1918 a (Kirikiro).
LANGUAGES OF PROBABLE CARIBAN AFFILIATIONS
Naturally, Cariban relationships have been proposed for several
other important linguistic groups and smaller languages by certain
232 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
scholars, whose opinions have been accepted by some of their col-
leagues, rejected by others. Among these are the large Chocoan and
Peba-Yagua groups, and the smaller languages Yuma, Palmella, Yuri,
Pimenteira, and Ochucayana. For discussion of Ochucayana or
Tarairiu, see "Small Unclassified Languages of the Pernambuco
Region."
CH0C6 AND CARIBAN OF COLOMBIA
Recent researches of Rivet (1943, 1944) and Jijon y Caamano
(1941-43) have advanced considerable evidence that many of the
languages of Colombia formerly considered as Chibchan are (or were,
since many of them are extinct) actually Cariban. These include
Choco and Pijao. They form a relatively sohd group in north-
western Colombia, separated from the main mass of Carib in eastern
Venezuela and Guiana by belts of Arawakan and Chibchan peoples
paralleling the cordiUera to the Caribbean Sea. Rivet divides these
into Eastern {Motilon, etc.) and Western {Choco-Quimbaya) groups,
separated by the Pijao-Panche-Patdngora. The Cariban aflSnities
of Motilon (q. v.) have always been accepted. The Carib migration
here is presumed to have been relatively late and to have supplanted
former peoples of Chibchan speech.
The Cariban affinities of Choco are apparently more obvious and
generally accepted than those of the Pijao-Panche-Patdngoran, and
the Quimbaya. Hernandez de Alba (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 922)
places the Pijao, Panche, Quimbaya, and Patdngora in the Pdez
subgroup, Talamav ca-Barbacoa group of Chibchan. He also states
(ibid., p. 923) that the "dialects of Pijao, Pdez, Timana, and Yalcon
were classed together." Reichel-Dolmatoff (personal communication)
considers the Cariban relationship of Choco {Chami, Catio, Nonoama)
as proved, but is less convinced of those of Pijao, Quimbaya, and
the other former inhabitants of the Magdalena and Cauca Valleys.
Cuna and Choco are Ikiked culturally and by inference Unguistically
in the Handbook (vol. 4, pp. 257-276).
Choco has generally been considered an independent family (Brinton,
1891 a; Chamberlain, 1913 a; Loukotka, 1935; Pericot y Garcia, 1936;
Rivet, 1924 a; Ortiz, 1940 b). Mainly on account of the large number
of Chibcha words, W. Lehmann (1920), followed by W. Schmidt
(1926), beUeved it to be related to Chibcha. W. Lehmann (1920)
thought it intermediate between the Barbacoan and the Central
American groups of Chibcha. Jimenez Moreno (map, 1936) left it
unclassified.
The various dialects seem to be slightly differentiated. ChocS
has adopted a large number of words from Chibcha and, hke many
Carib languages, from Arawak.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 233
Choco languages or dialects mentioned by authorities, other than
those given on the preceding chart, are Citard, Andagueda, Bando,
Chami, and Tadd or Tado. Cholo, Paparo, and Tucura are placed by
some in the Citard subgroup. Other groups mentioned by only one
writer, Brinton (1891 a) in particular, are Canasgordas, Chiamu
{Chocamu), Chochama, Murindo, Necodade, Pato, Rio Verde, and
Sambo.
In the accompanying linguistic map the following groups appear in
the area that is presumably Colombian Carib, probably Choco or
Senii: Caramari, Fincenu, Guamoco, Malambo, Mompox, Pacabueye,
Pancenti,, Tamalamequi, Tolu, Turbaco, Yamici, Zamba, and Zondagua.
Other Pijao subtribes given by Rivet are Aype, Paloma, Ambeina,
Amoya, Tumbo, Coyaima, Poina (Yaporoge), Mayto {Maito, Mario),
Mola, Atayma (Otaima), Tuamo, Bulira, Ocaima, Behuni (Beuni,
Biuni), Ombecho, Anaitoma, Totumo, Natagaima, Pana {Pamao),
Guarro, Hamay, Zeraco, Lucira, and Tonuro.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(All the important sources may be found in Reichel-Dolmatoflf, 1945 a; Ortiz,
1940 b; W. Lehmann, 1920; Rivet, 1943-44.) Adelung and Vater, 180&-17;
Anonymous, 1918 a {Catio); Bancroft, 1875; Bastian, 1876, 1878-89; Berendt,
1874 b; Beuchat and Rivet, 1910; Bollaert, 1860, pp. 65-67; Brinton, 1895 a
{Andagueda), 1896 {Noanama); Cieza de Le6n, 1881, p. 26 {Arma, Pozo); Collins,
F., 1879; Cullen, 1851 a, 1868, 1875; Ernst, 1887 a; Greiffenstein, 1878 (Chami);
Hurtado, G. O., 1924 (Noanama); Jij6n y Caamano, 1938, 1941-43; Latham, 1851;
Lorenz, 1939 (Catio); Merizalde del Carmen, 1921, pp. 85, 89, 150; MoUien, 1824,
2:300, 1924, p. 450; Nordenskiold, 1928 a, 1929 b; Pablo del Santlsimo Sacramento,
1933; Pinart, 1887, 1897; Rivet, 1912 a, 1943-44; Robledo, 1922 (Chami);
Rothlisberger, 1883-84; SaflFray, 1872; Santa Teresa, 1924 (Catio); Seeman, 1853
(Cholo); Simon, 1887 (Tucura); Tessmann, 1930, pp. 472-475: Uribe, 1883;
Uribe Angel, 1885, pp. 525-546; Vallejo, 1910 (Baudo); Velazquez, 1916 (Chami);
Wass6n, 1933, 1934 b, 1935; White, 1884 a, 1884 b.
PEBA-YAGUA
The classification of the Yagua or Peba group, generally agreed to
consist of Yagua, Peba, and Yameo, has seen a recent return to belief
in its independence. Hervas y Panduro (1800) had proposed a Yamea
family, composed of Amaono, Nahuapo, Napeano, and Masamae.
Brinton (1891 a) called the family Peban, the component languages
Caumari, Cauwachi, Pacaya, Peba, and Yagua. Rivet (1911 b) then
published his thesis that the group is affiliated with Carib; this opinion
has been accepted in the classifications of Pericot y Garcia (1986),
Krickeberg (1922), W. Schmidt (1926), Simpson (1940), and Jij6n y
Caamano (1941-43). Much earlier, however, Chamberlain (1913 a)
decided that more proof of this relationship is needed, and continued
the use of Peban as an independent family. The more recent authori-
234 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ties agree with this conclusion; Nimuendaju (map), Loukotka (1935)
and Igualada and Castellvi (1940) accord it independent family
status, the first terming it Peha, the second Yagua. M^traux also
doubts the Carib affinities. Loukotka (1935) calls Yagua (YegiM,
Yahua) a "pure" language, Peha mixed with Carib, Yameo mixed with
Arawak and Carib. Tessmann (1930) calls them both "mixed-stem
languages," Yagua mixed Pano-Carib, Yameo mixed Arawak-Pano;
Peba he seems to consider a^synonym of Yagua. The group had best
be left unclassified until further linguistic researches are made upon it.
A number of component languages and subdivisions of Peba-Yagua
are mentioned in literature. Most of these are probably extinct, and
the whole Yameo group is on the verge of extinction if not already
gone.
A. Yagua
1, Yagua
2. Peha
a. Cauwachi
b. Caumari
c. Pacaya
B. Yameo
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 235
spoken. Following some suspicions, he compared the words with
modem Dahomean in Africa and determined their close relationship,
especially to the Popo dialect. The text was evidently taken in the
Slave Coast Kingdom of Arda, and the language has therefore no
relation to that of the Arda tribe of southeastern Colombia, an extinct
group probably related to the Peba, Yagua, and Yameo. Nimuendajii
(map) continues to regard Arda as an isolated language.
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a; Ludewig, 1858; Rivet, 1912 a, 1925 e.
YUMA
The Yuma, with one relatively large group and a small enclave in
the state of Amazonas, are rather isolated from any other Carib
groups. Accepted as of Carib affiliation by all other authorities,
Nimuendajii leaves them unclassified, a conservative opinion herein
followed.
PALMELLA
No authority, not even Nimuendajii, doubts the Carib affinity of
Palmella, but as the linguistic data are very poor, as the Palmella are
a tiny group, and far removed from any other Carib people, even
much farther south than the doubtfully Carib Yuma (q. v.), they
might well be left unclassified. If of Carib affiliation, they form the
southwesternmost Carib group, near the Brazil-Bolivia border.
Bibliography.—Fonseca, J. S. da, 1880-81, pp. 193-196.
YURI (JUKI)
Opinions regarding the relationship of the small Yuri (Chamberlain,
1913 a, and W. Schmidt, 1926, prefer the spelling Juri) group are
very contradictory. Markham (1910) claimed a linguistic connection
with the Arawakan Passe ; Brinton (1891 a) accepted this classification.
Loukotka (1935) and Igualada and Castellvi (1940) consider it
Carib. The more conservative recent opinions, Rivet (1924 a),
Nimuendajii (map), W. Schmidt (1926), Tessmann (1930), Krickeberg
(1922), follow Chamberlain's (1913 a) classification as independent or
isolated. Possibly several Juri or Yuri languages are here confused.
Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 708) describes one as one of the
"Arawakan tribes of the left middle Amazon." The data seem to
be limited to the vocabulary in Martius (1867). There is apparently
only one language, but there are said to have been 10 dialects. As
the language is almost extinct, spoken today by a very few individuals,
a modern grammar of Yuri is a great desideratum. It is a reasonable
guess that if such a grammar is ever prepared, Yuri will be found to
faU with either Arawak or with Carib. This Yuri must not be con-
236 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
fused with an unclassified Juri orSurilanguage of theGran Chaco region.
Bibliography.—Cabrera, P., 1924; Chamberlain, 1910 a; Martius, 1867, 2:268-272;
Rivet and Tastevin, 1921; Tessmann, 1930, p. 584; Wallace, 1853, pp. 528-529.
PIMENTEIRA
All the older standard authorities consider Pimenteira a Carihan
language. Nimuendaju (map) places it with Botocudo (q. v.) and
Lowie (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 381) calls it a separate family. It is
far to the east of any other Carib group.
Bibliography.—Martius, 1867, 2:219-220.
MACRO-TUPl-GUARANIAN
A Macro-Tupi-Guarani phylum is here diflBdently proposed for the
first time. It consists of Twpi-Guarani, Miranya (Bora), Witoto,
Zdparo, and a number of less important languages which are generally
placed in one or another of these "families." It is not advanced with
any claim to certainty or with any evidence of proof, but as a result
of opinions, deductions, and intuitions of the several authorities and
of the present writer, plus the fact that there is great difference of
opinion concerning into which of these families many of the small
languages fall. Rivet (1911 a) has presented evidence for the inclu-
sion of Miranya (Bora) in Tupi-Guarani. This has been accepted by
some, rejected by others. Dr. J. P. Harrington is convinced that
Witoto also belongs with Tupi-Guarani. Jijon y Caamano (1941-43)
estabhshes a Witoto-Bora-Zdparo phylum separate from Tupi-Guarani.
Zdparo is the most doubtful member of the phylum. Nimuendajii
(map) and Loukotka (1935) keep all separate. As these famiUes are
contiguous a genetic connection is not unreasonable.
TUPf-GUARANIAN
Tupi-Guarani, like Arawak and Carib, is one of the great wide-
spread linguistic families of South America. The languages were, or
are, spoken from easternmost Brazil to the foot of the Andes in Peril,
and from Guiana to Uruguay. Though in many isolated groups, the
bulk is in eastern Brazil. The distribution is mainly fluvial and mari-
time, most of the groups restricted to the coast or the river valleys.
The original home seems to have been in the region of the Paraguay-
Parang, from which they spread, following the rivers. Soon after
the time of the Conquest they held the entire Brazilian coast from the
Amazon nearly to Buenos Aires. Much of this migration was recent
and probably even post-Conquest, and largely during the sixteenth
century. Other migrations up to and including the present century
are of historical record. (See Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 97-99.)
Many of these migrations were at the expense of Ge groups, especially
on the Brazilian coast. The distribution of languages at the time
Vol. 61 LANGtJAGES—^MASON 237
of the Conquest is, therefore, most difl&cult to determine; branches
of the same group, sometimes bearing the same or similar names,
are found in very widely separated regions, and present geographical
propinquity carries no presumption of close linguistic relationship.
Tribes of other linguistic affinities frequently adopted Tupi-Guarani
tongues, especially after the Conquest. Northern Tupi, Tupi
Proper or Nhengatu, was adopted by the Spanish missionaries and
traders as the lingua geral, which aided its spread and vogue. The
use was probably largely due to the fact that it is said to be a relatively
simple language morphologically, and easy to learn.
Though Tupi-Guarani may eventually form the body of one of the
great phyla into which South American languages may be grouped,
it is unlikely that it will be found to^be related^to any of the other
major families.
No documented study of the divisions of Tupi-Guarani on a lin-
guistic basis has ever been made. Rivet (1924 a) lists them geo-
graphically. W. Schmidt (1926) and Loukotka (1935) group them
into subdivisions with geographic terminologies, but with great
mutual disagreement, since many isolated intermediate groups
may be placed in any one of several subdivisions. The present
classification is based on all of them, modified by opinions of more
recent observers regarding the relationship of certain groups. It
makes no claim to correctness or finaHty, and will doubtless be modi-
fied greatly by future researches. The two main divisions are into
Tupi and Guarani, but, even in these, apparently the relationship
is relatively not very distant.
Ttjpf-GuARANf Classification
I. Guarani
A. Parand
1. Guarani (Carijd, Carid, Chandule)
a. Arechane, Itatin, Tap4, Tobatine, Guaramhari, Taidba
2. Caingud (Kaigud, Montese)
a. Apapocuva, Caingud, Carima, Chiripd, Guayand,^
Mbya^ (Mbuhd, Apiteri, Baticola, Boaberd),
Oguana (Oguaiuva), Pan', Tanygud, Tarumd,*
Cheiru, Avahugudi, Paiguagu, Yvytyigud, Avachiripd,
Catanduva Jatahy
3. Paranai
4. Guayaki*
5. Ar6 {Setd, Ivapari, Shocleng, Notobotocudo,^ Pihtadyovac)
> Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 69) uses Caingud to distinguish the modem primitive from the civi-
lized Ouarani. Distinguish from two other Ouayand in the same general region, one Ge and one unclassi-
fied, according to Nimuendaju (map). (See Mfitraux, Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 70-71.)
' Distinguish from Quaicwi, Mbayd.
» Distinguish from Arawak (7) Tarumd.
* Closely related to Guarani linguistically, according to Mfetraux and Baldus (Handbook, vol. 1, p.
435). Most modern authorities agree, but a few consider it independent or refuse to classify it.
» The Ari or Setd are erroneously called Botocudo or Notobotocudo, but have no connection with Botocuio
proper {Macro-Gt).
238 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS tB. A. B. Bull. 143
Tupf-GuARANf Classification—Continued
I. Guarani—Continued
B. Bolivia
1. Chiriguano (Aba, Camba, Tembeta)
a. Guarayii
a. Pauserna: Itatin, Carabere, Araibayba, Motere-
quoa (Moperacoa), Varai, Pirataguari {Pita-
quari), Carlo, Kiriticoci, Guarayu-Td
b. Siriono ^ (Chori)
a. Nyeoze-N^e, TirinU, JandS, QurungiXa
2. Tord''
3. Porokicoa
4. Palmares (f) ^
5. TapieU^ (Tirumbae)
a. Yana {Yanaigua)
6. Ubegua (?) i"
7. ChanS''
C. Araguaya 12
1. TapirapS ^^
2. Canoeiro {Avd)
II. Tupi
A. Coastal (Nyeengatu)
1. Tupina (Tupiguae)
a. AricobS, Amoipira
2. Tupinamba
a. Apigapigtanga, Araboyara, CaeU (Caheti), Guaracaio
(Itati), Muriapigtanga, Potiguara (Pitonara), Rari-
guara, Tamoyd, Timimino, Tabayara,^* Tupinikin,
Viatan-Pernambuco
B. Guiana
1. Apoto (Aponto)
2. Caliand '*
3. Oyampi
a. Camacom
4. Wayapi (Guayapi)
5. Emerillon
6. Paikipiranga (Parichy)
« The former language of the Siriond is unknown.
I A number of the tribes mentioned below have adopted Ouarani in recent centuries. Tori was formerly
classified as Chapacuran; a large vocabulary gathered by Nimuendaju shows beyond doubt that it is impure
Tupi (Nimuendaju, 1925; Nimuendaju and Valle Bentes, 1923).
8 Palmares and Ubegua were placed by Brinton (1898 a) among the Guarani groups of the Gran Chaco;
other authorities do not mention them.
« The former language of the Tapiete may have been Arawak.
i« See footnote 9.
II The Chane (q. v.) formerly spoke Arawak.
'2 These two groups (Tapirape, Canoeiro) appai'ently migrated here from the south in historical times.
Both are slightly known. The Canoeiro are said to be descendants of the Carijd (Guarani). Lipkind
(personal communication) thinks that they may not be extinct, and may not be Tupi.
'3 Wagley (personal letter) says that the Tapirape language resembles Guarani more than northern
Tupi in its use of specific pronominal prefixes, suffixes of time, place, and condition, and in high develop-
ment of nasalization.
'< See Mfitraux, Handbook, vol. 3, page 96.
>« Distinguish from independent Calidna (q. v.).
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 239
Tupf-GuARANf Classification—Continued
II. Tupl—Continued
B. Guiana—Continued
7. Cusari ^»
8. Wara-Guaju (Araguaju) " (?)
C. Southern Amazon
1. Araguaya Division (He-group)
a. Nyengahiba
b. Ararandewara
c. Miranyo (?) ^^
d. Amanay6 (Manazo): Anamb4, Paracana
e. TeneUhara:^^ Guajajdra, TembS, Guajd
f. Urubu: Turiwara (Turuara)
g. Pacajd: Pacajd, Jacundd (Amiranha?) , Anta (Tapiraua)
h. Cubenepre: Kup6-r6b (Jandiahi)
i. Asurini (?) ^°
2. Xingu Division
a. Yuruna Group ^i
a. Yuruna: Yuruna, Shipaya (Ashipaye)
b. Manitsawd
c. Arupai (Urupaya) ^^
b. TacunyapS (Pewa)
c. Upper Xingii Group
a. Aueto: Arawiti ^^
b. Arawine
3. Tapaj6z Division
a. Cawahlb Group
a. Cabahyba: Cawahib,^* Parintintin, Apairande,
Odyahuibe
h. Apiacd 2*
a. Tapanyuna (Arino)
c. Mundurucd 2»
a. Curuaya (Kuruahe)
i« Probably originally Carib, acculturated to Tupi, according to Qillin (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 814). Sub-
tribe of Oyampi, according to Rivet (1924 a). Nimuendajii (map) leaves Kuasari unclassified.
1' Niinuendajfi (map) distinguishes two groups of Aracaju in this region, a Carib group on the Rio Paru
and an unclassified group on the Rio Pacaja. (See also Nimuendajti, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 209.)
18 See Nimuendajfi, Handbook, vol. 3, page 208.
i« According to Wagley (personal correspondence), the Guajajdra and TembitoTva one tribe and call them-
selves Tenetihara. The Guajd are neighbors of the Guajajdra who say that they speak "our" language
Urubii is grammatically like Guajajdra, with a slight phonetic difference governed by regular sound shifts.
20 Nimuendajti (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 214) says that Asurini is reported to be like Guajajdra; as there is no
record of the speech, most of the other authorities who have mentioned the language have left it unclassified.
2' According to Nimuendajti (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 214), Yuruna, Shipaya, and Manitsawd form a group
of impure Tupi, to which Arupai may also belong. It differs considerably from Tupi proper by reason of
Arawak and Carib influences. Yuruna and Shipaya are almost mutually intelligible, differing by regular
sound shifts. Martins (1867) and Adam (1896) doubt the Tupi relationship generally accepted. Loukotka
(1935) considers Manitsawd as mixed with Ge; Yuruna and Shipaya as mixed with Arawak. L6vl-Strauss
(Handbook, vol. 3, p. 322) says that Manitsawd includes much from Suya (Ge).
22 Distinguish Arupai from Gurupd of Tocantins, and from Urupd of Gy-Parana.
» Arawiti is a mixture of Aweto and YawalapUi, according to L6vi-Strauss (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 322).
M Lfevi-Strauss has a large unpublished vocabulary of Cawahib. Cawahib and Parintintin are very similar
and both have strong aflinities with Apiacd. They are remnants of the ancient Cabahyba (Nimuendajti,
Handbook, vol. 3, p. 283).
M See Nimuendajii, Handbook, vol. 3, page 313.
'« According to Loukotka (1935, 1939 a), Mundurucd, and Kuruaya are mixed with Arawak, Maui mixed
with Carib and Arawak. Nimuendajti (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 246) says that Maui contains non-Tapfelements
that cannot be traced to any other linguistic family.
240 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Ball. 143
Tupf-GuARANf Classification—Continued
II. Tupi—Continued
C. Southern Amazon—Continued
3. Tapaj6z Division—Continued
d. Mau6 "
e. Wirafed
f. Cayabl: " Camayurd
g. Tupinambarana
h. Paranawdt
i. Ramarama (Itanga) **
a. Itogapuc {Ntogapid)
j. Catukinarii
D. Upper Amazon
1. Cocama Group *•
a. Cocama: Cocamilla, Xibitaona
b. Omagua (Campeva)
2. Aizuare Group ^o
a. Aysuari: Curuzicari
b. Bonama {Ihanoma)
c. Pawana
d. Soliman {Yoriman)
» For footnote 26, see page 239.
" Rivet considers Cayabl as Carib. (See Nlmuendajli, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 307.)
" Ramarama and Ntogapid are mixed with Arawak and Arikem, according to Loukotka (1935, 1939 a).
" Cocama and Omagua are not mutually intelligible; they also speak Quechua and Spanish. Cocamilla Is
the southern or Ucayali dialect of Cocama, the difference negligible.
"> These languages are all extinct. Nimuendajfl (map) leaves the first three, the only ones there listed,
unclassified; he considers Curacicari a s3monym of Aysuari,
Nimuendajii lists a number of groups under the Tupi designation
that are not found in the above outline. Some of these may be
synonyms; a few others are put in other families by other authorities,
or left unclassified. Most of these are in the southern Amazon
region. Of these languages, found in a prevailingly Tupi region, the
following are left unclassified by Handbook authors for lack of suffi-
cient information: Amniape, Guaratagaja, Kepkiriwat, Macurap,
Tupari, Arikem (q. v., infra), and Buruburd {Puruhord, generally
considered Huari or independent).
Others in this general region, considered Tupi by Nimuendajii,
are : Arud, Guardyo, Ipotwat, Jabotifed, Mialat, Paranawat, Sanamaica,
Taipo-shishi, Takwatib, Tucumafed, and Wayoro.
YTTRIMAGUA (ZURIMAGITA)
Yurimagua is generally considered Tupian; M^traux (Handbook,
vol. 3, p. 704) gives his evidence for believing that it is not related to
Omagua and possibly independent; Nimuendajii leaves it unclassified.
ARIKEM
Though generally placed in the Chapacuran family, Loukotka
(1935, 1939 a,) considers the Arikem (Arigueme, Arikeme, Arikeni,
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 241
Ahdpovo) language sufficiently distinct to form a separate family,
with intrusions of Tupi and Arawak. Nimuendajii (map) classifies
it under Tupi, and M^traux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 406) believes that
he (Nimuendajii) has proved the Tupian relationship.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guarani.—As an important living language of the Paraguayan region the
bibliography of Guarani is large. It is, therefore, divided into two parts. Many
of the works listed under Tupi refer to the Twpi-Guarani "family" and some
therein may be specifically on Guarani. The more important works are: Adelung
and Vater, 1806-17; Bertoni, M. S., 1916, 1921, 1922; Bottignoli, n. d. (1938, 1940),
1926; Domfnguez, 1912; Gez, 1915; Lafone-Quevedo, 1919 b; Medina, J. T., 1930 b;
Osuna, 1923 a, 1923 b, 1924 a, 1924 b, 1924 c, 1925, 1926 a, 1926 b; Ruiz de
Montoya, 1876 a, 1876 b, 1876 c, 1876 d, 1892; Teschauer, 1921.
Also: Bertoni, A. de W., 1924; Bertoni, G. T., 1926; Bertoni, M. S., 1914,
1920, 1927 b, 1932; Branco, 1937; Colman, 1917, 1921, 1929 a, 1929 b, 1932, 1936;
Fiebrig-Gertz, 1927, 1932; Gandia, 1931; Martinez, T. A., 1916; Morinigo, 1931,
1935; Osuna, 1921; Recalde, 1924, 1937 b; SchuUer, 1913 b; Solari, 1928; Storni,
1944.
CainguS.—Ambrosetti, 1895 a; Borba, 1908, pp. 73-76, 138-139 {Guayand)
;
Martins, 1867, 2:13-14; Miiller, Franz, 1934-35 (Mbuhd); Nimuendajii, 1914 a
{Apopocuvd); Sampaio, T., 1890, pp. 133-148; Vellard, 1937; Vellard and Osunaj
1934; Vogt, 1904, pp. 207-214.
Guayaqui and Seta.—Bertoni, G. T., 1924, 1926-27, 1927, 1939; Borba,
1904, p. 57 (ArS); Ihering, 1907, p. 232 (Shocleng); Loukotka, 1929 {Setd); Maynt-
zhusen, 1919-20; Panconcelli-Calzia, 1921; Steinen, 1901; VeUard, 1934^35;
Vogt, 1902-03.
Chiriguano.—Campana, 1902, pp. 17-144, 283-289; Cardus, 1886, pp. 309-310;
Giannecchini, 1896; Kersten, 1905; Nino, 1917; Nusser-Asport, 1897; Romano and
Cattunar, 1916; Schmidt, M., 1938.
Guarayu.—Cardus, 1916; M^traux, 1942 a, pp. 95-110; Pauly, 1928, pp. 189-
190; Pierini, 1908; Schmidt, M., 1936 b; Snethlage, E. H., 1936.
Pauserna.—Fonseca, J. S. da, 1880-81; M^traux, 1942 a, pp. 95-110; Schmidt,
M., 1936 b; Snethlage, E. H., 1936.
Siriono.—Cardus, 1886, p. 280; Krause, 1911; Metraux, 1942 a, pp. 110-114;
Nordenskiold, 1911 a, 1911 b; Nusser-Asport, 1897; Pauly, 1928, p. 193; Radwan,
1929; Ryd^n, 1941; Schermair, 1934; Snethlage, E. H., 1936; Wegner, 1934 a,
1934 b, 1934 c, pp. 5-54.
Tapiete.—Nordenskiold, 1910 a; Palavecino, 1930; Schmidt, M., 1937 c.
Araguaya Group.— Tapirapi: Kissenberth, 1916, pp. 52-64; Krause, 1911,
pp. 405-406; 1936, p. 43. Canoeiro: Couto de Magalhaes, J., 1902, p. 119;
Rivet, 1924 d.
Tupi (Neengatu).—Eastern Tupi is, or is the basis of, the lingua geral of Brazil.
The bibliography is, therefore, very large and has herein been divided into two
parts, the first containing the more important works and those on the Tupi-
Guarani family; the second, the works of lesser importance and those on the
lingua geral.
Adam, 1878, 1896; Ayrosa, 1934 a, 1935 a, 1937 a, 1939, 1941, 1943; Barbosa da
Faria, 1925; Barbosa-Rodrlgues, 1892-94; Branco, 1935; Brinton, 1898 a; Drum-
ond, 1944, 1946; Eckart, 1890; Figueira, 1878; Garcia, R., 1927; Garraux, 1898;
Goeje, 1928 b; Gonjalves, Dias, 1855; Hestermann, 1925; Ihering, 1907; Koch-
242 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Gninberg, 1932; Leeris, 1592, pp. 250-266; Martius, 1867, 2: 99-122, 373-544;
Nimuendaju, 1925, pp. 143-144; Nimuendajii and Valle Bentes, 1923, p. 222;
Paula Martins, 1941, 1945 a, 1945 b; Philipson, 1946 a, 1946 b; Platzmann, 1901;
Schmidt, M., 1905, pp. 419-424, 440-446; Silveira, E. do, 1935; Tastevin, 1908,
1923 b, 1923 c, 1923 d; Valle Cabral, 1880.
Also: Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Almeida, 1931; Anonymous, 1937; Ayrosa,
1933, 1934 b, 1934 c, 1934 d, 1934 e, 1934 f, 1934 g, 1935 b, 1935 c, 1935 d, 1935 e,
1935 f, 1935 g, 1935 h, 1935 i, 1935 j, 1935 k, 1936 a, 1936 b, 1936 c, 1936 d, 1936 e,
1936 f, 1937 b, 1937 c, 1938; Brandao de Amor^m, 1928; Camara Cascudo, 1934;
Coqueiro, 1935 a, 1935 b; Ferreira-Franca, 1859; Friederici, 1930; Guimaraes,
J. J. da S., 1854; Lemos Barbosa, 1937; Machado d'Oliveira, 1936; Martius, 1867,
2: 7-11, 23-97; Nimuendaju, 1914 c; Pombo, 1931; Recalde, 1937 a, 1937 b;
Stradelli, 1929; Studart, 1926; Sympson, 1926; Tasso Yatahy, 1918; Tastevin,
1919.
Tupinamba.—Lery, 1599; Platzmann, 1901.
Guiana Group.—Coudreau, H., 1892, pp. 76-140; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam,
1882; Martius, 1867, 2: 17-18, 320-323; Perret, 1933 {Emerillon).
Araguaya Division.—Ehrenreich, 1894-95, pp. 163-168 {Anambi); Lange, 1914,
pp. 445-446 (Ararandewara) ; Lopes, 1934, pp. 167-170 (Urubii); Nimuendajii,
1914 c (AmanajS, Turiwara); Rice, 1930 (Urubii).
Guajajara.—Ehrenreich, 1894-95, pp. 163-168; Froes de Abreu, 1931, pp.
157-163; Roberts, F. J., and Symes, 1936; Snethlage, E. H., 1931, pp. 117-139.
Tembe.—Baptista, 1931-32; Hurley, 1931 a; Nimuendaju, 1914 b; Rice,
1930, pp. 314-315; 1934, pp. 152-180; Snethlage, E. H., 1932 b, pp. 351-362.
Yuruna.—Coudreau, H., 1897 a, pp. 165-198; Krause, 1936, pp. 39-41; Ni-
muendaju, 1923-24, 1928-29 (both Shipaya), 1931-32, pp. 580-589; Snethlage, E,
1910; Snethlage, E. H., 1932 a (both Shipaya); Steinen, 1886, pp. 360-363 (and
Manitsawa)
.
Tacunyape.—Nimuendaju, 1931-32, pp. 543-547.
Upper Xingu.
—
Aueto: Schmidt, M, 1905; Steinen, 1894, pp. 535-537. Arawine:
Krause, 1936.
Cawahib.—Nimuendaju, 1924 (and Parintintin);.
Apiaca.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 277-278; Coudreau, H., 1897 a, pp. 184-191;
Guimaraes, C. J. da S., 1865; Hoehne, 1915; Katzer, 1901, p. 41; Koch-Griinberg,
1902 c; Martius, 1867, 2:11-13.
Mundurucu.—Coudreau, H., 1897 c, pp. 192-202; Krause, 1936; Martius,
1867, 2: 18-20; Nimuendaju, 1931 (Curuaya), 1932 a, pp. 106-108; Rond6n, 1915,
pp. 179-183; Snethlage, E., 1910; Snethlage, E. H., 1932 a (both Curuaya);
Stromer, 1932; Tocatins, 1877, pp. 73-161.
Maue.—Coudreau, H., 1897 c, pp. 173-181; Katzer, 1901, p. 37; Koch-Gnin-
berg, 1932; Nimuendaju, 1929 b.
Camayura.—Krause, 1936, p. 43; Schmidt, M., 1905, pp. 446-447; Steinen,
1894, pp. 537-540.
Tapajoz Miscellaneous.—Church, 1898, p. 64 (Catukinaru) ; Horta Barbosa,
1922, p. 25 (Ramarama); Koch-Grunberg, 1932 (Wirafed); Nimuendajii, 1924,
pp. 275-276 (Wirafed), 1925, pp. 144-145, 172 (Ntogapid, Ramarama); Schmidt,
M., 1929 a, (Cayabi).
Omagua and Cocama.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17 (Omagua); Castelnau,
1852, pp. 293-294 (Cocama); Espinosa, 1935 (Cocama); GUij, 1780-84, pp. 371-
375 (Omagua); Gonzdlez Sudrez, 1904, pp. 65-66 (Omagua); Marcoy, 1875,
2: 296, 402; Martius, 1867, 2:16-17, 299-300; Orton, 1871, p. 473 (Omagua);
Rivet, 1910 a; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 47, 65 (Omagua), 66 (Cocama), 82 (Cocamilla).
Yurimagua.—Veigl, 1785 a, p. 54.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 243
Arikem.—Lopes, 1925; Nimuendaju, 1932 a, pp. 109-116.
MIRANYAN OR BORAN
Synonyms: Miranhan, Mirana, Bora, Boro.
Not recognized by Brinton's (1891 a) classification, Miranyan
was first proposed as a separate family by Chamberlain (1913 a), on
the basis of pubHcations by Mochi (1902-03), Koch-Griinberg (1906 c,
1909-10), and Rivet (1911 a). Although Rivet had already pub-
lished his study with his conclusion that Miranya is a very much
modified and differentiated Tupi-Guaranl dialect, Chamberlain, with
the comment that "more evidence is needed," preferred to leave it
unafl&liated with any other large group. Krickeberg (1922) and
Pericot y Garcia (,1936) accept Rivet's classification; Loukotka (1935)
and Igualada and Castellvi (1940), preferring to call the family Bora,
class it as independent. W. Schmidt (1926) outlines the problem
and begs the question. Tessmann (1930) calls it a mixture of Ge-
Tupi; Nimuendaju (map) considers it independent. Steward (Hand-
book, vol. 3, p. 749), considers it under Witotoan, which latter he
accepts as Tupian. Jij6n y Caamaiio (1941-43) makes it a member
of his phylum Witoto-Bora-Zdparo, distinct from Tupi.
A grammar of some Miranyan language is a great desideratum;
the data available for comparison are purely lexical. While the
evidence of Tupi relationship presented by Rivet (1911 a) is not
entirely convincing—witness its nonacceptance by many authorities
—
it is nonetheless highly probable and is herein accepted. Dr. J. P.
Harrington has made an independent comparison and is convinced
of the relationship. Miranya seems to be most closely related to
Witoto, and several languages, such as Muinane, Coeruna, Nonuya,
and Imihita, are placed by some under Miranya, by others under
Witoto. Harrington's conclusions (personal communication) are:
The Witotoan probably includes Miranya and is certainly an outlying member
of Tupi-Guaranf. Miranya and Witoto are distantly related and both are
related to Tupi. The Tupi affinity is not one of admixture. Miranya shares a
very considerable number of etyma with both Tupi-Guaranl and Witoto. The
percentage is larger than Rivet thought and extends to fundamental words.
Rivet (1911 a) believes that Miranya is the northwesternmost of
the Tupi-Guarani languages, the remains of a very early invasion,
before that of the not-far-distant and more purely Tupi languages
such as Omagua and Cocama, and, therefore, more aftected by borrow-
ings from adjacent languages. The same remarks would doubtless
apply to Witoto, and possibly even to Zdparo.
There is great difference of opinion regarding the component
languages of the Miranya-Bora group. Igualada and Castellvi (1940)
subdivide the Bora into the True Bora (Bora, Mirana), and the False
794711—50 17
244 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIAINS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Bora (Imihita, Nonuya-Bora, Muinane-Bora) ; these last languages
are considered Witotoan by several authorities. Tessmann (1930)
lists 20 bands, Whiffen (1915) 41. Harrington (personal communica-
tion) says that Koch-Griinberg's Imihita words are typically Miran-
yan, controverting Igualada's and Castellvi's (1940) opinion of them
as "false." Koch-Griinberg (1906 a) gives four Miranya languages:
Imihita, Fd-di, Miranya, and Miranya-Oird-Agu-Tapuya. Martins'
(1867) "Hawk" and "Mosquito" vocabularies are also Miranyan,
according to Harrington (personal communication). Orejon and
Coeruna have also been considered as Miranyan languages. Martins'
(1867) Miranya-Carapana-Tapuya vocabulary is apparently closer
to Witoto.
Bibliography.—Igualada and Castellvf, 1940; Jimenez Seminario, 1924; Koch-
Grunberg, 1906 a, 1906 c, 1909-10, 1910 a, 1910 b; Martins, 1867, 2: 279-281;
Mochi, 1902-03; Ortiz, 1942; Rivet, 1911 a; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 267-280.
WITOTOAN
Though the independent position of Witoto has not to date been
abandoned, certain languages—for instance, Nonuya, Minuane, Ocaina,
and Miranya-Carapana-Tapuyo—have been placed by some authorities
in the Witoto family, by others in Miranya or Tupi-Guarani, suggest-
ing possible relationship with the latter. It was originally believed
to be Carihan. Dr. J. P. Harrington has compared Witoto, Cocama,
proved. Ortiz (1942) does not accept the relationship to Bora
Miranya, and Tupi-Guarani, and is convinced of the relationship of all.
Dr. Harrington's unpublished treatise indicates a general resemblance
in morphological type, and close resemblance of morphological ele-
ments in position, meaning, and phonetic tyipe; the lexical relation-
ship, as presented, is not so convincing. The relationship of Witoto
to Tupi-Guarani is accepted herein, though not as incontrovertibly
proved. Ortiz (1942) does not accept the relationship to Bora
(Miranya) but Jijdn y Caamano (1941-43) makes it a member of his
Witoto-Bora-Zdparo phylum.
The native name for the language is Komiuveido. Castellvl (1 934 b)
believes that the historical Quiyoya were the ancestors of the Witoto;
Ortiz (1942) thinks they were the Camheha or Omagua {Cajuane).
Orellado and Orelludo are probably synonyms for Orejon; their lan-
guage was known as Mativitana.
No methodical attempt seems to have been made to subdivide
Witoto on a linguistic basis. There seems to be a group of true or
proper Witoto, and one more closely related to Miranya. The classi-
fication of Ortiz (1942) is adopted as the basis herein. The Miranya-
Carapana-Tapuyo vocabulary of Martins (1867) is Witotoan.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 245
Pinell (1928) mentioned 136 Witoto subdivisions, Tessmann (1930)
50-60, Ortiz (1942) 39, Farabee (1922) 16. Probably each of these
had its particular dialect or variety; Pericot y Garcia (1936) copies
Farabee's subdivisions, names not mentioned, except as synonyms,
in the classificatory table.
The several authorities quoted, especially Ortiz (1942), mention a
number of Witoto groups in addition to those given above, without
indicating their relationships with other groups. Those that are
not synonyms probably each has or had its own dialect. Among
these are: Aefuye, Aipui, Ajayu, Bodydnisai, Gayafeno, Emenani,
Eraye, Fayagene, Fusigene, Gibune, Idekofo, Itchibuyene, Jetuye,
Jidua, Joyone, Kanieni, Kotuene, Meresiene, Mobenidza, Nequerene,
Nofuiqile, Orotuya, Uitoto Piedra, Uiyokoe, Yane, Yari (Jomane,
Neimade), Yusigene, and Yauyane.
246 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
MUENANE
Steward (Handbook, vol. 3. p. 750) treats Muenane under Witoto.
Nimuendajii (map) omits it. Few writers have mentioned them
(Whiffen, 1915; Preuss, 1921-23). Loukotka (1935) places it under
his Bora family (see Miranya), with Tupi intrusion and vestiges of
Witoto. Tessmann (1930) gives a vocabulary of 38 words from
which, by his comparative method, he deduces that it is a mixture of
Ge and Carib, a doubtful conclusion. They should be considered as
unclassified.
FITITA
Steward (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 750) treats the Fitita culturally
under Witotoan, possibly a subdivision of Ocaina; the linguistic
evidence has not been presented. Nimuendaju leaves them unclas-
sified, a decision herein accepted, Tessmann (1930) could find almost
no information on them and no clue to their linguistic aflBliation.
orej6n
The Spanish word "orej6n," "big ears," was applied to native
groups that wore large earplugs, distending the lobes, and, therefore,
is applicable to several unrelated linguistic groups. The more im-
portant of these are in the Witoto-Tucano region. Here, the name
seems to be applied to two adjacent groups, resulting in inevitable
confusion. One group, apparently known by no other synonym, is
southern Witoto and apparently extinct. Another tribe known as
Orejon is the Coto (q. v.), which is generally agreed to be of Tucano
linguistic affinity.
COERUNA
Though grouped with Witoto by all other authorities, including
Rivet (1924 a) and Nimuendaju (map and index), Coeruna seems to
be so different lexically that Loukotka (1935) makes it an independent
family (with Witoto and Tucano intrusions). Apparently extinct, the
lexical data seem restricted to the old vocabulary in Martins (1867).
It is most often linked with Orejon.
ANDOKE
Tessmann (1930), Castellvi (1934 b), and Igualada and Castellvi
(1940) from first-hand acquaintance with the language of the Andoke
consider it independent or of unknown affiliations. Rivet (1924 a)
places it in the Witoto family and thinks that it may be identical with
Miranya-Carapana-Tapuyo and Nonuya. Steward herein accepts it
as Witotoan, but of unknown subclassification. Ortiz (1942) does
not accept the Witoto relationship. Most of the other authorities do
not mention it. Dr, J. P. Harrington (personal correspondence)
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 247
believes in the afl&liation with Witoto. Though in the southern Colotn-
bian forests, it is not far distant from the extinct Andaki of the
southern Colombian Highlands with which it is liable to be confused.
RESIGERO
The position and affiliations of Resigero are most uncertain. Tess-
mann (1930) thinks it may be Bora (Miranya); Loukotka does not
seem to mention it. Nimuendaju (map) leaves it unclassified.
Igualada and Castellvi (1940) believe it related to Arawak. Ortiz
(1942) doubts the Witoto relationship.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Witoto.—Anonymous, 1919 e, 1930 a; Castellvi, 1934 b; Farabee, 1922, pp.
148-151; Hardenburg, 1910, 1912; Harrington, J. P., 1944; Igualada and Castellvi,
1940; Kinder, 1936; Koch-Grunberg, 1906 a, 1906 c, 1909-10, 1910 b; Martius, 1867,
2:277-279; Murdock, 1936; Ortiz, 1942; Pinell, 1928; Preuss, 1921-23; Rocha,
1905, pp. 202-206; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 311-329, 547-559 (Ocaina) ; Whiflfen,
1915.
Nonuya.—Tessmann, 1930, pp. 583, 617.
Muenane.—Ortiz, 1942; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 329-337; Preuss, 1921-23;
Whiffen, 1915.
Fitita.—Ortiz, 1942; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 583, 617; Whiffen, 1915.
Orejon.—Martius, 1867, 2:297-298.
Coeruna.— Martius, 1867, 2:273-275.
Andoke.—Castellvi, 1934 b; Igualada and Castellvi, 1940; Ortiz, 1942; Tess-
mann, 1930, pp. 584, 617.
Resigero.—-Igualada and Castellvi, 1940; Ortiz, 1942; Tessmann, 1930, pp.
583, 617.
ZAPAROAN
Zdparoan is an important group that has been accepted as an
independent family in all the major classifications since the earliest.
However, while yet to be proved, it is not unlikely that it wdll be found
to be related to Witoto, Miranya, and Tupi-Guarani, and it is tenta-
tively accepted herein as a member of the Macro-Tupi-Guarani
phylum. Rivet (1911 a) noted a large number of related words in
these four languages and suggested the possibility of relationship but
withheld final opinion. The most recent writer, Ortiz (1940 a), also
continues to grant it independence, but Jij6n y Caamano, in his 1941-
43 classification, makes a Witoto-Bora-Zdparo phylum, distinct from
Tupi-Guarani. Loukotka (1935) finds a "Tupi intrusion" and Tess-
mann (1930) considers the Zdparo language a Carib-Tupi mixture.
The linguistic data on Zdparoan are very deficient, consisting of a
few short vocabularies on a half dozen of the many component lan-
guages, and a few short translated religious prayers. Almost nothing
is known of the grammar and only a few points were deduced by
Beuchat and Rivet (1908). The grammar is, probably mistakenly,
said to be simple, the phonetics nasal and guttural, though the effect
248 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
is "agreeable." There are said to be pronominal possessive prefixes,
pluralizing suffixes and pronominal "case" suffixes.
The classification of the component languages and dialects of the
Zdparoan family is in utter confusion; no attempt has ever been made
to do this on a scientific linguistic basis, and the available data are
insufficient. Most compilers have merely given a list of names of
groups, many of them geographical, and such suggestions as are made
are based mainly on travelers' published remarks regarding linguistic
relationships. These, as well as the deductions based upon them, are
highly equivocal and contradictory.
The earliest authorities, Velasco (1840) and Hervas y Panduro
(1800), were in practical agreement on three main divisions of the
Zdparoans proper (excluding the Iquito, not included by Hervas),
and on the dialects composing these:
Andoa: Simigae of Curaray (Ve-
lasco) ; Simigaecurari
(Hervds):
Araza or Arazo
Ginori (V.)
Iginori or Ijinori
Incuri (V.)
Napotoa (V.)
Nepa or Nevo
Oa
Ynuri (V.)
Zapa
Zapara or Zaparro
Simigae of Tigre (Velas-
co) ; Jinori ( Hervds)
:
Acamori or Acamaori
Comacori
Conejori (V.)
Iqueconejori
Itremojori (V.)
Panajori
Tremojori
Araro (H.)
Bobonazo H.)
Chudavina or Chuuda-
vino
Frascavina (V.)
Gae (H.)
Guazaga or Guazago
Macavina (V.)
Murata or Murato
Pava or Pabo
Pinche
Quirivina (V.)
Semigae (H.)
Velasco divided the Iquito into two groups:
Iquito of Tigre: Iquito of Nanay:
Aicore Blanco
Ayacore Huasimoa
Eriteyne
Himuetaca
Neracamue
Most of these groups are not mentioned, and probably are extinct
or amalgamated today, as well as the dozens of small groups listed by
other writers (Brinton, 1891 a, listed 62). No recent compiler has
attempted to classify these small groups, but Rivet (1924 a), Pericot
y Garcia (1936), and W. Schmidt (1926) recognize five main sub-
divisions; Loukotka (1935), four, which more or less agree with the
earlier divisions:
Andoa
Conambo (Combo)
Gae (not accepted by Loukotka)
Iquito ( Ikito)
Zdparo
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 249
Ortiz (1940 a) gives the main dialects as Gae, Semigae, Iguito*
Iginorri, and Panocarri.
Tessmann (1930) considers the Iguito independent, divided into
two groups, the Iguito or Iguito Proper and the Cahuarano or Kawa-
rano; he calls it a mixed Tukano-Pano language. Steward and
Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 636) believe that this is erroneous,
that the Iguito language is very similar to Gae, and that Tessmann's
Cahuarano may be Maracano. Nimuendaju (map) places Iguito as
Zdparoan. Tessmann believes the Gae to be strongly Carib: he calls
the Zdparo Carib-Tupi and the Andoa Carih-Ge. He also considers
the Murato to be a Candoshi (Maina) subtribe.
According to other evidence (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 634), the Coronado
were Idnsmen of the Oa and must be distinguished from the totally
unrelated (Tucano?) Coronado on the Aguarico Kiver. "Auca" is the
generic name for "pagan." Andoa, Gae, and Semigae are closely
related, but Andoa and Semigae are not synonymous, as Tessmann
thought. The vocabulary supposed to be Murato (Anonymous,
1928 b) has no resemblance to Zdparoan. Soronotoa may be a syno-
nym for Semigae; the latter is very similar to Andoan Murato. Many
of the Roamaina and Zdparo also speak Quechua. Comacor may be a
subtribe of Semigae, of Roamaina, a synonym for Iguito, or a distinct
tribe. Of doubtful affiliation with Zdparo are Aunale, Alabano,
Curizeta, Sucumbio, and Neva.
Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 634) make a Roamaina
group of Zdparoan, apparently including Pinche, Zapa, Pava, Arazo,
and some subsidiary languages. Roamaina is generally placed with
Omurano (q. v.), whose affiliations are so disputed that it probably
should be considered unclassified.
Tiputini (Tiwacuna) and Chiripuno are considered by Tessmann
(1930) and Loukotka (1935) as languages akin to Sabela (q. v.), to
which Loukotka accords independent status.
Zaparo
I. Coronado Group
A. Coronado (Ipapiza, Hichachapa, Kilinina) '
1. Tarokeo
2. Chudavina (?)
3. Miscuara ( ?)
B. Oa {Oaki, Deguaca, Santa Rosina)
IT, Andoa Group
A. Andoa
1. Guallpayo
2. Guasaga
3. Murato »
> Beuchat and Rivet, 1909, classified the Coronado as Cahuapanan.
* See separate article, Candothi and Murato.
250 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
ZXparo—Continued
II.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 251
modern Cahuapana (q. v.), and Beuchat and Rivet (1909) classified
Roamaina as Cahuapanan. Loukotka (1935) seems to have found little
Cahuapana resemblance in Omurana.
Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 634) consider the
Roamaina as a division of Zaparoan (q. v.) and to be totally distinct
from the Maina. It is believed to be represented by the extinct Zapa,
and today by the Pinche, with the dialects Pava, Arasa, Uspa or
Llepa, and Habitoa. (See Steward and Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3,
p. 634.) With such difference of opinion, Roamaina-Omurano and
Pinche had best be considered as unclassified.
Bibliography.—Tessmann, 1930, pp. 444 (Omurana), 582 (Pinche).
Sabela is a new group, discovered and named by Tessmann (1930)
and mentioned by no other compilers except Loukotka (1935) and
Jij6n y Caamafio (1941-43). Tessmann considers it a mixed "stem,"
Ge-Arawak-Pano. The data for linguistic classification seem to be
limited to less than 30 words published by Tessmann, surely not
enough on which to award it a status as an independent family, as
Loukotka (1935) has done. "Uncertain affiliation" is the better
decision for the present. The group now speaks Quechua. Jijon y
Caamafio (1941-43) follows Loukotka in considering Sabela an
independent "phylum."
The two divisions are Tihuacuno {Tibakuna and orthographic
variants) and Chiripuno {Tschiripuno, Schiripuno); the degree of
linguistic variation between them is not stated. Tiputini is close to
or identical with Tihuacuno.
Steward (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 747) mentions the Sabela, with the
Tihuacuno and Chiripuno as tribes of uncertain affiliation. However,
Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 629) list Shiripuno and
Tiputini as dialects of Zdparo proper. In this region are many tribal
names, Zdparo, Sabela, Jivaro, Chebero, Hibito, etc., that may well be
phonetic variants of one root.
Bibliography.—Tessmann, 1930, pp. 298, 617.
Synonyms: Kanela, Napo, Santa Rosina, Loreto.
Canelo was superseded by Quechua about 1580. The linguistic data
are so few that its affiliations will probably never be certain; they may
have been with Zdparo, Jivaro, or Chibcha. Steward and Metraux
(Handbook, vol. 3, p. 637), following Reinburg (1921), class it with
Zdparoan. Karsten (1935) believes it a mixture of Jivaro, Zdparo,
and Quechua; Rivet is (or was) convinced that it was related to Chibcha.
252 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Jijon J Caamano (1941-43) does not list it in his classification but
apparently includes it in the Jivaro area in his map. Early accounts
indicate that it included Gae., generally considered a Zdparoan tongue,
as well as three other unknown and extinct languages or dialects:
Ymmunda or Ynmuda, Guallingo, and Sante or Santi. Other minor
groups were Penday, Chontoa, and Canicha.
Bibliography.—Karsten, 1935; Reinburg, 1921; Tessraann, 1930, p. 250.
AWISHIHA
The standard classification of Awishira (with many orthographic
variants such as Abijira, Avixiri, Abira) in the Tucanoan family,
accepted by Rivet (1924 a), Pericot y Garcia (1936), and Krickeberg
(1922), has been doubted in recent years. Dr. J. P. Harrington has
recently examined the data and concluded that the material has so far
proved insufficient for definite inclusion with Tucanoan. Evidence
cited in the Handbook (vol. 3, p. 635) suggests its relationship with
Zdparoan. W. Schmidt (1926) leaves it unmentioned, Nimuendaju
(map) puts it with the unclassified languages. Neither Tessmann
(1930) nor Loukotka (1935) apparently find anything Tucanoan in it
in their comparison of vocabularies. Tessmann (1930) calls it a mixed-
stem language, Pano-Arawak. Loukotka (1935) gives it an inde-
pendent family, Auisiri, finding vestiges of Chibchan in it. This
is probably too radical ; as a living language it will probably be found
before many years to belong to one of the larger groups, but as that
one is uncertain it had best be left unclassified for the present.
Bibliography.—Tessmann, 1930, pp. 495-489.
NORTHERN TROPICAL LOWLAND FAMILIES OF PRESUMED
INDEPENDENCE
WARRAUAN
Synonyms: Warau, Waraw, Worrow, Uarow, Guarau, Uarauno, Waraweti, Araote,
Tivitiva.
The independence of the Warrau linguistic family has been admitted
by all authorities since earliest days. A littoral people of peculiar
culture, the general feeling is that they preceded the Carib and
Arawak in the Orinoco Delta and Guiana coast. No suggestions as to
linguistic affiliations with other groups have been made; the Arawak
vestiges that Loukotka (1935) finds are probably due to borrowing.
Generally only one language is assigned to the famUy, but Nimuen-
daju (map and index) places the Mariusa and Chaguan, tribes not
mentioned by others, with them. The extinct Waikeri or Guayqueri
may also be related; although Rivet (1924 a) considers the latter as
Carib, Humboldt (1826) reports that they claimed that their language
was related to that of the Quarauno.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 253
Warrau
1. Mariusa
2. Chaguan
3. Waikeri (Guaiqueri)
Bibliography.—Adam, 1897 b; Brett, 1868, pp. 176-199; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and
Adam, 1882, pp. 263-266; Goeje, 1930, 1930-31; Hilhouse, 1834; Huirboldt,
1822-27, 3: 216; Im Thurn, 1883; Olea, 1928; Quandt, 1807; Schomburgk, 1847-58.
pp. 47-48; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 120-123, 1921-22; Williams, J.. 1928-29.
AUAK^AN
Auake {Auague, Auque, Aoaqui, Oewaku) is probably the smallest
of all the South American linguistic "families" accepted as independent
by all authorities. It may be now extinct, at any rate spoken by only
a very small group, possibly of only one family. Unknown to Brinton
and Chamberlain, the independent status is based on a vocabulary of
some 300 words recorded by Koch-Griinberg (1928) in 1913, which
apparently shows no connection with any language with which it has
been compared, though Loukotka (1935) sees in it vestiges of Chibchan.
Consonantal endings are few. Pronominal possession is expressed by
prefixes. Armellada and Matallana (1942) call the language Arutani.
Bibliography.—Armellada and Matallana, 1942; Koch-Grunberg, 1913, 1922,
1928, 4: 308-313, 331, 332.
CALIANAN
Caliand (Kaliana) is one of the small linguistic groups which, un-
known to earlier authorities, was discovered by Koch-Griinberg in
1913. The small vocabulary, collected by him, shows no resemblance
to any of the suiTOunding languages, and the language, without any
Imown subdivisions, is, therefore, accorded independent position by
all subsequent compilers. No studies have been made, or at any rate
published, upon it, and no suggestions regarding relationship, except
that Loukotka (1935) claims vestiges of Chihcha in it. It should be
distinguished from the Caliand of Tumuc-Humac. Many of the words
are monosyllables with consonantal endings. Pronominal possession
is expressed by prefixes.
Bibliography.—Koch-Griinberg, 1913, p. 458; 1922, p. 227; 1928, 4: 313-317,
332-333.
MACUAN
The Macu {Mahku) "family" of the Uraricoera River must be dis-
tinguished from several other groups of the same or similar name: the
Sdlivan Macu, the Puinavean Macu (Loukotka uses Maku for the
family name), and the Cofdn Macu or Maco. The family has been ac-
corded independent status since its discovery by Koch-Griinberg on
the basis of the rather large vocabulary of nouns collected by him
254 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
(1928). Only the single language is known. No suggestions as to
wider affiliations have been made, except that Loukotka (1935) finds
Arawak intrusions. The language is said to be spoken rapidly. Pos-
sessive pronominal elements are prefixed. Armellada and Matallana
(1942) call the language Sope.
Bibliography.—Armellada and Matallana, 1942; Koch-Griinberg, 1913, 1922,
p. 227, 1928, 4: 317-324.
SHIRIAN.^N
Shiriand (Siriand) is one of the newer families, not recognized by
Brinton or Chamberlain, but generally accepted since. Relationship
with Carib has been suggested but uniformly rejected. The best lin-
guistic source is Koch-Griinberg (1928); the languages are said to be
"guttural," the words often with consonantal endings.
The principal languages of the family seem to be Shiriand and the
less important Carime (Karime). Waikd (Guaicd, Uaicd) appears to
be closer to Shiriand, possibly a dialect; it must be distinguished from
a Cariban Waika in British Guiana, and Shiriand must not be confused
with the Arawakan Shiriana nearby.
Most modern writers are agreed that Shiriand and Waikd are de-
scended from the historically important Guaharibo {laribu, Guahibo,
Uariba, Uajaribo, Uaharibo), though Nimuendaju (map) leaves the
latter unclassified; Brinton (1891 a) assumed that they were Carib.
SHIRIANi.
A. Waharibo (Guaharibo)
1. Shiriand
a. Waicd {Guaica, Vaica)
B. Carimi (KarimS)
Bibliography.—Armellada and Matallana, 1942; Koch-Grunberg, 1913, pp.
454-456, 458, 1928, 4: 302-308, 331, 334; Salath6, 1931-32; Tavera-Acosta, 1921-
22, pp. 230-331.
SALIVAN, MACU, AND PIAR<5a
The independence of this stock has been long and universally recog-
nized, but the names Sdliva{n) and Piar6a(n) are about equally em-
ployed to distinguish it. No suggestions for wider relationships have
been made, though Loukotka (1935) sees Arawak intrusions in
Saliva, and Carib vestiges in Piaroa.
The majority of authorities agree that three languages compose the
family: Saliva (Sdliba, Sdlliba, Sdliua, Sdlivi), Piaroa, and Macu
(Maco). Loukotka (1935) groups Piaroa and Macu in an eastern
group, Sdlivi and Pamigua (q. v. infra) in a western group. The
Sdlivan Macu must be distinguished from three other tribes of the
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 255
same or very similar names: the independent Macu of the Auari River,
the Puinave Macu and the Cofan Macu (q. v.).
Saliva was one of the nine stocks of the Orinoco Valley established
by Gilij (1780-84); the component languages he names as Ature,
Piaroa, and Quagua. The Ature (Adole) are extinct; the name is also
given as a synonym of the Piaroa. Brinton (1891 a) says the modern
Quaqiia (Kuakua, Guagua) speak Arawak; Rivet (1924 a) puts them
with the Carib. Brinton (1891 a) furthermore found no resemblance
between Saliva and Piaroa; the languages must be considerably
different
SXliva (Piar6a)
I. Western Sdliva
A. Sdliva
II. Eastern: Fiarda
A. Piaida
1. Ature {Adole)
2. Piarda
3. Quaqua (Guagua) (?)
B, Macu
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Chaffanjon, 1889, pp. 324-326;
Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 195-198; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 257-258;
Ernst, 1895, Gilij, 1780-84, pp. 383-384; Koch-Grunberg, 1913, pp. 469-472,
1922, p. 236, 1928, 4: 351-357; Loukotka, 1929-30; Marcano, 1890 a; Oramas,
1914; Rivet, 1920 a; Schuller, 1912 a; Tavera-Acosta, 1907 a, pp. 85-107.
PAMIGUA AND TINIGUA
Castellvl has recently (1940) published a vocabulary of Tinigua.
He finds no resemblance to any other family, but an evident connec-
tion with the extinct Pamigua. He therefore suggests a Pamiguan
linguistic family, consisting of Pamigua and Tinigua. Rivet (1924 a)
placed Pamigua in the Ouahiban family, and Loukotka (1935) placed
it with Sdliva in the western group of Sdlivan {Piaroan). Igualada
and Castellvi (1940) considered Tinigua as composing a third or
Southern group of Sdlivan. The language is still spoken in the
Caquet4 region of Colombia.
Bibliography.—Castellvf, 1940; Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43, 2:108-109; Ernst,
1891.
OTOMACAN, GUAMO OR GUAMA, AND YARURAN
The Otomaco and Yaruro, small groups that are close neighbors in
southern Venezuela, are limited to one language each. The Otomaco
are extinct, the Yaruro approaching it. Both have been accorded
independent linguistic status since, at the least, Brinton (1891 a) and
Chamberlain (1913 a).
Otomaco (Otomac, Otomak).—Rivet (1924 a) says the language
256 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
is called Tarapita.^^ Loukotka (1935) sees Carib intrusions in it, a
distinct possibility.
Guamo or Guama.—Loukotka (1935) establishes an independent
Guama family of one language, the Guama, in which he finds vestiges
of Chibchan. This is apparently the small tribe of southwestern
Venezuela termed Guamo by other writers. Petrullo (1939) says that
their remnants became extinct in recent years. Most authorities do
not mention them; Nimuendajii (map) leaves them unclassified.
Loukotka (1935) does not mention the data on the basis of which he
isolates them, but it is doubtless insufficient evidence on which to
establish a new family; they had better be left with the many on which
we lack sufficient information for classification. Kirchhoff (Hand-
book, vol. 4, p. 439) believes that Guamo was very closely related to
Otomaco.
Yaruro {Yarura, Jaruri, Jaruro, Sayuro, Zavuri, Saururi, Japaria,
Yapin, Yuapin, Pume, Pumeh).—Pumeh is said to be their name for
themselves. Loukotka's opinion (1935) regarding "Coroado intru-
sions" is to be doubted. Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) considers Yaruor
as related to Chibcha, forming, with Esmeralda, his first or "Paleo-
Chibcha" group of his Macro-Chibcha phylum.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Otomaco.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 194; Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp.
262-263; Gilij, 1780-84, 3: 262-263; Rosenblat, 1936; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp.
332-374.
Yaruro.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Chaffanjon, 1889, pp. 319-320; Cham-
berlain, 1910 a, p. 201; Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 260-261; Muller,
Frederich, 1882; 1: 360-363, 2; Oramas, 1909; Petrullo, 1939, pp. 265-289;
Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 120-133.
GUAHIBAN
Guahibo {Wahibo, Goahivo, Goahiva, Guayba, etc.) has been univer-
sally recognized as an independent family since earliest days (Brinton,
1891 a; Chamberlain, 1913 a), and no suggestions as to larger rela-
tionships have ever been made. Its true status should not be difficult
to determine since, in addition to a published grammar (Fernandez
and Bartolome, 1895), they form a large living group not very inac-
cessible. Churoya, generally now recognized as one of the languages
forming the family, was formerly considered as the type member of
another family, the Churoyan, accepted by Brinton (1891 a) and at
first by Chamberlain (1907). Not all of Brinton's Churoyan lan-
guages, however, are now considered Guahiban; Cofdn and Mako are
" Rivet (1924 a) distinguishes TarapUa and Taparito, which latter Oillin and Nimuendajii agree with
him in considering as Cariban (q. v.). Kirchhofl (Handbook, vol. 4, p. 464) calls Taparita a variety of
Otomaco; possibly some confusion In names exists. W. Schmidt (1926) considers Taparito as isolated
.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 257
generally put with Cofdn (q. v.). A careful comparison of Guahibo
and Cofdn is, therefore, indicated; Ortiz (1943, 1944) doubts the
relationship.
Guahibo
I. Guahibo
A. Wahibo
1. Chiricoa
a. Sicuane
2. Cuiba
a. Mella
b. Ptamo
3. Yamu
B. Churuya
1. Bisanigua
C. Cunimia
1. Guayabero
Possibly: ^morua (generally placed with Arawak), Catarro, Cuiloto, Maiba.
Bibliography.—Chaffanjon, 1889, pp. 320-323; Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 186
(Churoya) ; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp. 258-260; Ernst, 1891; Ferndndez
de San Jos6 and Bartolome, 1895; Koch-Grunberg, 1913, p. 472, 1928, 4:443-451;
Loukotka, 1929-30, 1938; Marcano, 1890; Ortfz, 1943, 1944; Ossa. V., 1938; P^rez,
1935; Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1944; Rivet, 1912 a, pp. 128-131; Sdenz, 1876, pp. 341-
342 (Churoya); Schomburgk, 1849; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 85-95.
PUINAVEAN OR MAClJ
Puinave, a family of slight present extent, may have been formerly
much more important and widespread. Rivet, Kok, and Tastevin
(1924-25) suggest that it may be a substratum common to many adja-
cent languages, now so differentiated that a common origin is difficult
to prove. It has been recognized as independent since at least the days
of Chamberlain (1913 a). W. Lehmann (1920) suggests a possible
relationship with Witoto (q. v.), which might tie it to Tujpi. Loukotka
(1935) terms the family Macu from its most important tribe, and
Jijon y Caamaiio (1941-43) distinguishes a "Phylum Maku," but the
older and more generally accepted name Puinave is preferable to avoid
confusion; Macu must be distinguished not only from the Macu famdy,
but also from the Piaroan Macu and the Cofdn Macu.
W. Schmidt (1926) includes in the family a Cabere language,
generally regarded as an Arawak dialect.
There is said to be considerable differentiation between the dialects,
and much borrowing from Tucanoan languages. Some of the linguis-
tic characteristics are: Accent generally on the ultima; vocalic har-
mony; noun-verb composition; postpositions; compound nouns;
pronominal and reciprocal prefixes; gender, pluralizing, tense and
mode suffixes.
258 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
PuiNAVE OR MaC^
I. Puinave (Puinabe, Puinavis, Uaipunabis, Guaipunavos, Uaipis)
A. Puinave (Epined)
1. Western
a. Bravos, Guaripa
2. Eastern
a. Mansos
B. Macii
1. Mac-A
2. TikU
3. Kerari
4. Papuri
5. Nadobo
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Puinave.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 196; Cr^vaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882, pp.
255-256; Ernst, 1895, pp. 396-398; Koch-Griinberg, 1928, 4: 335-343; Oramas,
1913 b, pp. 20-25; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, pp. 97-107.
Macu.—Koch-Grunberg, 1906 b, pp. 885-899, 1909-10, 1913, 1922, 1928, vol. 4;
Rivet, Kok, and Tastevin, 1924-25, pp. 143-185; Rivet and Tastevin, 1920, pp.
76-81; Tastevin, 1923 a.
TUCANOAN (BETOYAN)
Tucano is one of the important, though not one of the great, Un-
guistic famihes of South America. It occupies two adjacent homo-
geneous areas in the northwestern central part of the continent,
separated by Carib and Witoto groups. A small isolated third group
to the north is no longer credited. The name refers to the toucan
bird, a translation of the native name, Daxsea. There may be 10,000
speakers of the Tucano languages today.
The name Tucano or Tukano, generally accepted today, was first
proposed by Beuchat and Rivet (1911). Brinton (1891 a) and
Chamberlain (1913 a) termed the family Betoya(n) from the Betoi or
Betoya tribe. The latter, however, Beuchat and Rivet demonstrated
to belong to the Chibchan family, as apparently do also a number of
the other languages given by Brinton (1891 a, p. 273) as members of
the Betoyan stock: Anibali, KilifayeJJ^uilifaye), Situfa, Tunebo, and
probably Jama.
No suggestions have been made that would connect Tucano with
other linguistic families. The languages are said to be characterized
by consonantal clusters, nasalization, unclear pronunciation, and
unusual phonemes. Stems are composed, verbal modifications are
by means of suffixes, there being apparently no verbal prefixes and no
reduplication. Nominal plural is expressed by suffixes or by modifica-
tions of the ultima; prepositional relations are shown by postpositions.
Indhect object is expressed by a suffix, as is feminine gender.
No careful attempt has ever been made to subdivide the Tucano
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 259
languages on a linguistic basis. It is generally assumed that linguistic
divisions foUow the geographical ones, adjacent tribes speaking more
closely related languages than distant ones, sibs of tribes speaking
dialects. This divides the family into two main groups. This classi-
fication is herein accepted as the only available one, with the realiza-
tion that it may be without any basis.
The following classification is based primarily on Steward (Hand-
book, vol. 3, pp. 737-741) and Goldman (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 764-
766), partly on W. Schmidt (1926). It is very tentative.
TucANo Classification
I. Eastern Tucano
A. Cubeo (Cobewa, Kobeua, Pamiwa)
1. Cubeo
a. Holona (Holowaf)
b. Hahanana (Hehenawa)
B. Tucano-Tuyuca
1. Tucano (Ddchsea)
a. Arapaso (Cored)
b. Neenoa
c. Yohorod
d. Uiua Tapuyo
2. Tuyuca (Dochkdfuara)
a. Bard *
b. Tsold
3. Wanana (Ananas, Kdtitia)
a. Waiana (Yuruti Tapuya)
b. Piratapuyo (Waickea, Urubu Tapuya)
c. Ualcana
d. Uainana
4. Carapand " (Mochda)
5. Wdsona (Pisd Tapuya)
6. Pamda (Tatu Tapuya)
C. Buhdgana (Carawatana-mira)
1. Macuna
a. Hobacana (Japuana)
2. Buhdgana
a. Omoa
b. Sara
c. Dod
d. Tsaina
e. Tsolod
f. Ydba
D. Desana (Wind)
1. Yupud
E. CuereM
1. Cashiita (Kusiita)
' W. Schmidt (1926) considers Bara, Uaiana, Uasona, Mochddd, and Pamoa as subtribes of Uamna.
• Loukotka (1935) considers Carapana as Witoto, mixed with Tucano
794711—50 18
260 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
TucANo Classification—Continued
I. Eastern Tucano—Continued
F. Yahuna
1. Opaina (Tanimboca)
2. Ddtuana
G. Bdloa
H. Erulia
II. Western Tucano *
A. Pioji-Sioni *
1. Encabellado (Jcaguate, Angutera)
a. Pioji (Pioche)
b. Encabellado
c. Secoya-Gai
d. Campuya
e. Santa Maria
f. Guaciguaje
g. Cieguaje
h. Macaguaje
i. Amaguaje
2. *Sioni
B. Correguaje-Tama ^
1. Correguaje
a. Correguaje
2. Tama (Tamao)
a. (ylynco)
C. Goto
Other possible Western Tucano languages or dialects are: Teteie,^ Pasta,'' and
Awishiri ^ (q. v.).
' See Steward (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 737-739) for smaller Encabellado divisions; Beuchat and Rivet (1911)
for many small Tucano subdivisions and synonyms.
* The terminology among the Pioji-Cioni is greatly confused. Steward (Handbook, vol 3, p. 738) states
that the five principal names Encabellado, tcaguate, Pioje, Santa Maria, and Angutera are synonyms for
the entire group as well as names of divisions used at different periods.
' The Correguaje and Tama are said to be closely linked, but Rivet (1924 a) places Tama, together with
Ayrico, the latter not mentioned by other modem sources, in a third or Northern Tucano gi'oup, leaving
Correguaje with the Western Tucano.
' Tetete is mentioned as an important Western Tucano group by Castellvi (Igualada and Castellvl, 1940)
and Loukotka (1939 a).
' On groimds of toponymy Rivet (1924 a) places the extinct and peripheral Pasto with the Western Tucano;
Loukotka (1935) accepts this. It is herein classified with the Barbacoa group of Chibchan.
' One of the doubtful questions is the inclusion of the Awishiri (Abijira, etc.) (q. v.), traditionally included
with the Tucano. (See independent article supra under Zdparoan classification.
Other groups, considered by one or more authorities as Tucano and
not disputed by others, are: Bahukiwa, Corocoro Tapuya, Corowa,
Palanoa, Patsoca, Usa Tapuya, Wantuya, Yi Tapuya, Yihoya Tapuya.
Some of these may be synonyms of others given above.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
General.—Beuchat and Rivet, 1911; Brinton, 1892 a, pp. 62-67, 1892 b;
Castellvi, 1939; Pfaff, 1890, pp. 603-606; Rivet, 1916, 1929 a.
Eastern.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Coudreau, H., 1887, pp. 464-474;
Giacone, 1939; Koch-Grunberg, 1906 c, 1909-10, p. 324, 1912-16; Kok, 1921-22;
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 261
Martius, 1867, 2:164-166, 275-276, 281-285; Stradelli, 1910, pp. 236-317; Wallace,
1853, pp. 520-521.
Western.—Anonymous, 1909, 1919 e; Chantre y Herrera, 1901; Crevaux, 1882;
Gonzalez Sudrez, 1904, pp. 63-64; Rivas, 1944; Rocha, 1905, pp. 199-201; Simson,
1879 a, pp. 210-222, 1886; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 205-221.
The Coto {Koto) is one of several groups loiown as Orejon, "big ears,"
and sometimes Coto is considered the only synonym of Orejon (Nimu-
endaju, index). However, an extinct group of southern Witoto was
also known by this name (q. v.). The Coto (as apart from Orejon) are
placed by all authorities under Tucano, and Tessmann (1930) reports
that his 235-word vocabulary is nearly pure Tucano. He says that
in addition to Orejon they are known as Payagua and Tutapisho.
There are said to be 500 living today. They must be distinguished
from the Chibchan Coto of Costa Rica.
Bibliography.—Marcoy, 1875; Simson, 1886; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 189-205.
CAHUAPANAN
The Cahuapana (Kahuapana, Cawapana, Maina) family is relatively
unimportant, occupying a small region without enclaves, and spoken
by a few thousand persons. Though it will probably eventually be
found to belong to some greater family or phylum, no suggestions of
larger relationships seem to have been made: Rivet, who has published
the principal studies (Beuchat and Rivet, 1909; Rivet and Tastevin,
1931), made none. Within the family the classification is also
difficult; little is known of many of the languages and dialects, and
many, which would better be left unclassified pending fuUer data, are
generally included on purely geographical grounds. The name Cahua-
pana, preferred by Beuchat and Rivet, supplants the former Mainan
or Mayna of Brinton (1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a).
The language is said to be harsh and difficult. A kind of true
inflection with different suffixes for each tense and person is found.
Modal relations are expressed by either suffixes or prefixes, also some
infixes, but verbal and nominal suffixes predominate over prefixes.
Pronominal (except subject) and gender relations are shown by suffixes,
as are nominal and verbal pluralization.
Loukotka adds an e:3^tinct Mikird to the family. Omurano {Humu-
rano) and Roamaina (q. v.) were long considered prominent members
of this famUy but are not mentioned by later authorities. Hervas y
Panduro (1800) gave Chayavita as a separate stock, consisting of
Cahuapano and Paranapuro. See Handbook (vol. 3, pp. 605-608) for
comments on relationships and critique of former classifications.
262 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS tB. A E. Bull. 143
Steward and Metraux question the relationship of the entire Mayna
group.
Cahuapanan
I. Cahuapana
A Cahuapana
1. Cahuapana
2. Concho (Chonzo)
II. Ch^bero (Xevero)
1. Chibero »
2. Chayawita (Chawi)
a. Chayawita
b. Yamorai {Balsapuertino) ^
3. Ataguate s (?)
^Chibero (Xevero) must not be confused with the Jivaro (Xivero) (q. v.) or the Hibito.
J The Yamorai are mentioned only by Tessmann (1930), on whose opinion they are here included.
5 Ataguate is mentioned only by Beuchat and Rivet (1909, p. 619), who also include Cutinana and Tivilo,
languages apparently related to Aguano (q v.).
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Beuchat and Rivet, 1909; Brinton,
1892 a, pp. 21-29; Ortiz 1941 b; Rivet, 1912 a; Rivet and Tastevin, 1931; Sciiuller,
1912 d; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 378, 415, 440-444; Veigl, 1785 a.
MUNICHE
Synonyms: Munitschi, Munici, Paranapura.
Muniche was one of the old stocks of Hervas y Panduro (1800),
quoted without comment by Brinton (1891 a). The component
languages were Muchimo and Otanabe, doubtless extinct and not men-
tioned by any recent writer. Neither was Muniche until Tessmann
(1930) rediscovered it. He considers it a mixed-stem language,
Ge-Pano, with 16 resemblances, in about equal proportion, out of the
33 that he used as a criterion. Loukotka (1935), the only compiler
who mentions the group, gives it independent status. Steward and
Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 606-607) consider MumcAe related to
Chebero, of the Mayna branch of Cavjapana. As Tessmami's collected
vocabulary amounts to only 38 words, this is hardly enough on which
to base any opinion; it should be left unclassified pending further
study. Tessmann (1930) appears to be the sole source of information.
Muniche
1. Muniche
2. Muchimo
3. Otanabe
4. Churitana
PANOAN
Pano is one of the major linguistic families with many subdivisions.
Tradition brings them from the north, but no relationship with any
other family has ever been suggested, much less demonstrated.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 263
Rivet (1924 a) observes that the Tacana group (q. v.), which he
believes to be Arawak, shows considerable grammatical resemblances
to Pavo. Neighboring languages seem to have affected the Panoan
languages little. Comparatively few of the component languages are
extinct and some groups number several thousands; the total number
of speakers may be about 15,000. They occupy four isolated homo-
geneous areas east of the Andes in far west Brazil and adjacent repub-
lics; the central one is the largest in area, number of groups, and
importance. Not even vocabularies exist from many, probably from
most, of the tribes, and no classification other than into the three
main areas, has ever been attempted. Such comparisons as have
been made indicate that the linguistic groupings on the whole follow
the geographical divisions. The languages of the Jurud.-Purus seem
to fall with the central group rather than with the southwestern or
the southeastern.
The main or central branch of the Pano comprises a very large
number of tribes and subtribes, each of which doubtless spoke a more
or less variant language or dialect. For lack of sufficient data, no
one has attempted a classification of these languages, though some
are said to be mutually intelligible, others not. On the presumption
that adjacent and affiliated groups are linguistically more closely
related than more distant groups some classification may be made,
but this is a dangerous assumption, the groupings highly tentative.
The two main groups are those on the Ucayali, the names of which
typically end in -ho (a pluralizing suffix), and those on the Juru^
and Purus, with the majority of names ending in -nawa, meaning
"strangers."
THE CHAMA LANGUAGES
The Conibo, Setebo, and Shipibo of the Ucayali River are grouped
under the Chama (Tschama, Cama), and are apparently mutually
intelligible. While the groups are large and important, the speech
forms would probably be classed as varieties or dialects of the Chama
language. This must be distinguished from the Tacanan Chama on
the Madidi River. Except for the three above-named main groups
there is disagreement regarding the affihation of certain other groups
with Chama.
According to Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 559-560),
Setiho is divided into two subgroups, Sensi and Panobo, which, perhaps
with Puinawa, separated from the parent group in recent days. As
regards Panobo there is general agreement on its close association with
Setibo. Pano, Pelado, Manoa, and Cashiboyano are given as synonyms
or subdivisions. In addition to the obvious synonyms {Sensivo,
Ssenssi, Send, Senti), Tenti, Barbudo, and Mananawa (Mananahua,
264 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Mananagua) are given as synonyms of Sensi. There is great diversity
of opinion regarding Mananawa, which Rivet (1910 b) considers a
branch of Shipibo, Tessmann (1930) a branch of Cashibo. Nimuendajii
(index) refuses to classify Mananawa; K. G. Grubb (1927, p. 83),
calls it a subtribe of Bemo (q. v.) with the subdivisions Marubo and
Pisabo (q. v.) ; the latter languages are not generally classed in the
Chama group. Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 560) con-
sider Ynubu, Runubu, and Casca as subdivisions of Sensi, inferentially
dialects or varieties thereof. Both Tessmann (1930) and Loukotka
(1935) claim that Sensi is not as pure Pano as the other Chama
languages; Loukotka places it in a separate "mLxed" group.
Steward and Aletraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 561) say that Shipibo
is the same language as Setibo and the extinct Caliseca (Kaliseka).
Rivet (1910 b) agrees with the latter and adds Mananawa as a sub-
tribe. The name Caliseca has not been used since the 17th century
(Steward and Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 561) and it is disputed
whether they were the modern Shipibo or Cashibo.
CASHIBO
Cashibo {Kaschibo, Cachiho, Cahibo, Cacibo, Caxibo, Casibo, Cahivo,
Kassibo, Kasibo)
,
also given the synonyms of Mananawa {Mananagua,
Managua, Mananxibua), Carapacho, Haqueti (Hagueti), and San
Lorenzo, is generally placed in the Chama language, but according to
a local missionary (Rankin, personal correspondence) the speech of
the Cashibo is unintelligible to the Conibo-Shipibo-Setibo. The sub-
groups are given as Cacataibo (Kakataibo), Cashino, and Runo by
Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 564) ; as Buninawa
(Bununahua, etc.), Carapacho (Karapatsa, etc.), and Puchanawa
(Putsanahua, etc.) by Rivet (1910 b), and as Cashino {Kaschino) and
Shirino (Ssirino) by Tessmann (1930). K. G. Grubb (1927, p. 84)
says that the Cashinawa are closely related. The differences of
opinion regarding Mananawa and Caliseca, listed above as synonyms of
Cashibo, have been already considered. Steward and Metraux (Hand-
book, vol. 3, p. 564) consider Carapacho as of uncertain affiliation; P.
Marcoy (1875) calls it a synonym of Caliseca.
Nocoman (Nokamdn), recently identified by Tessmann (1930, p.
172), is probably now extinct. It was formerly confused with
Cashibo (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 567). Nimuendajii (map) leaves it
unclassified. Loukotka (1935) and Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) place
it with Pano.
Other languages or dialects, generally agreed to be Panoan, whose
closer affiliations are unknown but which probably belong in the Uca-
yali group, are Pichobo {Pitsubo, Pichaba, Piisobu, Pisabo, etc.) and
Soboibo (Saboibo, Soboyo, Soyboibo, Bolbo); Mochobo {Mochovo, Uni-
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 265
vitza) and Comobo (Comavo, Comambo, Univitza). K. G. Grubb (1927)
calls Pisabo a subdivision of Mananawa, the latter a subtribe of Remo.
Considered as Pano by Nimuendajii (map), but not noted in other
lists: Mainawa (distinct from Marinawa), Yananawa, and Yumha-
nawa.
Considered as Pano by Nimuendajii (map); listed as unidentified
tribes of Ucayali by Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 567):
Puyamanawa {Punyamumanawa) and Camarinawa (Kamarinigua)
.
Ruanawa {Ruanagua, Rununawa) and Puynawa (Poyanawa,
Poianava, Puynagua) are less often mentioned Panoan groups
(Steward and Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 566).
The following groups of the Jurud-Purus Basin are considered as
Panoan, without any suggestion as to their relationships inter se or
with neighboring groups. Probably each is entitled to the status
of a dialect or variety, though some may be radically different.
Canamari, {Kanawari, etc.).—These must be distinguished from the Arawak
and Calukina Canamari. W. Schmidt (1926) places them with the Catukina in
a separate Middle Group of Pano, a division of the Northern Pano not recognized
by other authorities.
Curina {Kulino, etc.).—These must be distinguished from the Arawak Culino
or Kurina.
Contanawa {Kuontanaua, etc.).
Espino.
Marinawa.
Nana, probably same as Nawa.
Nawa.
Pacanawa (Pakanaua, etc.).
Shanindawa (Shaninawd, Saninaua). Distinguish from Saninawa.
Shipinawa {Sipinaua, etc.).
Tushinawa {Tusinaua, etc.).
Yaminawa (Jaminaua, Yuminawa, etc.).
Yawavo (Jauabo, Yawabu, etc.). Distinguish from Southeastern Pano Jau-
navo or Caripund.
Yura.
Remo (Rhemo), Sacvya, Maspo (Impeniteri) , Nucuini, Cuyanawa,
and Niarawa (Niamagua) seem to form a related group. Possibly
all belong with the Chama language, since Steward and Metraux
(Handbook, vol. 3, p. 565) call Remo a Conibo dialect. Mananawa
is mentioned as a subtribe of Remo, but this is not generally accepted.
Nucuini is considered by Loukotka (1935) as a synonym of Remo.
Sacuya (Sakuya) is generally linked with Remo and probably is a
subgroup. Alaspo or Impeniteri is also generally linked with Remo.
Cuyanawa {Kuyanahua, etc.) is apparently associated Avith Nucuini.
Possibly to the above group belongs Capanawa {Kapanagua,
Kapahuana, etc.) with its subgroup Buskipani (Busguipani). The
266 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
latter name has also sometimes been considered as a synonym of
Amawaca.
Various opinions seem to correlate the languages or dialects Catu-
kina, Arara, Ararapina, Ararawa, Saninawa, Saninawacana, and
Shawanawa. Catukina (Katoguino, etc.) must be distinguished from
four other languages of the same name of other families. Schmidt
(1926) places it with Canamari in a separate Middle Group of Pano.
Pericot y Garcia (1936) considers Arara, Ararapina, and Ararawa
as subgroups of Catukina, and Rivet (1924 a) states that these three
are doubtless identical with Saninawa. Metraux (Handbook, vol.
3, p. 660) links Shawanawa with the Arara group, and believes that
Saninawa is related to Saninawacana.
According to Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 565), the
Amawaca (Amaguaco, Amajuaka, Ameuhaque, etc.) are close relatives
of the Cashinawa (Kachinaua, Cushinahua, Caxinagua, etc.). Rivet
(1924 a) gives Maspo and Impetineri as synonyms of An^iawaca but
Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 566) place the former in
another group. Sayaca (Sacuya ?) and Busquipani have also been
given as synonyms (or subdivisions) of Amawaca, but these also seem
to belong to other groups (vide supra); nevertheless, the possibility
of the relationship of all these must be considered. Pericot y Garcia
(1936) calls ^rawa a subtribe oi Amawaca; Arawa is generally placed
with the Southwestern Pano group (q. v.). Steward and Metraux
(Handbook, vol. 3, p. 566) believe that the extinct Amenwaca (Amen-
guaca) is a synonym of Amawaca; it has many groups and subgroups,
the best known of which are Inuvakeu and Viwivakeu (Viuivaqueu)
.
W. Schmidt (1926) links Cashinawa with Sheminawa.
Of the groups mentioned above. Steward and Metraux (Hand-
book, vol. 3, p. 567) consider these Ucayali languages unidentified
but probably Panoan: Camarinawa, Puyamanawa, Saninawaca, and
Sinabu. Also these not before mentioned: Awanawa (Aguanagua),
Chunti, Diahu, Isunawa (Ysunagua), Ormiga, Trompetero, and Viabu.
There is general agreement as to the composition of the Southwestern
Panoan group in the region of the basin of the Inambari. The two
important groups seem to be Arasa (Arasaire, Arazaire, Aratsaira)
and Atsawaca-Yamiaca. The Atsawaca {Atsahuaka, etc.) or Chaspa,
and the Yamiaca (Yamiaka) or Hasuneiri dialects (?) must be very
similar, as they are said to have separated in historic times. Arasa
is probably more divergent. Some of the Arasa and Atsawaca also
speak Tacana (Arawak f) and are often classified in that group.
Nordenskiold's Arasa vocabulary (1908) is Tacana, but Llosa's
Arasaire vocabulary (1906) is Panoan.
A doubtful member of this group is Araua, which language must
be considerably different from the others. Nimuendaju (map) leaves
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 267
it unclassified; others consider it a link between the Southwestern
and Northern Pano. Stiglich (1908) considers it a small group of
Amawaca (Northern Pano). It must be distinguished from the
Arawak Araua.
The Southeastern Pano group is generally known as Pacaguard
(Pacawara, Pakavara). The consensus is that the Pacaguard group
consists of four languages, the interrelations of which are not sug-
gested. These four are Chacoho (Tschakobo), Caripund, Capuibo
(Kapuibo), and Sinabo; the position of the latter alone is disputed.
The Caripund (Karipund) or Jau-navo {JaUn Av6) are divided into
subtribes, the Jacarid {Jakarid, Yacariae, Jacare-Tapuuya, Yacare-
Tapuuya) and the Pamd (Pamand).
The position of the Sinabo is uncertain. Two groups are men
tioned in the literature, the Sinabo and the Shenabu, with inter-
mediate orthographical variants. Rivet (1924 a) classifies them both
as members of the Pacaguard group, and probably synonymous.
One or the other is also classified as a subtribe of Shipibo (Northern
Pano), as related to Sensi, and as unidentified. Doubtful also is the
position of Zurina; Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 450) apparently
considers it a member of the Pacaragud group while Nimuendajii
(map) leaves it unclassified; the others fail to mention it.
Pano
I. Central
A. Chama (Ucayali)
1. Conibo
a. Conibo
b. Shipibo
a. Caliseca, Sinabo (?)
b. Manamahobo, Manava
c. Setebo
a. Sensi: Casca, Runubu, Ynubu, Barbudo, Tenti,
Mananawa (?)
b. Panobo: Pano, Pelado, Manoa, Cashiboyano
2. Cashibo (Comabo)
a. Cacataibo
b. Cashino
c. Runo
d. Buninawa
e. Carapacho (?)
f. Puchanawa
g. Shirind
B. Curina {KulinoY
C. Capanawa
1. Capanawa
a. Buskipani
2. Remo
a. Sacuya
I Distinguish from neighboring Arawak Culino or Culina.
268 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Pan o—Continued
I. Central—Continued
C. Capanawa—Continued
3. Maspo
a. Epetineri {Impenitari)^
4. Nucuini
a. Cuyanawa
5. Niarawa
6. Puyamanawa (?)
D. Amawaca (Amenguaca ?)
1. Amawaca
a. Cashinawa
a. Sheminawa
b. Inuvakeu
c. Viwivakeu
2. Pichobo
a. Pichoho (Pisoho)
b. Soboibo
a. Ruanawa
c. Mochobo
a. Comobo
E. Catukina '
1. ^rara
a. Shawanawa
2. Ararapina
3. ylraroiya
4. Saninawa
a. Saninawacana
F. Jurud-Purus
1. Povanawa
2. Shipinawa
3. ^rarotf^a
4. Fawat'o
5. Famtnawa
6. Rununawa
7. Contanawa
8. yawonauJo
9. Pacanawa
10. Yumbanawa
11. Fura
12. Tushinawa
13. Marinawa
14. Espind
15. Manawa
16. Canamari *
2 Steward and M6traux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 565) list Ipilinere as a synonym of Amahuaca, but in an
earlier section (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 541) give Epetineri as a probably Arawakan group.
' Distinguish from Arawak and from Catukina Catukina.
* Distinguish from .(4rait)afc and Catukina Canamari.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 269
Pano—Continued
II. Southwest
A. Arasaire
B. Atsawaca
1. Atsawaca
2. Yamiaca
C. ArauA (?)
III. Southeast
A. Pacaward
1. Chacobo
2. Caripund (Jau-navo)
a. Jacarid
b. Pamd (Pamand)
3. Capuibo
4. Sinabo
B. Zurina (?)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Undifferentiated.—Durand, 1921, pp. 85-102; Grubb, K. G., 1927; Hester-
mann, 1910, 1914-19; la Grasserie, 1890; Mitre, 1909-10, 2:316-17; Rivet and
Tastevin, 1927-29, 1932; SchuUer, 1911 a.
Chama languages.—Carrasco, 1901; Marques, 1903, 1931; Navarro, 1903;
Orton, 1871; Schuller, 1912 b; Tessmann, 1929, 1930, p. 103. Conibo-Shipibo:
Alemany, 1906 b; Armentia, 1888, 1898; Farabee, 1922, pp. 80-95; Marcoy, 1875,
pp. 52-53; M^traux, 1942 a, pp. 45-53; Reich, 1903, p. 135; Schmidt, W., 1905;
Steinen, 1904; Tessmann, 1928. Seiibo-Sensi-Panobo-Pano: Cardus, 1886;
Castelnau, 1852, pp. 292-302; Martins, 1867, 2: 298-299; Tessmann, 1930, pp.
105, 187-189. Cashibo: Tessmann, 1930, pp. 124-155.
Curina-Kulino.—Carvalho, 1929, 1931; Martins, 1867, 2:242-244.
Capanawa Group.—Remo: Carvalho, 1929, 1931, pp. 254-256; Tessmann, 1930,
pp. 580-582. Capanahua: Tessmann, 1930, p. 156.
Amawaca-Cashinawa.—Abreu, 1914, pp. 524-546, 1938 b; Farabee, 1922, pp.
105-114; Stegelmann, 1903, p. 137; Steinen, 1904; Tessmann, 1930, pp. 158-170.
Catukina.—Rivet, 1 920 b, p. 87; Rivet and Tastevin, 1924, 1927-29, pp. 489-516.
Jurua-Purus Group.—Carvalho, 1931, pp. 234-252; Chandless, 1866, p. 118
(Canamari) ; Rivet and Tastevin, 1927-29; Stegelmann, 1903, pp. 135-137.
Southwest—Arasaire: Aza, 1933 b, 1935, 1937; Cipriani, C. A., 1902; Llosa,
1906; Rivet, 1910 b. Atsawaca-Yamiaca: Anonymous, 1902; Barranca, J. S.,
1914; Cipriani, C. A., 1902; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913 e; Farabee, 1922;
Nordenskiold, 1905; Rivet, 1910 b. Arawa: Stiglich, 1908.
Southeast.—Pacau;ard: Armentia, 1888, 1898; Heath, E., 1883; Orbigny, 1839,
1:164; Rivet, 1910 b; Chacobo: Cardus, 1886, p. 315; Nordenskiold, 1911 b, pp.
230-240; Pauly, 1928, p. 138; Caripuna: Keller, Fr., 1874, pp. 158-159; Martius,
1867, 2:240-242; Pauly, 1928, p. 143.
MAYOnUNA
Synonyms: Mujuruna, Maxuruna, Mashoruna, Mashobuna, Maioruna, Morike,
Pelado.
Mayoruna is generally accepted as a Panoan language (Brinton,
1891 a; Rivet, 1924 a; Krickeberg, 1922: Schmidt, W., 1926; Nimu-
270 SOUTH AMERICAN INOIANS tB. A. E. Bull. 143
endajii, map and index; Jij6n y Caamano, 1941-43). However, Tess-
mann and Loukotka see nothing Panoan in it. Tessmann (1930) con-
siders it a mixture of Arawak and Tupi; Loukotka gives it inde-
pendent status, at first (1935) terming it Mayoruna family, Morike
language, and later (1939 a) Morike family; he sees Arawak intrusions
in it. Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 551) consider it
a Panoan group. It had best be left unclassified; the linguistic data
are poor.
Two subtribes are generally recognized, Marvba and Chirabo (Tess-
mann, 1930). However, the opinions regarding these and other
possible subdivisions are very contradictory. The synonym Pelado
is also given as a synonym for Panobo. Maruba (Alarubo, Moruba,
Marova, Marahua) is considered by Loukotka a synonym for Mayo-
runa; Tessmann (1930) considers it of uncertain affiliation but prob-
ably Panoan; K. G. Grubb (1927) calls Marubo and Pisabo sub-
divisions of Mananawa (q. v.) ; others agree to the Pano affinities.
Chirabo (Cirabo, Tsirabo) is generally accepted as Panoan.
Bibliography.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 299-300; Martius, 1867, 2:236-239; Tess-
mann, 1930, pp. 368-378, 582.
ITUCALE, SIMACU, AND URARINA
Itucalean was considered as an independent family until at least the
time of Chamberlain (1913 a), though he noted the suggestion of
Beuchat and Rivet (1909) that it might be Panoan. The latter
opinion has been accepted by most recent authorities. Itucale,
Urarina, Shimacu, Chambira, Singacuchusca, and Arucui have been
placed in this group by various writers; it is not unlikely that not all
are related, some Panoan, others not. Tessman (1930) finds no
Panoan resemblances in Simacu, and considers it a mixture of Tucano
and Arawak, with about equal lexical resemblance to Tucano, Arawak,
and Ge. Loukotka (1935) agrees with him, finds only vestiges of
Pano, and makes Simacu an independent family. The Itucale and
Urarina, at least, are probably extinct; the latter is generally classified
as Panoan. According to Steward and Metraux (Handbook, vol. 3,
p. 557), Urarina was once reported to be related to Mayoruna (q. v.),
while the Itucale were said to have spoken the same (Tupian) language
as the Cocamilla.
As the lexical resemblances reported by Tessmann (1930) total less
than 10 percent of his collected vocabulary of over 300 words they
may well all be borrowed words of no value for classificatory purposes.
This vocabulary should be sufficient for a determination of the true
relationship of Simacu, at least, without further field investigation.
In the present status, all these languages had best be considered as
unclassified.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 271
Bibliography.—Beuchat and Rivet, 1909, p. 621; Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp.
189-190; Rivet, 1912 a; Tessmann, 1930, p. 486.
AGUANO
It is disputed whether the Aguano (Aguanu, Awano, Santa Crucino)
group of languages was independent, Panoan, or Cahuapanan.
Whatever the former language, it was given up in favor of Quechua,
probably some time after the Spanish Conquest. The group appar-
ently consisted of three divisions (see Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 557-558),
the Aguano Proper, Cutinana, and Mapurina. Other tribes of un-
certain affiliation and subclassiiication are Chamicura and possibly
Siclvna. Chamicura and Maparina are considered Panoan by Rivet
(1924 a). Cutinana Beuchat and Rivet (1909) consider as akin
to Chebero, that is, belonging to the Cahuapanan family. But the
Cutinana are reported as having spoken the same language as the
Aguano and Maparina, and whatever affiliation can be proved for
any of these languages would seemingly apply to the entire Aguano
group.
AGUANO
A. Aguano Proper
1. Seculusepa
a, Chilicawa
2. Melikine
1. a. Tivilo
B. Cutinana
C. Maparina
Bibliography.—Tessmann, 1930, p. 253.
CHAMICURO
Chamicuro (Chamicura, Tschamikuro, etc.) is generally considered a
Chama {Panoan) language, and Steward and Metraux (Handbook,
vol. 3, p. 559) call it "closely related to Shipibo," with the subtribe
Chicluna, but, unless an entirely different language of the same name is
referred to, some other opinions are at entire variance. While Rivet
(1924 a) agrees that it is Pano, both Tessmann (1930) and Loukotka
(1935) find nothing Panoan in it, but consider it a mixture of Arawak
and Tucano. Elsewhere (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 558) Steward and
Metraux remark that if Chamicuro is Panoan, then all the Aguano
group of languages is.
Bibliography.—Tessmann, 1930, p. 397.
SOUTHERN TROPICAL LOWLAND FAMILIES OF PRESUMED IN-
DEPENDENCE
UNCLASSIFIED LANGUAGES OF EASTERN PERU
In the forests of eastern Peru are, or were, a large number of slightly
known tribes, some now extinct, assimilated or deculturized. On
272 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
most, there are little or no linguistic data. In addition to a few
specifically discussed elsewhere, the more important of them are:
Alon, Amasifuin, Carapacho, Cascoasoa, Chedua, Cholto, Chunanawa,
Chusco, Cognomona, Chupacho, Huayana, Kikidcana (Quiquidcand)
,
Moyo-pampa, Nindaso, Nomona, Pantahua, Payanso, Tepgui, Tingan,
Tulumayo, and Zapazo. Most of these spoke Quechua when first
discovered.
SMALL "FAMILIES" OF BOLIVIA
There are at least seven languages of northern and western Bolivia
that are generally considered independent: Itonama, Canichana,
Cayuvava, Movima, Moseten, Leco, and Yuracare. Most of them are
without known subdivisions, and no evidences for larger affiliations
have ever been presented. Most of them have been the subject of
special studies. None is known to be extinct, though the speakers are
not numerous. Scientific linguistic field research and study upon
them is greatly needed, and it will probably eventually be found that
they are very variant members of better known families. All have
always been known by minor orthographical variants of their stand-
ard name.
ITONAMAN
All authorities consider Itonama as independent, isolated, or un-
classified. Machoto is given as a synonym. Markham (1910) con-
sidered it a branch of Mojo. Loukotka (1935) believed he saw evi-
dences of Arawak intrusion.
The available linguistic data are limited to about 300 words in
several collected vocabularies and prayers. The language seems to be
both grammatically and lexically different from all its neighbors, rather
complex in distinction to other Bolivian languages, which Kivet be-
lieves to be rather simple. The pronominal subject is said to be
different for men and for women in the second person. "Preposi-
tions" are prefixed, as are possessive pronouns. The verb employs
both prefixes and suffixes.
Bibliography.—Adam, 1897-98; Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Cardus, 1886;
Chamberlain, 1910 a; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1916-17; Fonseca, J. S. da,
1880-81; Gillin, 1940; M^traux, 1942 a, p. 83; Nordenskiold, 1915 a; Orbigny,
1839; Pauly, 1928, p. 173; Rivet, 1921 a.
CANICHANAN
Synonyms : Kanichana, Kanitsana, Kanicana, Kanitschana, Canisiana, Kanisiana,
Canesi, Canechi.
Except that Markham (1910) considered it a branch of Mojo, there
has never been any suggestion of wider affiliations for Canichana.
The extinction of the language seems to be disputed.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 273
The available linguistic data are limited to about 240 words in three
vocabularies. These seem to show no resemblance to any surrounding
language. Canichana shows less resemblance to Uro than does
Chapacura. The pronominal possessive is prefixed. There are
classificatory nominal prefixes and also apparently nominal sufiSxes.
Pluralization is by sufiix. The verb employs both prefixes and
sufiixes.
Bibliography.—Cardus, 1886; Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 182-83; Cr^qui-Mont-
fort and Rivet, 1913 f; Gillin, 1940; Heath, E., 1883; M6traux, 1942 a, p. 81;
Orbigny, 1839, p. 80; Pauly, 1928, p. 171; Teza, 1868.
CAYUVAVAN
Synonyms: Kayubaba, etc., Cayuaba, Chacobo.
Loukotka (1935) saw evidences of Arawak intrusion hi Cayuvava
and Markham (1910) considered it a branch of Mojo, but there has
been no evidence presented for its wider relationships. Crequi-
Montfort and Rivet (1920) found some lexical resemblance to Chiai-
curu but not enough on which to assume any relationship; some, but
even less resemblance was found to Tuyoneiri, Canichana, and
Movima.
A few hundred words are laiown in seven collected vocabularies,
and a few short texts. The nominal plural is by means of a prefix,
much similar to that in Movima. Also like Movima, there is an article
or indefinite demonstrative. Pronominal possession is by prefixa-
tion; prepositions are also prefixed. Both verbal and nominal pre-
fixes and suflBxes are employed.
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Cardus, 1886, pp. 315-316;
Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 182-184; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1917-20; Heath,
E., 1883; M6traux, 1942 a, p. 83; Nordenskiold, 1911 b, pp. 231-232, 235-239,
241; Orbigny, 1839; Teza, 1868.
MOVIMAN
This small one-language family is of doubtful validity, but on the
basis of the not-too-large available lexical data it has been accorded
independent status by all from Chamberlain (1913 a) and Brinton
(1891 a) down. No synonyms for the group except minor orthograph-
ical variants have been used in the literature. Adarkham (1910)
considers it a branch of the AIojo (Arawak); relationship with the
neighboring Canichana might be suspected. There are few if any
speakers left.
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Cardus, 1886, p. 516; Chamber-
lain, 1910 a, pp. 192-193; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1914-19; M6traux, 1942 a,
p. 81; Nordenskiold, 1922, pp. 76-77; Orbigny, 1839; Pauly, 1928, pp. 162-163;
Rivet, 1929 b.
274 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
MOSETENAN
A small "family" of doubtful validity that will probably be in-
corporated in some larger group when more careful studies are made
and/or more data available. Up until the present all authorities
have granted it independent position and none has even hinted at
broader relationships. Metraux suggests personally that a comparison
with Yuracare might prove significant. It consists of two main
languages, Moseten and Chimane. A number of affiliated groups are
mentioned in the literature, but it is not certain how these are related,
which ones are synonyms, or whether the linguistic divergences are
on a dialectic level or greater. There are probably a few Moseten
left, and several thousand Chimane.
Moseten
1. Moseten
a. Amo
b. Aparono
c. Cunana
d. Chumpa
e. Magdaleno
f. Punnucana
g. Rache
h. Muchanes
i. Tucupi
2. Chimane
a. Chimaniza
b. Chumano
c. Nawazi-Monlji
Bibliography.—Armentia, 1888, 1903; Bibolotti, 1917; Cardus, 1886, pp.
310-311; Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 192; Groeteken, 1907; M^raux, 1942 a, pp.
15-17; Pauly, 1928, pp. 104-105; Schuller, 1916.
LECAN
Synonyms: Leko, Leka, Lapalapa, Chuncho, Ateniano.
The small Leco group has been accepted as independent at least
since Chamberlain's day (1910 a). Brinton (1892 a), lacking any
lexical material, at first placed them with Tacanan on geographical
grounds. The language is called Lapalapa. It seems to have been
the language spoken at the mission of Aten, whence the natives were
referred to as Ateniano'^; the latter are sometimes considered a sub-
group of Leco; otherwise there are no subdivisions of the famUy.
D'Orbigny (1839) classified the Ateniano as Tacanan. Markham
(1910) called them Mositen {Moseten, q. v.). Probably a few hundred
still survive.
Bibliography.—Brinton, 1892 a; Cardus, 1886, p. 314; Chamberlain, 1910 a,
p. 190; Lafone-Quevedo, 1905; Metraux, 1942 a, pp. 27-29; Orbigny, 1839.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 275
YtTRACAREAN
Synonyms: Yurukare, Yurujure, Yuruyure, etc.
Modern writers prefer Yuracare to the older standard Yurucare.
Metraux (^personal conversation) suggests that a comparison with
Moseten might prove fruitful. Markham (1910) considered them a
branch of the Chiquito; Loukotka (1935) sees Pano vestiges. How-
ever, no evidence for wider relationships has ever been presented
though, like the other independent (?) small languages in this region,
its isolated status is doubted and will probably eventually be dis-
proved.
Though most authorities mention no subdivisions, the Yuracare
are said to be divided into two main subgroups, probably of the
status of languages, the eastern and the western. Their components
are probably of dialectic quality.
Yuracare
1. East
a. Soloto (Mage)
2. West
a. Mansinyo
b. Oromo
Possibly: Coni, Cuchi, Enete (Brinton, 1891.)
Bibliography.—Cardus, 1886, pp. 314-315; Castillo, 1906; Chamberlain, 1910 a;
Cueva, 1893; Holter, 1877; Ludewig, 1858; Metraux, 1942 a; Nordenskiold, 1910 b,
1911 b; Orbigny, 1839; Pauly, 1928, p. 177; Richter, 1928.
SMALL LANGUAGES OF THE BRAZIL-BOLIVIA BORDER
(Havari, Masdca, Capishand, Purubord, Mashibi, etc.)
Huari, Masdca (Massaka), and Capishand (Kapisand) are located
very close together on Nimuendajii's map, Purubord (Burubord) near-
by. The first three, Nimuendajii considers separate isolated families.
He apparently had some notes on the Capishand, but it is practically
unknown in ethnological literature.
Huari has long been recognized as independent (Kivet, 1924 a;
Pericot y Garcia, 1936; Schmidt, W., 1926; Loukotka, 1935), though
it is too small and unimportant to have been known to Brinton
(1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a). There are few data on it and
apparently no component languages of the family. Gillin (1940)
doubts its validity, and Metraux herein leaves it unclassified. Levi-
Strauss (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 372) apparently considers Huari equiv-
alent to Massaka (Masdca), and both linguistically related to Buru-
bord (Purubord). The latter, Purubord, Loukotka (1935) considers
as an independent family, consisting of one language with Tupi in-
trusions. Nimuendajii (map), however, places it in the Tupi family.
794711—50 19
276 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Koch-Griinberg (1932) published a vocabulary. With the exception
of Huari and Masdca all these groups are too small and unimportant
to be mentioned by Rivet (1924 a) and W. Schmidt (1926). Rivet
considers Masdca Arawakan.
Mashubi (Masubi), also in this general region, was given the status
of an independent family by Rivet (1924 a) and accepted by Loukotka
(1935, 1939 a). Rivet's opinion is based on a short vocabulary collected
by Colonel Fawcett in 1924. This apparently passed into the posses-
sion of Nordenskiold and was examined by Rivet; it seems never to
have been published. The "family" is, therefore, of doubtful validity;
Nimuendaju does not list it or place it on his map. An independent
family should not be posited on such slim evidence.
Kepikiriwat, Sanamaicd, Twpari, Guaycaru, Aricapu, Yaputi, Arua-
shi, and Canoa are languages occupying tiny areas in a small region.
The data on them are few, and they had best be left unclassified pend-
ing further information. None is classified by Rivet. Nimuendaju
considers Kepikiriwat, Sanamaicd, Tupari, and Guaycaru as Tupi;
Aruashi and Canoa he leaves unclassified.
Bibliography.—Koch-Griinberg {Purubord), 1932.
CATUKINAN
Synonyms: Katokena, Categuina, etc.
The Catukina family is one of rather recent acceptance; Brinton
(1891 a) believed that it was a jargon, and Chamberlain (1913 a) did
not include it among his families. The name seems to be a descriptive
Tupi word, not originally a proper name, and thus has been used as
the name for a number of different tribes that are, therefore, liable
to confusion and must be distinguished. Rivet (1924 a) lists five
tribes of this name, most of them of different hnguistic affinities, one
Tupi-Guarani, one Arawak, one Pano, and two belonging to the
present group. Several of the subtribes, Catavnshi and Canamari, also
have duplicates in other families so that the possibility of confusion
is very great. There are Pano and Arawak Canamari, and an unclas-
sified Catawishi, according to Nimuendaju (map).
The Catukina family area is a large one and the component tribes
very numerous, but there seems to be no general agreement regarding
the grouping of these into languages and dialects. The fullest list
seems to be on Nimuendaju's map, with little suggestion as to sub-
groupings.
Catukina, Canamari, and Catawishi are the most important and best-
known languages. The Katokina of Spix (Martins, 1867, 2:161-163)
belongs with the Canamari of the Jurua. Brinton (1891 a) and
Chamberlain (1913 a) mistakenly identified this with the Katukinaru
of Bach (Church, 1898), a Tupi Guarani language, which probably
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 277
accounts for Brinton's considering Catukina a jargon. If these Catu-
kina and Canamari are Arawak, they belong to a new and very variant
subgroup. The Katukino of Marcoy (1867) on the other hand go with
the Catawishi, and may be identical with the latter.
Catukina
1. Ben-Dyapd (Bendiapa)
2. Burue (Buruhe)
3. Canamari
4. Catawishi (Hewadie)
5. Catukina
a. Pidd-Dyapd
b. Kutid-Dyapd
6. Catukino
7. Parawa
8. Tawari (TauarS)
a. Cadekili-Dyapd
b. Wadyo-Paranin-Dyapd (Kairara)
9. Tucun-Dyapd (Tucano Dyapa, Mangeroma)
10. (Miscellaneous)
a. Amena-Dyapd
b. Cana-Dyapd
c. Hon-Dyapd
d. Maro-Dyapd
e. Ururu-Dyapd
f. Wiri-Dyapd
Bibliography.—Brinton, 1898 b; Marcoy, 1867 (1869); Martius, 1867, 2:161-
163; Rivet, 1920 b; Tastevin, 1928 a.
CHAPACURAN
The Chapacuran {Ca/pakura) family has always been Imown by
orthographical variants of the above name though Chamberlain
(1912 c) proposed, but never employed, the alternative Pawumwa{n)
.
It now includes the former Itenean stock of Hervas y Panduro (1800)
and the former extinct Ocoronan stock; Chamberlain (1913 a) included
the latter in his definitive classification, believing that Crequi-Mont-
fort and Rivet's identification (1913 b) of Ocoronan and Chapacuran
needed more proof; this is now generally accepted.
According to Rivet, the extinct Ocorono group had been strongly
influenced by Arawak and especially by TJro (q. v.) (Crequi-Montfort
and Rivet, 1921, p. 104). Some of the tribes had been previously
classified as Pano. Loukotka (1935) also finds Arawak intrusions in
all the languages except Tora which he considers mixed with Carih.
Martius (1867) thought them connected with the Paraguayan Guache,
a Guaicuru group, but Brinton (1891 a, p. 303) sees slight resemblance.
Wanyam (Huanam), the modern name for Pawumwa, has always
been considered a member, and often the most typical member, of
278 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Chapacura, but it has been considered by some a separate linguistic
stock (see below).
No definite classification of the Chapacura languages and dialects
has ever been proposed on a linguistic basis. As usual, it may be
assumed that each group named, if not a synonym, had its own dia-
lect, that affiliated groups had closely related languages, and that the
linguistic divisions roughly followed the geographical ones. On this
basis three main divisions might be proposed, the languages of the
Guapore River Basin, those of the Madeira River Basin, and the
extinct Ocorono group.
If they are Chapacuran, Wanyam, and Cabishi belong in the Guapore
group. The languages or dialects of the Madeira River group cannot
be very variant, as they are said to have moved there in post-Colum-
bian days.
Arikem (Arigueme, Ahopovo) (q. v.) is generally considered in this
group, but the language seems to be very different from the others;
Loukotka (1935) gives it an independent family, and Nimuendajii
(map) and Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) apparently consider it Tupi.
Chapacura
I. Guapore Division
A. Chapacura Group (Huachi, Guarayo, etc.)
1. Chapacura
2. Kitemoca
a. Napeca
3. Mor4 (hen)
a. Itoreauhip
B. Wanyam ^ (Pawumwa)
1. Wanyam
2. Cabishi
II. Madeira Division
1. Tord (Toraz)
2. Jaru
3. Urupd
4. Pacas Novas
III. Ocorono Division
A. Ocorono (Rokorona)
1. Sansimoniano ^ (?)
B. San Ignacio
1. Borja
C. Herisobocona
' See following separate section on these.
2 Jijon y Caamano places Sansimoniano under Chiquitoan,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Undifferentiated.—Cardus, 1886, p. 320; Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 184; Crdqui-
Montfort and Rivet, 1913 b; M^traux, 1940, 1942 a, pp. 86-95; Nordenskiold,
1915 b; Orbigny, 1839, p. 164; Pauly, 1928, pp. 168-169; Snethlage, E. H., 1931;
Teza, 1868.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 279
Guapore division.—Cardus, 1886, p. 320; Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 188-189;
Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1913 b; Orbigny, 1839; Pauly, 1928, pp. 168-169.
Madeira division.—Nimuendajii, 1925, pp. 137-140, 148-159; Nimuendaju
and Valle Bentes, 1923, p. 217.
Ocorono division.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, pp. 193-194; Cr^qui-Montfort and
Rivet, 1913 b, pp. 169-171; Snethlage, E. H., 1936.
WANYAM (HUANAM) AND CABISHf (KABlCl)
Wanyam seems to be the rediscovered Pawumwa, and the name
has displaced the latter. To date they have always been considered
one of the Guapore Chapacuran groups, and are accepted by Metraux
(Handbook, vol. 3, p. 398) and by Nimuendaju (map) as such. The
latter considers Abitana Wanyam a subdivision, the former a
synonym. However, Levi-Strauss who pursued studies in their
region, believed in a Huanyam linguistic stock, consisting of Mataua
Cujuna (Cuijana), Urunamakan, Cabishi, Cumand, Snethlage's
Abitana-Huanyam, and Haseman's Pawumwa. Only the last four
are at all known to science, and the last two probably constitute
one group. All of these are generally considered as Chapacura, with
the exception of Cabishi, which name seems to be applied to several
groups of different linguistic affiliations. (See Nambicuara.)
Wakyau
1. Cabishi^
2. Cujuna
3. Cumand
a. Cutiand
4. Matama (Matawa)
5. Urunamacan
6. Pawumwa
a. Abitana Wanyam
'Rivet (1924 a) considers Cabishi as Nambicuara; Schmidt (1926) (.Paressi-Kabici) , Arawak; Nimuendaju,
Nambicuara or Chapacura. There may be several groups of Cabishi.
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1912 c; Crequi-Montfort and Rivet, 1913 b,
pp. 141-68; Haseman, 1912; Snethlage, E. H., 1931.
MASCOIAN
A confusion of identities and of groups of the same names but of
different linguistic affinities characterizes this family, which consists
of one language. Ehrenreich first used the name Machicui or Muscovi;
Koch-Grunberg (1902 a), Mascoi. Boggiani (1900) called them
Enimagd, confusing them with the true Enimagd (Cochabot, q. v.),
which name was applied to the Mascoi family by Chamberlain (1913 a)
and by Brinton (1898 a). To avoid further confusion the Enimagd
are now termed Macd (q. v.). One of the constituent dialects is the
Lengua. These are the "new" Lengua, the Lengua of W. B. Grubb
(1911); the "old" Lengua are a Macd (Enimagd) group.
280 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
D'Orbigny (1839) insisted that the Mascoi were Guaicuru, like
the Toba, but Lafone-Quevedo (1896-97) compared the vocabulary
with Abipon with a negative conclusion. Brinton (1898 a) found a few
similarities to Chon.
There is practically no difference of opinion regarding the compo-
nents of Mascoi, six scarcely differentiated dialects, except that W.
Schmidt (1926) include:, Suhin (Sujen, Suxen), a neighboring language,
generally classed as Mataco and connected with Ashluslay, and Toosle
(Towothli), now placed \vith Macd (Enimagd). Nimuendajii (map)
differentiates Angaite from Enenslet, Machicuy from Mascoi; by others
they are considered synonyms. Metraux (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 227)
mentions the following extinct groups that may have been either
Mascoi, or Arawakan Guana: Guatata, Nohaague, Empiru, Yaperu or
Apirii, and Naperu.
Mascoi
1. Angaite
a. Enenslet
2. Caskihd (Guand^)
3. Lengua ^ {Gecoinlahaac)
4. Mascoi
a. Machicui (Tujetge)
5. Sanapand
6. Sapukl
Distinguish Mascoi and Arawak Guand.
2 Distinguish Mascoi and Macd Lengua.
Bibliography.—Baldus, 1931; Boggiani, 1900; Brinton, 1898 a; Cardus, 1886,
p. 271; Cominges, 1892, p. 245; Coryn, 1922; Ehrenreich, 1891; Grubb, W. B.,
1911, pp. 318-321; Hunt, 1917; Kersten, 1905; Koch-Grunberg, 1902 a; Lafone-
Quevedo, 1896-97; Loukotka, 1930; Orbigny, 1839.
ZAMUCOAN
The Zamuco (Samucan) "stock" occupies a relatively small area in
the northern Chaco. The people and their languages are of slight
cultural importance and little known, few in number and disappearing,
though the names of a large number of groups are known, many of
them extinct. No other name has ever been applied to the group.
The differentiation between the component languages and dialects
seems to be relatively slight. Brinton (1898 a) pointed out many
lexical resemblances with Arawak but refused to posit any genetic
relationship; the common elements may be largely due to borrowing.
Metraux personally suggests that a comparison of Zamuco with
Bororo-Otuque might prove significant, and, as in the case of most
small groups at present considered independent, an intensive study
will probably tie it to some large family or phylum.
The grouping and subclassification of the languages and dialects
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 281
are uncertain since the various authorities, as usual, do not agree.
That adopted below follows Metraux (Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 241-245)
so far as possible. Even the major divisions, apparently, do not differ
greatly, and some of the names may be synonyms, or merely bands
without linguistic differentiation.
The language is reported to be mellifluous.
Zamuco
I. North: Zamuco
A. Zamuco
1. Zamuco {Samuca)
2. Satienyo {Zatieno, Ibiraya)
B. Morotoco (Coroino)
1. Cucarate (Kukutade)
2. Orebate (Ororebate)
a. Carerd
3. Panono (Panana)
4. Tomoeno
C. Guaranyoca (Guaranoca)
1. Tsiracua (Empelota)
a. Mora (remnants of Morotoco and Guaranoca)
D. Ugaranyo (Ugarono)
1. Ugaranyo
E. Tapii {Tapio) (f) '
F. Poturero (Ninaguild, Ninaquiguila)
II. South: Chamacoco
A. Chamacoco (Tumanahd, Timinihd)
1. Ebidoso
2. Horio (Ishira)
3. Tumerehd
B. Imono
C. Tunacho (Tunaca)
D. Caipotorade
Also (Nimuendaju map): Aguiteguedichagd, Laipisi.
• The Tapii may have been Otukean.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Zamuco.—Baldus, 1932; Brinton, 1898 a; Huonder, 1902; Kersten, 1905, pp.
64-66; Loukotka, 1931 a; Nordenskiold, 1912, p. 324; Oefner, 1942; Orbigny,
1839, p. 164; Steinen, 1912.
Chamacoco.—Baldus, 1927; BelaieflF, 1937; Boggiani, 1894, 1929; Cardus, 1886,
p. 327; Loukotka, 1929-30, 1930, pp. 560-572; Steinen, 1895.
GUATOAN
No question has ever been raised regarding the independence of the
Guato; no suggestion has been made of relationship with any other
group. No linguistic subdivisions are known, but the Ouajarapo
(Guachi) are always associated with them. (See Metraux, Handbook,
282 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
vol. 1, pp. 214, 225, 409.) The Guato verge on extinction. The
principal source is Max Schmidt (1914 b).
Bibliography.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 283-284; Chamberlain, 1913 c; Koslowsky,
1895; Martius, 1867, 2:209-210; Monoyer, 1905; Schmidt, M., 1902, 1905, 1912,
1914 b.
BOROROAN AND OTUKE
The Bororo and the Otuque {Otuke, Otuqui) were long considered
separate and independent, and the former was once thought a Iwpi
tongue (Brinton, 1891 a). Cogent arguments for their hnkage were
presented (Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet, 1912, 1913 a) and all recent
authorities have linked them, either under the name Bororo or Otuque.
Metraux, however, is not convinced of the connection, and it needs
further study and corroboration. The Otuque are probably extinct.
Two, possibly four, extinct languages, formerly given independent
status, Covareca and Curuminaca, and possibly Corabeca, Curave, and
Ourucaneca (q. v.), compose, with Otuque, the Otuquean group.
Brinton (1891 a) noted a distant resemblance to Tacana. Bororo-
Otuke will probably eventually be incorporated in some larger phylum.
Metraux suggests that a comparison with Zamuco-Chamacoco might
prove significant. The Bororo are sometimes known as Coroado, a
name applied to a number of different groups, especially of Ge and
Macro-Ge, from which they must be distinguished.
BOROTUKE 1
I. Bororo (Coroado)
A. Bororo
1. Eastern
a. Orarimugudoge
2. Western
a. Cabasal
b. Campanya
3. Acion4
4. Aravira
5. Biriun&
6. Coroa (?)
7. Coxipo (?)
B. Umotina (Barbado)
II. OtuU
A. Otuki
B. Covareca ^
C. Curuminaca ^
D. Coraveca (?) ^
1. Curavi (?) «
E. Curucaneca (?) *
F. Tapii (?) s
• Hybrid name suggested here for group of Bororo-Otuke.
» See following section.
' The Tapii may have been Olukean or Zamucoan.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 283
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bororo.—Anonymous, 1908, 1919 a; Caldas, 1899, 1903; Castelnau, 1852,
pp. 285-286; Chamberlain, 1912 b; Colbacchini, n. d., 1925; Colbacchini and
Albisetti, 1942; Fn6 and Radin, 1906; Magalhaes, 1919; Martius, 1867, 2: 14-15;
Steinen, 1894, pp. 545-547; Tonelli, 1927, 1928; Trombetti, 1925.
Umotina.—Schmidt, M., 1929 a, 1941.
Otuke.—Chamberlain, 1910 a; Crequi-Montfort and Rivet, 1912, 1913 a;
Orbigny, 1839.
CORAVECA AND COVARECA; CURtJCANECA AND CURUMINACA
The similar names in these two groups are not metathesized syno-
nyms. In close geographic propinquity, some close relationship
would seem indicated, but the available vocabularies on these extinct
languages indicate that the four are separate and very different.
In the older classifications all four were considered as independent
famiUes. Some authorities, such as Crequi-Montfort and Rivet
(1912, 1913 a), place all under Bororo or Otuke (q. v.). The inclusion
of Covareca and Curuminaca is generally accepted, but Coraveca
(Curave) and Curucaneca (Curucane), showing less resemblance to
Otuke, are included with hesitation or reservations, left unclassified,
or awarded independent status. By some, Curave and Coraveca are
considered as separate, not as synonymous. The arguments for the
inclusion of Covareca and Curuminaca in the Otuke family have been
published (Crequi-Montfort and Rivet, 1913 a), but not those for
Curave and Corabeca, Curucaneca and Tapii. The languages are all
in the Chiguito region, but no Chiquito connections have been suggested,
although all four groups are said to have spoken Chiguito a century
ago (Metraux, Handbook, vol. 3, p. 381). The names of many groups
in this region have a similar ring: Saraveca, Paiconeca, Paunaca
{Arawak), Kitemoca (Chapacura), Waranyoca (Zamuco), etc. The four
languages in question may be closely related, the recorded vocabu-
laries at fault, but as they are extinct their degree of relationship will
probably never be known. (See Otuke-Bororo for table.)
Bibliography.— Chamberlain, 1910 a; Crequi-Montfort and Rivet, 1912, 1913 a.
NAMBICUARAN
The relatively recently discovered Nambicuara were unknown to
and not classified by the earlier authorities; they and their languages
have recently been studied carefully by Claude L6vi-Strauss. No
detailed comparisons with other linguistic families have been made,
but L^vi-Strauss states that the logical structure is much like Chibcha,
with also some similarities in vocabulary, but nothing conclusive.
Loukotka (1935) sees vestiges of several eastern Brazilian languages
in several of the component Nambicuara languages but nothing that
284 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
characterizes the family as a whole. The outstanding characteristic
of the group according to Levi-Strauss (personal correspondence) is
an extensive use of classificatory suffixes dividing things and beings
into about 10 categories.
According to Levi-Strauss (personal correspondence), the classifi-
cation of the Nambicuara languages by Roquette-Pinto (1917) is not
good. There are two main groups, the Nambicuara Proper and the
pseudo-Nambicuara. The latter, northern group, the Sabane, never
before mentioned in literature, is considerably different from the other
languages in structure and has a vocabulary rich in Arawakan ele-
ments probably borrowed from the Paressi. It may be found to be-
long to some other, or to be a new linguistic family.
The Nambicuara Proper are divided into two languages and each
of these into two dialects, as shown in the following table. The end-
ings of words is the only difference between the Cocozu and Anunze
dialects. The Tamainde vocabulary of Max Schmidt (1929 a, p. 102)
belongs to the western dialect, characterized by a new form for the
verbal suffix.
In addition to orthographical synonyms, such as Nambikwara,
they are known as Mambyuara, Mahibarez, and Uaikoakore; the
dialect names have also many orthographical variants. A few groups
not mentioned by Levi-Strauss are included in the Nambicuara
family by some of the other authorities, sometimes by several of them,
and contradicted by none. These are Salumd, Nene, Congore, and
Navaite; some of them may be synonyms. Metraux suggests the
possible inclusion of Guayuakure and Tapanhuana, apparently little-
known groups.
Nambicuara
I. Nambicuara Proper
A. Northeastern
1. Eastern
a. Cocozu
2. Northeastern
b. Anunz^
B. Southwestern
1. Central and Southern
a. Uaintazu
b. Kabishi
c. Tagnani
d. TauiU
6. TaruU
f. TashuiU
2. Western
a. TamaindS
II. Pseudo-Nambicuara
A. Northern
1. Sabane
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 285
Bibliography.—Rond6n, 1910, pp. 52-53; Roquette-Pinto, 1912, 1917, 1935;
Schmidt, M., 1929 a; Schuller, 1921; Souza, A., 1920.
CABISnf
Cabishi is one of those names applied to a number of different tribes.
Authorities such as Nimuendaju and Rivet seem to agree that the
true Cabishi are a branch of the Nambicuara, and Nimuendaju equates
the term with Waintazii (Uaintagu). Another Cabishi are a branch
of the Wanyam. (See Chapacura.) The Paressi-Cabishi are Arawak
(q. v.). The name Cabishiana (Kabixiana, Kapisana, q. v.) is prob-
ably related.
MURAN
A moderately small group, Mura is considered as forming an inde-
pendent linguistic family by all modern authorities except Brinton
(1891 a). He states that the majority of its words are from Tupi
roots; as his opinions—and often his guesses—are generally good, and
as no other authority has noted this resemblance, we may suspect
that the vocabulary that he used was unsuitable in this connection.
No other suggestions regarding larger relationships have been made,
though Loukotka (1935) finds vestiges or intrusions of Camacan and
Caingang—an unlikely possibility.
The Mura family may consist of two main divisions, Mura Proper
and Matanawi or Matanauy (q. v.). But the latter is so divergent
that Nimuendaju (map) considers it isolated. Mura Proper is divided
into three "dialects," those of Bohurd, Pirahd, and Yahahi. (See
Nimuendaju, Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 255-258.)
Mura must not be confused with the Bolivian (Chapacuran ?)
Mure.
Mura
A. Bohurd
B. Pirahd
C. Yahahi
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a; Martius, 1867, 2: 20-21; Nimuendaju,
1925, 1932 a; Nimuendaju and Valle Bentes, 1923.
MATANAWf
Rivet (1924 a), who uses the spelling Matanauy, Loukotka (1935,
1939 a), and Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) place Matanawi in the Mura
family; Loukotka sees Caingang intrusions. But Nimuendaju (map
and linguistic index), whose vocabulary (1925, pp. 161-171) seems
to be the basic source, prefers to list it among his "isolated languages."
Bibliography.—Nimuendaju, 1925, pp. 143, 16&-171; Nimuendaju and Valle
Bentes, 1923, p. 222.
286 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
TRUMAIAN
Trumai has been accepted as independent ever since its discovery
by Von den Steinen. No suggestion as to larger affiliations has ever
been made. The linguistic data, however, are few, and when it is
better known an attachment to some larger famUy is likely. A single
language composes the "family."
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a; Steinen, 1894, pp. 540-542.
CARAJAN
Synonyms: Carayd, KarayA, Karadid.
Universally recognized as an independent family, at least since the
days of Briuton (1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a), no other variant
synonym has ever been proposed for the stock. Lipkind (vol. 3, p.
179), who has recently recorded and studied it, says it is unrelated to
at least the four great families of Arawak, Carib, Tupl, and Oe. The
speech of men and women differ. Brinton (1891 a, p. 261) found a
little lexical resemblance to "Tapuya" (Ge), which may probably be
ascribed to borrowing.
While no classificatory subdivisions of the family have been pro-
posed, there is general agreement that Carajd (see same synonyms as
for family) or Karayaki {Carajahi), Yavahe {Yavahai, Javahe, Javahai,
Zavaze, Shavaye, Jawage), and Shambiod (Schambiod, Sambiod, Chim-
biod, Ximbiod) are the principal component languages. Linguistic
differences in the three are slight and on a dialectic level (Lipkind,
Handbook, vol. 3, p. 179). W. Schmidt (1926) also includes Asurini
(probably Tupian). Brinton (1891 a) distinguishes Carajahi from
Carajd. Nimuendajii (map) distinguishes from the Carajd of the
Araguaya an earlier unclassified extinct group of the same name in
Minas Gerais, possibly ancestral.
CarajX
1. Carajd (Karayd)
a. Carayahi
2. Yavahi (Shavaye)
3. Shambiod
Bibliography.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 268-269; Chamberlain, 1913 c; Coudreau,
H., 1897 b, pp. 259-270; Ehrenreich, 1888, 1894-95, pp. 20-37; Krause, 1911,
pp. 458-469; Kunike, 1916, 1919; Martius, 1867, 2: 264-266.
CARIRIAN
Synonyms: Kariri, Kairiri, Cairiri, Kayriri, Kiriri, Cayriri.
Cariri has always been recognized as an independent family. The
suggestion has been made that it belongs with the great Carib stock
(Gillin, 1940), but no evidence in support has been offered. As a
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 287
grammar (Mamiani, 1877) and other studies on the language (Adam,
1897) have been published, the determination should not be diflficult.
The famUy is on the verge of extinction; the few remnants of Camuru
probably do not use their language in its former purity.
The hnguistic subdivisions of the family seem to be:
A. Cariri
1. Kipea
2. Camuru
3. Dzubucua
4. Pedra Branca
B. Sapuya
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cariri.—Adam, 1878, 1897 a; Bernard de Nantes, 1896; Chamberlain, 1913 c;
Gillin, 1940; de Goeje, 1932, 1934; Mamiani, 1877; Martius, 1867, 2: 215-217;
Mitre, 1909-10; Pompeu Sobrinho, 1928, 1934.
Sabuya.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Martius, 1867, 2: 218-219.
MACRO-GE
Macro-Ge is a term here proposed for the first time as an equivalent
for the Ge or "Tapuya stock" or "family" as constituted until recent
years, synonymous with Rivet's (1924 a) Ze and W. Schmidt's (1926)
Ges-Tapuya. As herein conceived, it consists of Ge and some eight
other "families," "stocks," or languages, formerly considered as mem-
bers of the great Ge famUy, which some recent authorities suggest as
independent. Future research will have to give the final decision as
to their independence; they are herein considered as far from proved.
There is considerable lexical resemblance, which may or may not be
a result of borrowing. Had these languages always been considered
independent, articles would certainly have been written to prove
their relationship with Ge, as cogent, and as convincing or uncon-
vincing, as many others linking other groups, formerly considered
independent, with larger entities. It may eventually be decided that
some of these languages are independent, but it is more likely that
other small languages will be added to make Macro-Ge an even more
inclusive phylum.
Rivet (1924 a, p. 697) summarized the Ge situation well in his
remarks:
This family, of all the South American families, is the one most artificially
constituted. It is the caput mortuum of South American linguistics. Its careful
and complete revision, on truly scientific grounds, is imperative.
Rivet, who made researches on most of the South American families,
left Ge severely alone. Loukotka took up the problem and, with his
usual "radical conservatism," split the old Ge into nine independent
families: Ze (Ge); Kaingdn (Caingang); Kamakdn (Camacan); Masa-
kali (Mashacali); Coroado; Pataso (Patasho); Botocudo; Opaie (Opaye);
288 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
late (Fornio, Fulnio). He sees Ge "intrusions" in all but the first
and last. In his earlier studies Loukotka retained Caingang under
Ge Proper, but finally (1935, 1939 a) decided to separate this also. It
was his intention to publish a monograph on each of these new fam-
ilies, with large comparative vocabularies, written in the same pattern,
but to date he has published on only Mashacali (1931-32 a), Camacdn
(1931-32 b), Coroado (1937), and Patasho (1939 c).
Nimuendajii and Lowie herein accept all these components as inde-
pendent from Ge Proper, either as families or as isolated languages,
with the exception of Caingang, which they still consider as a member
of Ge Proper. Herein Caingang (q. v.) is considered as separate from
Ge Proper as the other components of Macro-Ge.
As conceived herein, Macro-Ge consists of nine groups or families
as follows: (1) Ge; (2) Caingang; (3) Camacdn; (4) Mashacali; (5) Puri;
(6) Patasho; (7) Malali; (8) Coropo; and (9) Botocudo.
It will be noted that, in addition to orthographic variations, this
list, while equal in number to Loukotka's, differs slightly. The name
Puri is preferred to Coroado. Malali and Coropo have been added
because their classification in some one of the other groups is so
uncertain. As regards Loukotka's last two, Opaye andf/afe (Fornio),
the resemblance to any Ge language seems to be so slight that they
are better considered for the present as independent and non-Ge.
Of the nine above, Nimuendajii considers Ge, Camacdn, Mashacali,
Puri, and Botocudo as "stocks"; Patasho and Malali as "isolated";
Caingang he places under Ge; and Coropo with Puri.
Apparently all the Macro-Ge groups were termed "Tapuya" (en-
emies) by the Tupi, and this name was formerly used as a synonym
for Ge. They inhabit the infertile regions of eastern Brazil, off the
rivers. From the coast they were displaced by the Tupi. Somato-
logical and cultural evidence suggests that they were among the most
autochthonous of all South American natives; as such it is unlikely
that any connections will be found with other great families or phyla.
As languages of people of low culture they have been neglected more
than their scientific importance warrants, and the morphologies are
not well known. They are said to be phonetically difficult, and harsh.
Except for the Ge Proper and the Caingang, most of them were close
to the Brazilian coast; most of them are now extinct, and the others
practically so.
The Ge group, as herein recognized, consists only of the Ge Proper,
one section of the Ge family as previously constituted, which latter
is herein termed Macro-Ge (q. v.). That is, a number of other groups,
Mashacali, Camacdn, etc., formerly considered as constituting the Ge
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 289
family, have been removed from it and, together with Ge proper, con-
sidered as constituent parts of the phylum Macro-Ge. The Ge occupy
a solid large area in eastern Brazil. They were displaced in some
regions by the Tupi, and the language is losing ground to modern
Brazilian Portuguese. They were formerly known as "Tapuya," the
Tupi word for "enemy." Cran or Gueren, meaning "ancients" or
"natives," is another synonym; their self-name is Nac-nanvc. Many
of the names of groups end in zhe {Ge, Ze).
The classification of the Ge languages here presented is taken pri-
marily from Lowie and Metraux (Handbook, vols. 1 and 3). These,
however, are probably based principally on present political associa-
tion, cultural resemblance, and geographical propinquity rather than
on linguistic grounds. A thorough independent study has not been
possible, but a brief comparison of vocabularies of a few of the better-
known Ge languages suggests that a truer picture of linguistic relation-
ships may cut across the proposed divisions. This short study
indicates
:
A. A rather closely connected group consisting of: Apinay^, Northern and South-
ern Cayapd, Carahd, Gradahd, and Mecubengocr^.
B. Ushikring and Suyd are slightly more variant.
C. Ramcocamecran and Aponegicran probably should also be placed in this
group. (All the above languages are in the Northwestern division.)
D. More distantly affiliated: ShavantS, Sherente, Taz4 and CrenyL
E. Possibly affiliated: Acroa and Jeic6.
F. Of uncertain affiliation: Mehln, Purecamecrdn, Piokobze, Capiecrdn, Crao,
Shicriabd. (Crenye shows some resemblance to Crao and to Mecubengocr6;
Capiecrdn to Northern Cayapd.)
GE
I. Northwest
A. Timbira
1. West Timbira
a. Apinayi ' (Apinages)
2. East Timbira (Hoti)
a. Northern
a. Gurupy
b. Crey6 (Crenye) of Bacabal
c. Nucoecamecran of Bacabal
b. Southern
a. Canela:^ Apanyecra (Aponegicran), Kencateye
(Kencatazi), Ramcocamecra (Capiecran)
b. Carateye
c. Craho (Krao), Macamecran
d. Crepumcateye
e. CrenyS (Crange) (of Cajuapara), (Tal4)
1 Traditionally the Apinayi are offshoots of the Krikati. Pericot suggests that they may be the same as
the Aenaguig, but Lowie considers the latter independent.
' Canela is the Brazilian name for the savage Timbira. Some other groups here listed are considered as
Canela. Rivet (1924 a) gives as additional Canela bands: TemembU, BucobH, or Mannozd, Poncatgi. Some
of these may be synonyms of others here listed.
290 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
GE—Continued
I. Northwest—Continued
A. Timhira—Continued
2. East Timhira (Hoti)—Continued
b. Southern—Continued
/. Cricati (Krikateye, Caracaty, Makraya)
g. Gavioes
h. NyurvkwayS (Norocoage)
i. Porekamekra (Purecamecran)
j. Pucobye (PiokobzS)
k. Chacamekra {Sacamecran, Matteiro)
I. (Augutge)
m. (Paicoge)
n. (Mehin)
B. Cayap6
1. Northern Cayapd (Corod, Carajd)
a. Carahd (Karahd)
b. Gorotire
c. Gradahd (Cradahd, Gradaii)
d. Ira-Amaire
e. Pau d'Arco
f. Purucarod (Purukaru)
a. Curupite
g. Mecubengokre
h. Ushiering {Chicri, ByorS)
i. Cri!iati"e
j . Cayamo
2. Southern Cayapd
C. Suyd
1. Suyd (Tsuvd)
II. Central
A. AkwS (Acua, Akwa)
1. Shacriaba (Chikriaba)
2. Shavante ^ {Chavante, Crisca, Pusciti, Tapacud)
3. SherenU {Cherente)
B. Acrod
1. Acrod
a. Northern
b. Southern
2. GueguS (GogvS)
III. Jeicd (Jaicd, Geicd)
A. Jeicd
3 The name Shavante (q. v.) is applied to a number of different groups. The Shavante included here are
those of the Rio dos Mortes. They must be distinguished from the Oti Chavante and the Opayi Chavanti
(q. v.), of other linguistic affinities. The Tupi Canoeiro, the Timbira Nyurukwaye and the Orajoumapri
are also termed Chavanti. Other names applied to the Akwe-Chavanti are Crixa (Curixa),Puxiti, and Tapa-
cud. Shavante and Sherente are essentially the same.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Apinaye.—Castelnau, 1852, p. 270; Hurley, 1932; Leal, 1895, pp. 225-228;
Martius, 1867, 2:147-149; Oliveira, C. E. de, 1930, pp. 99-104; Snethlage, E. H.,
1931.
Eastern Timbira.—Etienne, 1910 (Capiecran) ; Froes de Abreu, 1931 {Ramco-
Vol. 61 LANGUAGES—MASON 291
camecran); Kissenberth, 1911 (Kencataz^); Martius, 1867, 1: 525 (Purucamecran)
,
2:149-151 (Aponezicran) ; Nimuendaju, 1914 d {Crengez, Tazi), 1915 (Crenzi,
Mehin, Ramcocamecran, Taz6), 1946 (Timbira); Pohl, 1832-37 (Timbira); Pompeu
Sobrinho, 1930, 1931 {Canela, Merrime, Mehin); Sampaio, T., 1912 {Mecume-
cran, Crao); Snethlage, E. H., 1931 {Ramcocamecran, Crao, PiocobzS).
Cayapo.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 273-274 (Carahd); Coudreau, H., 1897 b, pp.
271-290; Ehrenreich, 1888, 1894-95 {Cayapd, Usicring, Gradahd); Kissenberth,
1911, pp. 53-54 {MecubengocH); Krause, 1911, pp. 461-469; Kupfer, 1870, pp.
254-255; Maria, 1914; Martius, 1867, 2:134-135, 151-152 {Carahd); Nimuendajii,
1931-32 pp. 552-567; Pohl, 1832-37, 2:447; Saint Hilaire, 1830-51, 2:108-109;
Sala, R. P. A. M., 1920; Socrates, 1892, pp. 95-96.
Suya.—Steinen, 1886, pp. 357-360.
Central Group.—Castelnau, 1852, pp. 262-268 (ShavantS, Sherent4); Ehren-
reich, 1894-95 {Acud, Shavanti, SherenU); Eschwege, 1830, pp. 95-96 (Shicriabd);
Martius, 1867, 2:139-146 {Sherenti, Chicriabd, Acroa mirim); Nimuendajii,
1929 a (Serente); Oliveira, J. F. de, 1913 a, 1913b (SherenU); Pohl, 1832-37, 2:33
{ChavanU); Saint Hilaire, 1830-51, 2:289-290 {Shicriabd); Socrates, 1892, pp.
87-96 {SherenU); Vianna, 1928 {Acuen).
Geico.—Martius, 1867, 2:143.
"Tapuya."—Barbosa da Faria, 1925; Ehrenreich, 1894-95; Koenigswald,
1908 a; Schuller, 1913 c.
CAINGANG
Caingang, also sometimes called Guayand, Coroado, Bugre, Shocleng,
Tupi, Botocudo, etc., is still considered a member of Ge Proper by
Nimuendajii, Lowie, and Metraux. Loukotka also placed it under
Ge until his 1935 classificatit)n when he gave it independent status,
A perusal of the lexical data indicates that it is at least as different
from Ge Proper as most of the other components of Macro-Ge. Henry
(1935) is also of the opinion that Caingang should be separated
from Ge.
Caingang seems to show even less lexical resemblances to Ge than
do Mashacali, Camacdn, and Puri {Coroado), In spite of the large
vocabularies available very few words show any resemblance to words
of similar meaning in any of the other families. Nevertheless, as
in the comparisons of all of these languages, there are a fair number
of possible connections, and a small number of certain, close, or even
identical resemblances, generally in common basic words that would
not be likely to be borrowed. In spite of the apparent great lexical
differences it is probable that Caingang is distantly related to all these
languages. Though the differences are not great, either qualitatively
or quantitatively, Caingang seems to show slightly greater resemblance
to Puri. Loukotka considers the family as showing Ge intrusions,
and most of the constituent languages to show Arawak or Camacdn
vestiges.
Bugre is an opprobrious term; Botocudo and Coroado are descrip-
tive, and the Caingang groups to whom they are applied must be
distinguished from the other Macro-Ge groups of these names. Few
794711—50 20
292 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Caingang languages seem to be extinct. They occupy an interior
region coterminous with the Oe Proper, not, like the other Macro-Ge
divisions, a coastal region.
The subdivisions are uncertain and disputed. Loukotka divides
them into 10 languages: four dialects of Caingdn, Kadurukre, Kame,
Wayana, Ivitorokai, Ingain, and Aiveicoma. The classification of
Metraux, herein adopted, is probably based on political and regional
groups rather than on linguistic variations, but, nevertheless, gives
the impression of greater reliability. According to him, Cayurucre
{Kadurukre) is a moiety; the Wayand (Guayand) were the ancestors
of the present Caingang; Ivitorocai and Ingain are synonyms of Taven
and Tain, and Aweiconna a synonym of the more usual term Shodeng.
There were apparently two groups of Wayand, one speaking Tupi-
Guarani, the other ancestors of the Caingang.
The best linguistic data are found in Father Mansueto Barcatta
Valfloriana, 1918 a, 1920.
Caingang
I. Caingang
A. Sao Paulo (Coroado) *
1, Nyacfateitei
B. Parand
C. Rio Grande do Sul
II. Shodeng {Socr^, ChocrS, Xocren, Bugre, Botocvdo,^ Aweicoma, Cauuba, Caahans,
Caagua, Caaigua ^)
III. Taven
A. Tain
B. Ingain (Wayana, Guayand*)
1. Patte (Basa)
2. Chowa
3. Chowaca
C. Ivitorocai
D. Gualacho (Coronado *)
1. Gualachi
2. Chiki
3. Cabelludo
IV. Dorin
(Bands: Jahuateie, Venharo)
(Moieties: Cayurucr^, Votoro, Cam6)
Possibly Caingang: Aricapti, Yabuti.^
* Distinguish from otlier Macro-Oe Coroado (Puri).
' Distinguish from other Macro-Oe Botocudo.
* Distinguish from Chiriguano (Tupi-Guarani) Caaigua.
* Distinguish from Ouarand Guayani. (See Mfitraux, Handbook, vol. 1 , p. 446.)
» See L6vi-Strauss (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 372).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Caingang.—Adam, 1902; Ambrosetti, 1894, 1895 a, pp. 354-87; Anonymous,
1852; Baldus, 1935, pp. 194-201; Barcatta de Valfloriana, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1920;
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 293
Borba, 1882, 1908, pp. 95-114; Chagas-Lima, 1842; Freitas, 1910; Henry, 1935,
1948; Hensel, 1869; Ihering, 1895, pp. 117-118, 1904; Martins, 1867, 2:212-214;
Moreira-Pinto, 1894, p. 580; Paula-Souza, 1918; Pindorama, 1937; Saint Hilaire,
1830-51, 1:456-457; Taunay, 1888, 1913; Teschauer, 1914, pp. 29-30, 1927, pp.
49-51; Vocabulario Comporado, 1892; Vogt, 1904.
Shocleng Group.—Gensch, 1908; Ihering, 1907, p. 232; Paula, 1924, pp.
131-134.
GuayanS.—Borba, 1908, pp. 138-139; Ihering, 1904; Lista, 1883, pp. 112-113;
Martfnez, B. T., 1904.
Aricapu, Yabuti.—Snethlage, E. H., 1931.
CAMACAN, MASHACALf, AND PURI (COROADO)
On these three groups, formerly considered as members of the great
Oe family, Loukotka has published linguistic sketches (1931-32 a,
1931-32 b, 1937), including vocabularies compiled from all laiown
sources, and lexical comparisons with 6e and other neighboring lan-
guages. His deductions are that all are independent from each other
and from 6e, but with Ge "intrusions." All three with their several
language divisions are supposed to be extinct, though a few members
may still live with other groups in some of the missions. Presumably,
therefore, no new linguistic data will be found, and their relationships
must be determined on the basis of the material at hand, compiled
by Loukotka. Unfortunately, no grammatical studies are known, and
the basic data consist of vocabularies of varying size, mainly of rather
ancient date and all uncritically recorded. The few phrases afford
very little morphological information.
The phonetics of the three groups are similar in general type, and
the few morphological deductions made by Loukotka show no great
difference; on these grounds the three might be closely related. Lexi-
cally, howeve*', they are very different. The compiled vocabularies
are large enough to afford sufficient data for tentatively conclusive
results, nearly 900 words for the Coroado group, about 350 for Mash-
acali and Camacdn. Using very uncritical methods of comparison
and noting every case of stems showing the slightest resemblance,
many of which wUl doubtless be thrown out when a critical linguistic
study is made, Loukotka finds the following proportion of possible
stems connected with Ge and Caingang combined: Coroado, 10.7
percent; Mashacall, 12.6 percent; Camacdn, 17.2 percent.
My reworking of Loukotka's data, eliminating the most improbable
of his correspondences, gave the following results:
Camacdn showed most resemblance to Ge with 37 probable corre-
spondences, 7 of them close; next to Mashacall with 18 probable corre-
spondences, 7 close; and next to Caingang with 25 probable corre-
spondences, 2 close. There were 12 probable correspondences to
Botocudo, 4 close ones. The correspondences with late, Patasho, and
294 SOUTH AMEEICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
Opaye are ignored on account of the very slight amount of data on
these languages. In spite of the large Coroado vocabulary, the largest
of all, the correspondences are very few, only 7, with 2 of them close,
less than the resemblance to laU, with 10 probable correspondences.
Camacdn obviously stands in much closer relationship to late than to
Coroado.
The closest resemblance of Alashacali, on the other hand, is about
equally to Coroado, with 23 probable correspondences, 9 of them close,
and to 6e with 26 probable correspondences, 8 of them close. Next
follows Camacdn, with 18 probable correspondences, 7 of them close,
and then Caingang with 20 probable correspondences, 4 of them close.
Coroado has its closest resemblance to Ge, with 35 probable corre-
spondences, 17 of them close; with Caingang, with 30 correspondences,
9 of them close; next with Mashacali with 23 probable correspond-
ences, 9 of them close; and last with Botocudo, with 13 probable corre-
spondences, 3 of them close. The slight resemblance to Camacdn, a
significant point, is noted above.
As may be deduced from the above, Ge shows about equal resem-
blance to Coroado and to Camacdn, the former showing 35 possible
correspondences, 17 of them close; Camacdn, 37 possible correspond-
ences, 7 close (but with a much smaller vocabulary to compare).
Next follows Mashacali, with 26 possible correspondences, 8 of them
close; and then Caingang, with 14 possible correspondences, 6 of them
close.
CAMACAN
The Camacdn languages are all extinct, all the data being now on
record. Loukotka (1931-32 b) has published a monograph on them,
giving them independent rank. In this he is followed by Metraux
and Nimuendajii (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 547). Rivet (1924 a), W.
Schmidt (1926), and earlier authorities considered the group a com-
ponent of Ge. It is here classified as a component of Macro-Ge
(q. v.). It shows more and closer lexical resemblances to Ge Proper,
Mashacali, Caingang, and late than can be explained on grounds of
borrowing. Though probably related to Puri also, the lexical re-
semblances are surprisingly slight. The resemblance is about equal
to all the Ge Proper groups, except to Suya and Jeico. The Camacdn
are not an Acroa horde, as Martins thought.
There is general agreement as to the languages composing the
family. As regards the closer relationships of these languages,
there is less agreement. The classification here accepted is based
primarily on Metraux and Nimuendaju.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 295
CamacXn
I. Camacdn (Kamakdn)
A. Mongoyd '
B. Monshocd (Ezeshio)
II. Cutashd (Kotoxd)
A. Catethoy (Katathoy) ^
III. Menidn (Manyd)
IV. Masacard '
• SchuUer's identification (1930 a) of lati or Fulnio (q. v.) with Mongoyd is certainly based on insufficient
evidence. The vocabularies of Etienne and Ouimaraes are said to be very incorrect plagiarisms of Wied.
s No linguistic material on Catathoy is extant.
' Loulrotka (1935) differentiates Masacard from the others as a language mixed with Ge, though he had
earlier termed it merely a slightly variant form of Camacdn Proper.
Bibliography.—Etienne, 1909 (Mongoyd); Guimaraes, J. J. da S., 1854 (Mon-
goyd); Ignace, 1912; Loukotka (with complete bibliography), 1931-32 b; Martius,
1867, 2:153-54, 156-158 (Cotoxo), 155 (Meniens), 144-145 (Masacard); Metraux,
1930; Moreira-Pinto, 1894, 1:387; Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21, 2:325-330.
MASHACALf
Mashacali, an extinct language, was first separated from the old
inclusive Ge by Loukotka, who published the standard monograph
upon it (1931-32 a); it is now accepted as an independent family by
Metraux and Nimuendaju (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 541). However, it
has obvious resemblances with Ge and has, therefore, herein been
considered one of the members of the Macro-Ge phylum. The avail-
able data are slight, old, and poor. The resemblance is about equal,
and not great, to Puri and Ge Proper, slightly less to Camacdn and
Caingang. In the Ge group, Mashacali seems to show the greatest
connection with Cayapo, the least with Northern Ge.
Six "languages" are placed by all authorities in this family, all given
equal rank, and no further subdivisions proposed. With regard to
three languages, Malali, Potasho, and Coropo, placed by some in the
Mashacali group, there is great difference of opinion. These three
are treated separately.
1. Caposhd (Koposo)
2. Cumanashd (Kumanaxd)
3. Macuni (Makoni)
4. Mashacali (Maxakari)
5. Monoshd (Monoxd)
6. Panyame (Paname)
Bibliography.—Loukotka, 1931-32 a (containing full bibliography); Martius;
1867, 2:169 (Mashacali), 170-172 (Capoxd, Cumanachd, Panhdme), 173-176
(Macuni); Saint-Hilaire, 1830-51, 1:47 (Maconi), 213 (Mashacali), 428-429
(Monoshd); Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21, 2:319, 323-325 (Mashacali, Maconi).
PURf (COROADO)
For this extinct group or family the name Puri is preferable to Coroa-
do, to avoid confusion with Caingang and Bororo groups of the same
296 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
name, which means "crowned" or "tonsured." The group was
formerly considered a part of Ge, and is herein considered one of the
components of Macro-Ge. It was separated from Ge by Loukotka, the
author of the principal monograph upon it (Coroado) (1937) ; Nimuen-
dajii accepts it as independent (Puri), as does M^traux (Handbook,
vol. 1, p. 523).
The languages are probably extinct but a number of vocabularies
are extant, and the lexical data, compiled by Loukotka, amount to
some 900 words (including Coropo). Lexically, Puri-Coroado shows
the closest relationship with Ge Proper, closest with Cayapo, least
with Suyd, about equal with Northern and Eastern Ge, little with
Jeico. Resemblances with the Caingang and Mashacali groups are a
little less and about equal. The lack of resemblance to Camacdn is
significant.
A century ago, the Coroado remembered when they formed a single
group with the Puri; the differences between them must, therefore,
be in the degree of dialects, that of their component bands even less.
Puri and Coroado are the only certain members of the group. Other
proposed members are Coropo and Waitacd (Guoitaka, Goyataca).
These are treated separately herein, for reasons there given. M^traux
herein (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 523) considers Coropo related.
PuRf (Coroado)
I. Coroado
A. Maritong
B. Cobanipake
C. Tam/prun
D. Sasaricon
II. Purl
A. Sabonan
B. Wambori
C. Shaynishuna
Bibliography.—Ehrenreich, 1886; Eschwege, 1818, pp. 165-171, 1830, pp.
233-243; Loukotka, 1937 (full bibliography) ;Martius, 1867, 2:194-207; Noronha
Torrezao, 1889; Reye, 1884, pp. 99-101; Saint-Hilaire, 1830-51, 1:46-47; Wied-
Neuwied, 1820-21.
patash6
The classification of Patasho is most uncertain. The older clas-
sifications of Rivet (1924 a) and W. Schmidt (1926) placed it in the
Mashacali group of Ge. Loukotka (1935) separated it and gave it
independent rank on an equal footing with Mashacali; in this he is
followed by M^traux and Nimuendaju. Metraux and Nimuendaju
say (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 54) that Nimuendaju found a close rela-
tionship between his Patasho and Mashacali vocabularies, but that
Wied-Neuwied's Patasho and Saint-Hilaire's Mashacali vocabularies
are very different.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 297
An independent reworking of Loukotka's published comparative
material left the present author doubtful of the Macro-Ge relationship
of Patasho. A brief comparison of Wied-Neuwied's Patasho vocab-
ulary (1820-21), however, showed a marked resemblance to Mashacali,
and considerable to Coropo (q. v.), but little to Ge proper. Some 20
of the Patasho words show apparent connections with Mashacali, and
more than half of these are very close, and mainly in words not likely
to have been borrowed. The inclusion of Patasho in the Mashacali
group or family thus seems to be strongly indicated. However, it is
quite possible that the vocabularies showing this resemblance are
somehow faulty in ascription, and the example of Nimuendaju and
Loukotka have been followed herein in leaving Patasho apart as a
separate member of Macro-Ge.
Patasho may not be entirely extinct. No grammar or linguistic
study is known. The standard vocabulary by Wied consists of only
90 words, but Loukotka possesses an unpublished study, and ap-
parently Nimuendaju also had unpublished material.
Bibliography.—Ehrenreich, 1891, 1894-95; Loukotka, 1939 c (full bibliogra-
phy); Martius, 1867, 2:172-173; M6traux, 1930 b; Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21,
2:320-321.
MALALf
In view of the great disagreement regarding the affinities of the
extinct Malali it should be regarded for the present as an independent
member of the Macro-Ge group as do Metraux and Nimuendaju
herein (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 542). Nimuendaju (map and index)
puts it among the isolated languages. W. Schmidt (1926) makes it
the sole member of the coastal division of his South Group of Ge, an
opinion with which Loukotka records his disagreement. Loukotka
(1931-32 a, 1935, 1939 a) and Rivet (1924 a) place it with Mashacali,
though the former does so with a little hesitation, as a language
mixed with Coroado.
A hasty comparison of the available Malali data suggests that its
closest lexical resemblances are with Patasho and Macuni {Mashacali).
Its resemblances to Puri-Coroado, Camacdn (mainly to Manya or
Menien), Ge Proper, and Caingang are much less, and those to Botocudo
Opaye, and late are very slight. The available lexical material is a
little over 100 words; no textual material or grammatical sketch are
known. Loukotka (1931-32 a) gives a critique of the value of the
three extant vocabularies.
Bibliography.—Loukotka, 1931-32 a; Martius, 1867, 2:207-208; Saint-Hilaire,
1830-51, 1:428-429; Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21, 2:321-323.
298 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
corop6
The classification of the extinct Coropo language is uncertain and
in disagreement; it is, therefore, treated separately and considered an
independent member of Macro-Ge. Loukotka (1937) calls it the most
interesting of all the languages in the old Ge group ; he believes that it
contains a large number of words borrowed from unidentified non-Ge
languages. Unfortunately, it is extinct without any known textual
material.
A comparison by the present author of the two known small vocab-
ularies appears to indicate a fair number of stems showing relationship
to the languages of the Mashacali group, especially to Maconi, a
little less to Caposho, Cumanasho, and Monosho, about the same to
Malali and Patasho (q, v.), a little less to the Puri-Coroado languages.
Considerable resemblance was also seen to Ge Proper, Caingang, and
Botocudo, but little to Camacdn, Opaye, and late.
The authorities disagree greatly as to whether Coropo should be
classified with the Puri-Coroado group (Nimuendajii, map; Loukotka,
1935, 1937, 1939 a; W. Schmidt, 1926) or with the Mashacali (Rivet,
1924 a). In view of this disagreement, Metraux's statement (Hand-
book, vol. 1, p. 523) that Coropo is "closely" related linguistically (as
well as culturally) wdth Coroado and Puri can hardly be accepted.
Bibliography.—Eschwege, 1818, pp. 165-171; Loukotka, 1937; Martius, 1867,
2: 167-169.
BOTOCUDO
The name ''Botocudo" signifies wearers of large lip-plugs and as
such has been applied to several groups of different linguistic affinities
which must be carefully distinguished. One Botocudo group, the
Ivapare, Are, Sheta, or Notobotocudo, is Tupi. The best-known
Botocudo, however, are Macro-Ge peoples. Here two groups must be
differentiated. One, of the State of Santa Catarina, is the Caingang
(q. v.). The larger and better-known group, of Minas Gerais and
Espirito Santo, has a language formerly considered Ge. It is, how-
ever, quite different from Ge Proper, and has been accorded inde-
pendent status by Loukotka (1935, 1939 a) and Nimuendajii (map)
and accepted by Metraux (Handbook vol. 1, p. 532). It is here con-
sidered as a member of the Macro-Ge phylum.
It might be better to allow Botocudo independence. No study of
it has been presented, and the morphology is unknown. The vocab-
ulary shows a small number of words related to other Macro-Ge
languages (but relatively few), and some probably due to borrowing.
The greater number of resemblances are with Coroado, next with
Camacdn. The Macro-Ge affinities in the data available are greater
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 299
than those of Opaye, late, and Patasho, but this may be due to greater
amount of data.
The constitution of the Botocudo group, since the latter is not well
known, is uncertain. The divisions are probably mainly political or
geographic. At least four of the languages marked as Botocudo by
Nimuendaju (map), Anket, Nacnyanuk, Pimenteira, and Yiporok, are
considered independent by various authors herein. Pimenteira (q. v.)
is rather distant from the main Botocudo group, and is considered
Carihan by some authorities.
Botocudo (Aimboee, Borun)
AranA (Aranya)
Crecmun
Chonvugn (Crenak)
Gueren
Gutucrac: Minya-yirugn (Minhagirun)
Nachehe (Nakrehe)
(Yiporok [Giporok]: Poicd [Poyishd, Pozitxd])
(Anket ?)
(Nacnyanuk f)
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17 (Engerekmung) ; Almeida, 1846
Anonymous, 1852 (Pozitxa); Castelnau, 1850-59, pp. 249-259; Ehrenreich, 1887
1896; Etienne, 1909 (Borun); Froes de Abreu, 1929 (Crenaque); Ignace, 1909
Jomard, 1846, 1847; Marliere, 1825 a, 1825 b (Pajaurum, Krakmun, Naknanuk)
Martins, 1867, 2: 177-194 (Encreckmung, Crecmun, Djiopouroca) ; Reye, 1884
Renault, 1904; Rudolph, 1909; Saint-Hilaire, 1830-51, 1: 194-199; Silveira, A. A.
1921, pp. 529-543 (Pozitxa); Simoes da Silva, 1924 (Crenak); Tranga, 1882
Tschudi, 1866-69, 2: 288; Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21, 2: 305-314. (Undifferenti-
ated items are all of the Crecmun group.)
SHAVANTfi (CHAVANTE, SAVANTfi)
Four groups of Southern Brazil of very different linguistic affinities
are known to the Brazilian natives by the name Chavante. They
must be carefully distinguished. Three of them, the Oti, Opaye, and
Cucurd (q. v.), form small independent (provisionally) famihes; the
fourth, the Akwe (q. v.), is a Ge language.
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, 1913 c; Ihering, 1907; Martius, 1867,
2:135-139.
OTI
The extinct Oti (Chavante, Shavante, Eochavante) are one of the four
groups, all of different linguistic affinities, known as Chavante; they
must be distinguished. Now extinct, the small group was named
Eochavante by Von Ihering. The language has been accepted as
constituting an independent family by all authorities; Rivet (1924 a)
terms the family Savante. No suggestions as to larger affiliations
have been made by anyone.
Bibliography.—Borba, 1908, pp. 73-76; Ihering, 1912; Vocabulario Compa-
rado . . ., 1892.
300 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
OPAYE
Until recently accepted as one of the Ge languages, Opaye or Opaye
Shavante was separated from it and considered an independent family
by Loukotka (1935, 1939 a), Nimuendajii (map) also calls it isolated.
Though probably not extinct the data on it are scant. No gram-
matical sketch and no linguistic study are known. The lexical ma-
terial is limited to vocabularies collected by Nimuendajii and published
first by Von Ihering (1912) and later, enlarged, by Nimuendajii
(1932 a). Each consists of less than 300 words. There are very
few resemblances, even distant, with Ge, Camacdn, Mashacali or
Coroado, and almost all words are very different. The Ge and
Camacdn "intrusions" noted by Loukotka (1935, 1939 a) are not
evident, and Opaye should be considered unclassified until future
careful studies may prove otherwise.
In his vocabulary, Nimuendajii gives a few words from a variant
dialect Vaccaria, which Loukotka terms Guachi (Guaci) of Vaccaria.
Bibliography.—Ihering, 1912; Nimuendaju, 1932 a.
CUCURA
The sole evidence for this "family," and apparently for the ex-
istence of the tribe, seems to be a vocabulary of 31 words gathered by
the Czech explorer FriS in 1901 and pubUshed by Loukotka (1931 b).
These natives of the Rio Verde of Mato Grosso are one of a number of
groups known to the Brazilians as Shavante (q. v.). The Shavante-
Cucurd are apparently mentioned by no other wTiter and do not
appear in Nimuendajii's map and index. The vocabulary seems to
have no resemblance to any of the surrounding languages with which
Loukotka compares it, Opaye, Oti, Akwe, and Twpi-Guarani, but
might show affinity with some more distant stock. A very few
words are apparently borrowed from Tupi-Guarani. At any rate
such a small vocabulary, taken through an interpreter, can hardly
be accepted as definitely establishing a new linguistic family. The
language is now presumed to be extinct.
Bibliography.—Loukotka, 1931 b; Nimuendajii, 1932 b.
guaitacAn
Goyatacd (Guaitakd, Waitacd, etc.) was adopted as the name of a
stock or family by Chamberlain (1913 a), and as a substock of
"Tapuya" (Ge) by Brinton (1891 a); the latter included under it the
Mashacali languages, Patasho and Coropo. W. Schmidt (1926)
accepted it for the name of his subgroup that included the Puri-
Coroado languages, and Rivet (1924 a) included it in that group.
As Guaitacd became extinct before a word of it was recorded (see
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 301
Handbook, vol. 1, p. 521; M^traiix, 1929 b), it cannot be regarded as
anything but an unclassified language, as Nimuendaju places it.
There is no reason for classing it with Puri-Coroado or with any other
group. It very likely, however, was a Macro-Ge language. Four
subdivisions are known.
GUAITACX
1. Mopi
2. Yacorito
3. Wasu
4. Miri
Bibliography.—Ehrenreich, 1905; Koenigswald, 1908 b; M^traux, 1929 b;
Steinen, 1886.
SMALL LANGUAGES OF THE PERNAMBUCO REGION
{Fulni6, Natu, Pancararu, Shocd, Shucurtl, Tushd, Carapatd, Payacd, Terememhi,
Tarairiu or Ochucayana)
Along and to the northeast of the San Francisco River in the States
of Alagoas, Sergipe, Pernambuco, and Bahia are, or were, a number of
small tribes the languages of which seem to be sufficiently variant from
themselves and from others with which they have been compared to
be classified by Nimuendaju (map) and accepted by Lowie (Hand-
book, vol. 1, p. 553) as isolated or independent. All are so small,
unimportant, or newly identified that none of them is mentioned by
Rivet (1924 a) or by earlier compilers, and only Fulnio {late) is listed
by Loukotka (1935, 1939 a), and rates especial mention. On all but
the last the lexical data seem to be very slight and difficult of access;
most of them seem to be in unpublished notes and observations of
Estevao de Oliveira and Nimuendaju, whose opinion as to the isolated
status must therefore be accepted for the present.
Fulnio.—Fulnio (Fornio, Carnijo, late) is the native name; the
Brazilians of Aguas Bellas call them Carnijo. Loukotka (1935, 1939 a)
terms the family late. There are no subdivisions. Loukotka sees
Camacdn intrusions, and this is borne out by a superficial comparison
of the data published by him; Fulnio seems to show closer resemblance
to Camacdn than to any other of the Macro-Ge languages, but not
enough to be itself placed in this group for the present. Schuller
(1930 a) improperly identified the language with Mongoyo.
Pancararu.—Pancararu (Pankaru, Pancaru) has sometimes been
classified as a Cariri language but is better considered as isolated in
agreement with the opinions of Lowie and Nimuendaju. (See Hand-
book, vol. 1, p. 561.)
Shoco.—Shoco (Soko, Choco) must not be confused with the Isth-
mian Choco.
Shucuru.—Shucuru (Sukuru) is divided by Nimuendaju (map) into
302 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
two groups, those of Cimbres and those of Pahneira dos Indios. The
latter appear to be known only by the notes of Oliveka,
Teremembe.—Though more important historically than most of
the above groups, nothing is known of the language of the Teremembe
(Metraux, Handbook, vol. 1, p. 573).
Tarairiu or Ochucayana.—Though generally classified as a Ge
language, the available linguistic data do not support the affinity, and
Lowie (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 563) thinks that it may be considered a
distinct stock as proposed by Pompeu Sobrinho (1939)
—
probably too
radical a decision, Nimuendajii's preference (map) to leave it unclassi-
fied is better. SchuUer (1930 a) also called it "ein stamm"; Ehren-
reich (1894) believed it affiliated with 6e and especially with Patasho.
Loukotka (1935, 1939 a) calls it Carib, mixed with Ge, which is doubt-
ful, in view of its distance from any other Carib group.
Natu, Tusha, Carapato, Payacu.—Little is known of these languages.
Nimuendaju leaves them unclassified; other authorities ignore them.
Lowie (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 553) speaks of "six unrelated linguistic
families within the area": Fulnio, Shucuru, Pancararu, Natu, Shoco,
and Tushd. Thus to accord them familial status is certainly not
justified by the few data on them.
Bibliography.—See bibliographies in Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 556, 561, 566, 571,
574. Most of the more recent works (Branner, 1887; Melo, 1927, 1929; Pompeu
Sobrinho, 1935, 1939; SchuUer, 1930 a) refer to the Fulnid. Pinto, 1938, treats
of the Pancaru; SchuUer, 1913 c, of the Tarairiu.
SOUTHERNMOST LANGUAGES
ATAGUITAN
Ataguita is here for the first time proposed as a hybrid term for the
hypothetical Atacama-Diaguita linguistic group. It is unproved, and
no definite proof of the relationship has been offered, but the con-
nection has been accepted by several authorities. First suggested by
SchuUer (1908), W. Schmidt (1926) proposed a Cunza-Diaguita Group,
and Jijon y Caamano (1941-43) adopts it as an Atacameno-Diaguita
phylum.
Synonyms: Atacameno, Cunza, Kunza, Likananta, Likananiai, Lipe, Ulipe.
Though a few individuals may still speak the old Cunza language
little is known of it. A modern study and grammar is urgently
needed, though even a thorough study of the grammar of San Roman
(1890) might link it to one of the larger linguistic families. Most
authorities from Chamberlain (1911 b) down have accorded Atacama
an independent position. Loukotka (1935) sees vestiges of Arawak
in it. Von Tschudi (1866-69) suggested that it is a descendant of
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 303
Calchagui-Diaguita, and W. Schmidt (1926), accepting the arguments
of Schuller (1908), proposes a Cunza-Diaguita group, uniting Aiacama
and Calchaqui. (See Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 599, 605, 606.)
Bibliography.—Boman, 1908; Brand, 1941 c; Chamberlain, 1911 b, pp. 465-467;
Darapsky, 1889; Echeverria y Reyes, 1890, 1912; Maglio, 1890; Moore, 1878;
San Romdn, 1890; Schuller, 1908; Tschudi, 1866-69; Vaisse, Hoyos, and Eche-
verria y Reyes, 1895.
OMAWACA (OMAHUACA)
The affinities of the extinct Omahuaca (Omawaka, Omaguaca, etc.)
and Humahuaca are, and probably always will be, uncertain. It is
one of the four South American languages that Loukotka (1935)
declined to classify. Rivet (1924 a) places it with Quechua, Jij6n y
Caamano (1941-43) with Atacameno-Diaguita.
The Omahuaca are said to have been a mixture of Diaguita and
Aymara, and spoke Quechua at the time of their extinction as a tribal
entity. (See Handbook, vol. 2, p. 619.)
DIAGUITA OR CALCHAQUf
Since not one word of the extinct Diaguita or of its related languages
has been positively identified, its status depending on early statements
and proper-name etymologies, its independent position, relationship
with other "families" and with its probably component languages
will probably never be conclusively determined, unless a copy of the
lost Barcena grammar is found. Diaguita (Diaguite, Diagit) is the
term most frequently used for the group, but Calchaqui (an) was the
earlier term employed by Chamberlain (1912 a, 1912 b) and his
followers, and Brinton (1891 a) preferred Catamarena.
The language of the Calchagui-Diaguita was known as Cacan{a) or
Kakania). It was replaced by Quechua in the 17th century. The
Calchaqui were but one tribe or nation of the group; other affiliated
languages as given in the table were probably of the status of dialects.
The Lule enter to complicate the problem even more. This name
was probably applied to several different groups in this general
region—or else to a group speaking several different languages. The
Lule of Padre Barcena seem to have been Diaguita, to be distinguished
from the Lule of Machoni, which is Vilela. (See Lule-Vilela, Vilela-
Chulupi, etc.)
The relationship of the extinct Sanaviron and Comechingon is also
in dispute. Most authorities consider these as forming the inde-
pendent Sanaviron (an) family. Krickeberg (1922) and W. Schmidt
(1926) place them under Diaguita. Loukotka (1935) puts Kakana
(Calchaqui), Sanavirona, and Vilela together in his Vilela family.
(See Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 657, 661-663.)
304 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Brinton finally accepted the suggestion that Diaguita had affinities
with Quechua. Relationships with the Atacama or Atacameno family
(q. V.) were suggested by Schuller (1908) and accepted by W. Schmidt
(1926), who lists a Cunza-Diaguita Group, Kunza being the name of
the principal Atacama language. The Diaguita "dialects" he lists as
Kaka(na), Tonokote (placed by others in Lule, Vilela and Mataco),
Zanavirona (though he also makes a Sanaviron family), and Indamu
(generally placed with Sanaviron)
.
All of the above conflicting opinions seem to be based on the most
inferential evidence, from which every seeker after knowledge may
take his choice.
Diaguita subgroups:—Abaucan, Amaycha, Anchapa, AndalgaM,
Anguinahao, Calchagui, Casminchango , Coipe, Colalao, Famatina,
Hualfina, Paquilin, Quilme, Taji, Tocpo, Tucumdn, Upingascha, and
Yocabil. Possibly also: Acalian, Catamarca, and Tamano.
Bibliography.—Barcena, MS., Boman, 1908; Cabrera, P., 1927, 1931; Canals
Frau, 1943 a, 1943 b; Chamberlain, 1912 a, 1912 b; Kersten, 1905; Lafone-Quevedo,
1898, 1919 a, 1927; Lizondo Borda, 1938; Schuller, 1908, 1919-20 b, pp. 572-573;
Serrano, 1936 b.
CHARRUA, KERANDI, GHANA, ETC,
Synonyms: Tsarrua, Carrua, Chand, Giienoa.
Charrua has been accepted as an independent family from the time
of Hervas y Panduro (1800), but suggestions as to affiliation with
all neighboring groups
—
Arawak, Ge, Guaicuru, Guarani, and Puelche—
have been made, as well as its connection with Querandi, for which
latter various connections have also been proposed (vide infra).
Brinton (1898), D'Orbigny (1839), M. S. Bertoni (1916), Outes
(1913 b), Serrano (1936 a, 1936 c), Schuller (1906), and others have
entered into this argument, as well as the recent classifiers such as Rivet
(1924 a), W. Sclmiidt (1926), and Loukotka (1935). One of the most
recent writers, S. Perea y Alonso (1942), considers all the Chane-Chand
languages, including Charrua, as Arawak. Even the present authors
herein, Lotlirop, Serrano, Cooper, and Metraux, do not agree. Ser-
rano (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 192) considers it related to Caingang. Nor
is there any agreement as to name; most authorities use variants of
Charrua, but Serrano herein insists that the generic name should be
Giienoa.
Most of the arguments are based on historical evidence and infer-
ence, since all of the languages have long been extinct with little re-
corded data; no more than 7 words of Charrua were known. Recently,
however, some 70 more words have been found and published (G6mez
Hardo, 1937), but never scientifically compared with other languages.
The opinions of present contributors may be cited as the most
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 305
modern. Serrano is certain that Charrua is a dialect of Chand and
related to the Caingang of Rio Grande do Sul (cf. Macro-Ge). Met-
raux doubts the Ge affiliation, and suggests that a comparison with
Puelche and other Patagonian and Chaco languages might prove
fruitful; Lothrop wisely makes no suggestions as to wider affiliations.
Nimuendaju's decision to leave Charrua unclassified is doubtless the
wisest one, Charrua sub tribes are said to be Guayantiran , Palomar,
and Negueguian.
In the La Plata region were many other languages, now long
extinct, on which the data are very deficient, with consequent great
differences of opinion regarding their affiliations. All these had best be
left unclassified. Most of them have been traditionally considered
Charruan. Prominent among these is the Queramdi (Kerandi), which
has variously been considered of Guaicuru, Het (Tehuelche), Arauca-
nian, and Guarani affiliations. Cooper (Handbook, vol. 1, p. 137)
says there is good argument for considering it Puelche. Giienoa and
Bohane may relate closely to Charrua, possibly also Caracand. Other
of the more important groups are Minuane, Yard, Colastine, Corondo,
Timhu, Mbegud, and Carcarand. Of lesser importance are Kiloazd,
Cayastd (Chaguayd), and Macurendd {Mocoretd). (See Lothrop,
Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 177-190.)
Bibliography.—Brinton, 1898 a; Chamberlain, 1911 b, pp. 469-471; Gomez
Hardo, 1937; Kersten, 1905; Lotlirop, 1932; Martinez, B. T., 1919; Orbigny,
1839; Outes, 1913 b; Perea y Alonso, 1938 b, 1942; Rivet, 1930 a; SchuUer, 1906,
1917; Serrano, 1936 a, 1936 c; Vignati, 1931 d.
Synonyms: Tsand, Tschand, Cand.
One of the important groups in this area, undifferentiated in locale,
is the Chand. Nimuendajii accepts the Chand as a linguistic entity,
leaving all the other before-mentioned languages as unclassified.
Affiliated with the Chand seem to be the Chand-Mhegud, Chand-
Timhu, and the Yaro. Perea y Alonso (1942) relates these Chand to
the Chane (q. v.) of southern Brazil and apparently believes almost all
the above-mentioned groups, including Charrua and all the natives of
the Banda Oriental of Uruguay, to be Arawak. For geographic reasons
this is open to doubt, pending further exposition.
Chand is a descriptive term and as such applied to a number of dis-
tinct groups of dift'erent linguistic affiliations that are liable to be con-
fused. It is said to be a Tupi word, probably meaning "m.y relations."
It seems to have been applied to certain Tupi, Guarani, and Chiri-
guano groups. It also seems to be a synonym for the Layand, a
southern Arawak group (according to W. Schmidt, 1926; Nimuendaju
considers the Layana to be Guaicuru., q. v.).
306 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Larranaga (1924 b) says the language was guttural, an amateurish
characterization applied to many Indian languages. Larranaga's
vocabulary and grammar was published by Lafone-Quevedo and
Torres. (See also Chane.)
Bibliography.—Brinton, 1898 a; Cardus, 1886; Kersten, 1905; Lafone-Quevedo,
1897 a, 1922; Larranaga, 1924 b; Lothrop, 1932; Orbigny, 1839; Outes, 1913 b;
Serrano, 1936 a, 1936 c.
ALLENTIAC OR HUARPEAN
Huarpe might be a better term than Allentiac for this linguistic
group, and is preferred by some modern writers, but the latter name
is probably too well established to make a change advisable. It has
been accepted as an independent family or stock by all authorities
since Brinton (1891 a) and Chamberlain (1913 a), generally under the
name Allentiac or variations thereof. Huarpe (Guarpe) is a synonym
of Allentiac. There is general agreement that the Millcayac language
was rather closely related.
The languages became extinct in the 18th century. However,
grammars of both Allentiac and Millcayac by Padre Valdivia are
known, though the first editions are extremely rare. Though the
group will probably eventually be tied up with some of the neighboring
languages, and probably affiliated with some one of the larger phyla,
few suggestions as regards such relationships have been made, and
none accompanied by good evidence. Some early statements suggest
a relationship with Fuelche, and Brinton (1891 a) placed Huarpe,
Puelche, and Araucanian in his Aucanian linguistic stock.
Canals Frau (1944) presents extensive evidence and argument that
the Comechingon (q. v.) were related to the Huarpe, and terms the
linguistic group Huarpe-Comechingon. He considers the group to
consist of the following languages
:
(1) Allentiac or Huarpe of San Juan; (2) Millcayac or Huarpe of
Mendocino; (3) Puntano Huarpe; (4) Puelche of Cuyo; (5) Ancient
Pehuenche; (6) Southern Comechingon, language: Camiare; (7) North-
ern Comechingon, language : Henia; (8) possibly Olongasta (Indians of
Southern Kioja). (See Canals Frau, Handbook, vol. 1, p. 169.)
As subgroups or dialects Pericot y Garcia (1936) names Zoguillam,
Tunuyam, Chiquillan, Morcoyam, Diamantino (Oyco), Mentuayn,
Chom, Titiyam, Otoyam, Ultuyam, and Cucyam.
Bibliography.—Cabrera, P., 1928-29; Canals Frau, 1941, 1942, 1943 a, 1943 b,
1944; Chamberlain, 1912 b; La Grasserie, 1900; Md,rquez Miranda, 1943, 1944;
Medina, J. T., 1918; Mitre, 1894; SchuUer, 1913 a, 1913 d.; Valdivia, 1607 a,
1607 b.
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 307
sanavik6n and comeching6nan
sanavir6n
There are few linguistic data on which to classify the extinct
Sanaviron and its affiliated languages, and the opinions are, therefore,
very variant. Most authorities, such as Chamberlain (1913 a),
Rivet (1924 a), and Nimuendajii (map and index), class it as an inde-
pendent family. Krickeberg (1922) places it under Diaguita; W.
Schmidt (1926) equivocates by establishing a Sanaviron family, but
also placing Zanavirona in his Cunza-Diaguita group. Loukotka
(1935) groups Sanavirona, Kakana (Calchaqui-Diaguita) , and Vilela
in his Vilela family. Jij6n y Caamano (1941-43) also places Sanaviron
in his Vilela-Lule phylum.
Sanaviron is omitted from the accompanying linguistic map, the
occupied area being allotted to Comechingon.
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1910 a, p. 198.
comeching6n
So little is known of the extinct Comechingon that its affiliation
may never be determined, and there is no present consensus. It has
been connected with three families, also all extinct. Most authorities
place it with Sanaviron; Krickeberg (1922) considers it related to
Diaguita. The most recent writer, Canals Frau, (Handbook, vol. 1,
p. 169; also 1944) links it with Huarpe (Allentiac). It is one of the few
languages that Loukotka (1935) wisely refuses to attempt to classify.
There seem to have been five subgroups or dialects. Michilingue
apparently belonged to the same group. Indamd or Indamu is gen-
erally associated with Comechingon, but W. Schmidt (1926) puts it
with Zanavirona in the Cunza-Diaguita group, not with Comechingon
under Sanaviron.
I. Comechingdn
A. Comechingdn
1. Main
2. Tuya
3. Mundema
4. Cdma
5. Umba
B. Michilingwe
C. Indama
Bibliography.—Canals Frau, 1944.
araucanian
The Araucanian (Araukan, Aucanian, Aucan) languages occupied a
moderately large solid area in northern Chile and adjacent Argentina;
their modern range is considerably reduced though the language is
794711—50 21
308 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
still vigorous, with speakers said to number upward of fifty thousand.
Their relationship with Puelche, Het, and Tehuelche or Chon (q. v.), as
well as with other "families" to the north of these, is likely but un-
proved. Considerable confusion is caused by the fact that names of
certain groups in almost all of these families end in "che," and others
ending in "het" are also thus divided. No one seems to have at-
tempted to subdivide the family on a linguistic basis, or to have
presented concise data on which this could be done. The linguistic
divisions probably coincide with the political and geographical ones,
but many groups, especially the extinct ones, are of doubtful rela-
tionship, even as to the Araucanian family. The classification here
given is based primarily on Brand (1941 c), so far as that goes. Few of
the other authorities agree with him or among themselves as regards
the minor groupings. The living groups are said to be of the order of
dialects, all mutually intelligible. The linguistic affinities of the
Pewenche (Pehuenche-Puelche) and the Huilliche Serrano are question-
able. (See Cooper, Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 128, 132, vol. 2, pp. 688-696
;
Canals Frau, Handbook, vol. 2, pp. 761-766.)
The Araucanian languages are said to be pleasant and harmonious.
Araucanian
I. North
A. Picunche
B. Mapuche
1. Pewenche
a. Rankeliche)
2. Moluche
II. South
A. Wiliche {Huilliche)
1
.
Wiliche
a. Serrano
b. Pichi-Wiliche
2. Mamanero
B. Veliche (Chilote)
C. Chikiyami (Cuncho)
D. Leuvuche
III. East
A. Taluhet (Taluche) i
B. Divihet (Diviche) i
• Possibly member of separate Het family (q. v.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Amberga, 1914; Ameghino, C, 1913; Anonymous,
1876; Augusta, 1903, 1916, 1922; Barbara, 1879; Brand, 1941 a, 1941 c; Cafias
Pinochet, 1902, 1911 a; Darapsky, 1888; Echeverrfa y Reyes, 1900; Englert,
1934; Falkner, 1899; Febres, 1765, 1864, 1882; Figueroa, 1903; Groeber, 1926;
Gusinde, 1936; Gutierrez, 1871; Huaiquillaf, 1941; La Grasserie, 1898; Latcham,
1942; Lenz, 1895-97, 1904-05; Lillo, 1928; Loukotka, 1929-30, pp. 75-83; Mi-
lanesio, Domingo, 1918; Mitre, 1894, 1909, pp. 311-338; Moesbach, 1929-31, 1936,
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 309
Outes, 1914; Rodrfguez, Z., 1875; Santa Cruz, 1923 b; SchuUer, 1908; Sigifredo,
1942-45; Speck, 1924; Valdivia, 1887, 1897; Zeballos, 1922 b.
CHONO
The Chonoan " family" of the Chilean coast, recognized by Chamber-
lain (1913 a) and his followers, is no longer accepted. Only three
words seem to be known, and its independence was presumed on
grounds of early statements. Affiliations have been suggested with
all the neighboring groups, Araucanian, Tehuelche, and Alacaluf.
Rivet (1924 a) placed it with the last. It had best be left unclassified.
It must be distinguished from the Chon (Tson) or Tehuelche, but
doubtless these names are of common origin. (See Handbook, vol. 1,
pp. 48-49).
Bibliography.—Chamberlain, 1911 a; Cooper, 1917a, 1917b; Ferrario, 1939.
PUELCHEAN
Synonyms: Pueltse, Puelce, Kunnu, Gennaken, Pampa.
The group has been recognized since early days but its constitution
is greatly under discussion. Brinton (1891 a) grouped Puelche,
Araucanian, and some other languages in his Aucanian stock; Cham-
berlain (1911 a, 1913 a) and all subsequent authorities have accepted
a Puelche{an) family. They are often referred to as northern Tehuelche,
or merely Tehuelche, but belong to a separate family from the true or
southern Tehuelche; the latter is the older name for the southern
family but leads to confusion with the Puelche, so the modern name
Chon (q. v.) is preferable for the former.
All authorities recognize but one language in the family, Puelche,
unless Chechehet is related; this is now often placed in a family of its
own, Het (q. v.). Ten dialects are said to have been spoken, but
today only two, eastern and western, are reported. Relationships
have been suggested with Guaicuru, Araucanian, Het, Chon, and
Charrua, none of which would be in the least surprising. The old
source, Valdivia (1607), says that Puelche differs very slightly from
Millcayac (Allentiac), but he may have been referring to another
group of Puelche.
Bibliography.—Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Brinton, 1892 d; Chamberlain,
1911 b; Harrington, T., 1925; Milanesio, Domenico, 1898; Outes, 1928 a; Outes
and Bruch, 1910; Valdivia, 1607 a.
HET (chechehet)
Although only 15 words and some place names seem to be known,
Lehmann-Nitsche argued that the language of the Chechehet (Tsetsehet,
Cecehet), formerly considered as a Puelchean (q. v.) language, is
radically different from the latter and entitled to be considered an
310 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
independent family. He called the family "Hef; Rivet (1924 a)
adopts the same name. Loukotka (1935) and Nimuendajii prefer
their orthographic variants of Chechehet; the former accepts it as a
family, the latter as "isolated." Together with the Chechehet go a
group who Hved with the Araucanian Divihet (Diuihet) and were
known by that name only. The pertinent hnguistic data are based
on Falkner (1774), Hervds y Panduro (1800), and Dobrizhoffer (1784).
The language became extinct about the close of the 18th century.
The solution of the Het question is an historical, not a linguistic,
one. (See also Handbook, vol. 1, p. 134.)
Bibliography.—Dobrizhoffer, 1784; Falkner, 1774; Hervds y Panduro, 1800;
Lehmann-Nitsche, 1918 a, 1922, 1925 b, 1930 a.
CHONAN OR TEWELCHE (tEHUELCHE) AND ONA
The Chon or Tehuelche (Tson, Tschon, Con, Tsonekan, Tehnelchean)
has been considered independent since earliest classifications, and no
suggestions of larger relationships have been made except for those
of Rivet (1925 a, 1925 b, 1925 c, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1927 b, 1927 c) whose
revolutionary belief in a connection with Australian languages has
been accorded ex-cathedra condemnation by all North American
anthropologists, probably without sufficient scientific consideration.
The term Tehuelche was often used in a geographical rather than a
linguistic sense, and the northernmost Tehuelche, the Kuni, seem to
have spoken a Puelche tongue. The three languages of Tehuelche
proper were almost unintelligible, but now are less so (Cooper, Hand-
book, vol. 1, p. 130). The two divisions of the Ona could understand
each other only with difficulty; the dialects differ slightly (Cooper,
Handbook, vol. 1, p. 108). However, Tehuelche and Ona are rather
closely related. The various classifications differ but slightly. The
affiliations of the Paya are uncertain.
Ona was long considered as forming a separate family from Tehuel-
che. Though the names are probably connected in origin, the Chon
must be differentiated from the Chono (q. v.) of the Chilean coast.
Chon
I. Chon {Tehuelche)
A. Tehuelche
1. Td'uushn {Tewesh)
2. Northern: Payniken (Pd'ankun'k)
a. Poya
3. Southern: Inaken (Ao'nukun'k)
B. Onai
1. Haush (Manekenkn)
2. Shelknam
a. Northern
b. Southern
1 Brinton (1891 a, p. 331) gives Huemul and Peachere (.Ire) as other divisions of the Ona.
Vol.6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 311
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Ameghino, C, 1913; Beauvoir and Zeballos, 1915;
Brinton, 1892 c, 1892 d; Chamberlain, 1911 a, 1911 b; Cooper, 1917 a, 1917 b;
Ferrario, 1942; Furlong, C. W., 1917 b; Hunziker, 1910, 1928; La Grasserie, 1906;
Lahille, 1928, 1929, 1934; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1912 a, 1912 b, 1913, 1923; Lista,
1896; Lothrop, 1928; Lowie, 1933; Muller, Frederick, 1882; Outes, 1913 a, 1926,
1928 a, 1928 b, 1928 c; Rivet, 1925 a, 1925 b, 1925 c, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1927 b, 1927 c;
Schmid, 1860, 1912 a, 1912 b; Spegazzini, 1888; Tonelli, 1926; Zeballos, 1915.
YAHGANAN
The independence of the Yahgan (Yagan, Ydmana, Yahganan)
family or stock has never been doubted. Except from this point of
view it is unimportant ; it is practically extinct
;
probably not more than
20 Yahgan survive. The tongue is said to be markedly euphonic,
soft, melodious, agreeable, with a rich vocabulary.
There is only one language, with five mutually intelligible dialects,
of which the Central and Western are said to be most alike.
I. Yahgan
A. Eastern
B. Central-Western
1. Central
2. Western
C. Southern
D. Southwestern
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, 1885; Brand, 1941 c; Bridges, 1884-85, 1933; Brinton, 1892 c; Chamber-
lain, 1911 a; Cooper, 1917 a, 1917 b;iDarapsky, 1889; Denuce, 1910; Garbe, 1883;
Gusinde, 1928 b, 1934; Haberl, 1928; Hestermann, 1927 b, 1929; Knudsen Larrain,
1945; Koppers, 1926, 1927, 1928; Lothrop, 1928; Muller, Frederich, 1882; Outes,
1926-27 a, 1926-27 b; Platzmann, 1882; Spegazzini ,1888; Wolfe, 1924.
ALACALUFAN
The AlacaluJ (Alikuluf, Alukulup, and similar orthographical vari-
ants), the southernmost language of South America, has been recog-
nized since earliest times as constituting an independent family. No
relationships with any other group have been suggested, except
Rivet's (see Chon) belief in their connection with Australian languages.
The language is said to be harsh, with explosives and gutturals, though
not so strong as in Ona. Three "dialects" are reported, but 10 or
more groups, presumably each with its dialect, are named; how they
group in subdivisions is unknown. The northernmost, Chono (q. v.),
is of uncertain affiliation. Most of the languages or dialects are ex-
tinct. The same may almost be said of the group ; estimates of their
number vary from 250 to none.
312 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The following groups or dialects are reported:
Caucawe {Kaukahue, etc.) Adwipliin
Enoo or Peshera (Pesera) Alikulip, Alakaluf, etc.
Lecheyel (Letseyel) Calen
Yekinawe {Yequinahuere, etc.) Taijatof
Chono (Tsono) {q. v.), Carazcc (iCaraiAia), and Poya may also belong.
Bibliography.—Borgatello, 1924, 1928 a, 1928 b; Brand, 1941 c; Brinton,
1892 c; Chamberlain, 1911 a; Cooper, 1917 a, 1917 b; Ferrario, 1939; Gusinde,
1927 b; Hestermann, 1927 c; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1918 b, Lothrop, 1928; 1921;
Skottsberg, 1913, 1915; Spegazzini, 1888.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following bibliography is an attempt to cite all the known sources for
South American native languages, without qualification as to value. Very few
of 'them were consulted in the preparation of the preceding monograph. Many
of them were taken from Dr. Paul Rivet's bibUographies published annually in
the Journal de la Soci6t6 des Am^ricanistes de Paris; many others from Jij6n y
Caamano's El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental, vol. 3, 1943.
Abreu, 1895, 1914, 1938 a, 1938 b; Acosta Orteg6n, 1938; Acuna, 1641; Adam,
1878, 1879, 1885, 1890 a, 1890 b, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1896, 1897 a, 1897 b; 1897-98,
1899, 1902, 1905, 1906; Adam and Henry, 1880; Adam and Leclerc, 1877, 1880;
Adelung and Vater, 1806-17; Agiiero, 1929; Aguilar, 1939; Aguirre, 1898; Ahl-
brinck and Vinken, 1923-24; Albis, 1855, 1860-61, 1934; Albuquerque, 1916;
Alemany, 1906 a, 1906 b; Alemany y Bolufer, 1929 a, 1929 b; Almeida, H., 1846;
Almeida, W., 1931; Altieri, 1939 a, 1939 b; Alvarado, 1919 a, 1919 b, 1921; Amaral,
1920; Amberga, 1914; Ambrosetti, 1894, 1895 a, 1895 b; Ameghino, C, 1913;
Amorim, 1928; Anchorena, 1874; Anonymous, 1852, 1876, 1879, 1882, 1897,
1902, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1914, 1917, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1918-19, 1919 a, 1919 b, 1919 c,
1919 d, 1919 e, 1921, 1924, 1925, 1926-27, 1927 b, 1928 a, 1928 b, 1928 c, 1929,
1930 a, 1930 b, 1930 c, 1930 d, 1931, 1932, 1933 a, 1933 b, 1933 c, 1933 d, 1934,
1936, 1937, 1939, 1941; Arcaya, 1918; Archive Nacional. . . n. d.; Arcila Robledo,
1940; Armellada, 1936; Armellada and Matallana, 1942; Armentia, 1888, 1898,
1902, 1903, 1904; Astete, 1936-37, 1937 a, 1937 b; Augusta, 1903, 1916, 1922;
Ayllon, 1926; Ayrosa, 1933, 1934 a, 1934 b, 1934 c, 1934 d, 1934 e, 1934 f, 1934 g,
1935 a, 1935 b, 1935 c, 1935 d, 1935 e, 1935 f, 1935 g, 1935 h, 1935 i, 1935 j, 1935 k,
1936 a, 1936 b, 1936 c, 1936 d, 1936 e, 1936 f, 1937 a, 1937 b, 1937 c, 1938, 1939,
1941, 1943; Aza, 1923, 1924 a, 1924 b, 1924 c, 1927, 1928, 1930 a, 1930 b, 1930-32,
1931, 1933 a, 1933 b, 1935, 1937; Azpilcueta, 1938.
Bacarreza, 1910; Bach, 1916; Bachiller y Morales, 1883; Balbi, 1826; Baldus,
1927, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1937; Bancroft, 1874-76; Baptista, 1931-32; Barbard,
1879; Barbosa da Faria, 1925; Barbosa Rodrigues, 1885, 1892-94; Barcatta de
Valfloriana, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1920; Bdrcena, 1590, 1893; Barranca, J. S.,1914,
1915-20, 1922; Barranca, S., 1868, 1876; Barrett, 1925; Barros Arafia, 1893;
Basadre, J., 1939; Basadre, M., 1884; Bastian, 1876, 1878-89; Beauvoir and
Zeballos, 1915; Belaieflf, 1931-34, 1937, 1940; Bell, C. N., 1862; Berckenhagen,
1894, 1905, 1906; Berendt, 1874 a, 1874 b; Berengueras, 1934; Bernal P., 1919;
Bernard de Nantes, 1709; Berrlos, 1919 a, 1919 b; Bertoni, A. de W., 1924; Bertoni,
G. T., 1924, 1926, 1926-27, 1927, 1939; Bertoni, M. S., 1914, 1916, 1920, 1921,
1922, 1927 b, 1932; Bertonio, 1879 a (1603), 1879 b (1612); Beuchat and Rivet,
1907, 1908, 1909, 1909-10, 1910, 1911; Bibolotti, 1917; Bingham, 1922, 1930;
Boas, 1911, 1922, 1933; Boggiani, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1900, 1929; Bolinder, 1917,
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 313
1924, 1925; BoUaert, 1860; Boman, 1908; Booy, 1929; Borba, 1882, 1904, 1908
Borgatello, 1924, 1928 a, 1928 b; Botelho de Magalhaes, 1946; Bottignoli, n. d
(1938, 1940), 1926; Branco, 1935, 1937; Brand, 1941 a, 1941 c; Brandao de
Amorim, 1928; Branner, 1887; Breton, 1665, 1666, 1669, 1877; Brett, 1868
Briceno-Iragorry, 1929; Bridges, 1884-1885, 1933; Brinton, 1869 a, 1869 b, 1871
1884, 1885 a, 1885 b, 1885 c, 1886 a, 1886 b, 1886 c, 1887, 1889, 1890, 1891 a, 1891 b
1892 a, 1892 b, 1892 c, 1892 d, 1894 a, 1894 b, 1895 a, 1895 b, 1896, 1897, 1898 a
1898 b, 1898 c; Bruning, E., 1904, 1913; Briining, H. H., 1928; Buchwald, 1908 a
1908 b, 1915, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1924.
Caballero, 1933; Cabarera, P., 1924, 1927, 1928-29, 1931; Caillet, 1930-33
Calandrelli, 1896; Caldas, 1899, 1903; Camara Cascudo, 1934; Campana, 1902
Campanella, 1938-39; Canals Frau, 1941, 1942, 1943 a, 1943 b, 1944; Canas
Pinochet, 1902, 1911 a; Candelier, 1893; Capistrano de Abreu, 1938 a, 1938 b
Cardona Puig, 1945; Cardus, 1886, 1916; Carrasco, 1901; Carrera, 1939 (1644)
Carrocera, 1935; Carvalho, 1929, 1931; Castellvi, 1934 a, 1934 b, 1934 c, 1938
1939, 1940; Castelnau, 1850-59; Castillo, 1906; Castillo y Orozco, 1871; Castro
A., 1935; Castro, E. de, 1937; Cdvada, 1920, 1921; Celed6n, 1878, 1886, 1892 a
1892b; C^spedes Marin, 1923; Chaffanjon, 1889; Chagas-Lima, 1842; Chamber-
lain, [1903], 1907, 1910 a, 1910 b, 1911 a, 1911 b, 1912 a, 1912 b, 1912 c, 1913 a
1913 b, 1913 c; Chandless, 1866, 1869; Chantre y Herrera, 1901; Christensen
1917; Christian, 1924, 1932; Chuqiwanqa,1928; Church, 1898; Cieza de Le6n, 1881
(1918) ; Cimitile, n. d.; Cipriani, C. A., 1902; Clarke, 1937; Colbacchini, n. d., 1925
Colbacchini and Albisetti, 1942; Coleti, 1771; Collins, F., 1879; Colman, 1917
1921, 1929 a, 1929 b, 1932, 1936; Cominges, 1892; Constancio, 1939; Conzemius
1923, 1927-28, 1929 a, 1929 b, 1930 a, 1930 b, 1932; Cook, O. F., 1916; Cooper
1917 a, 1917 b; Coqueiro, 1935 a, 1935 b; Cordeiro, 1875; Cordero Palacios, 1924
Coryn, 1922; Cosio, 1916, 1919, 1923, 1924; Cotheal, 1848; Coudreau, H., 1886-87
1892, 1897 a, 1897 b, 1897 c; Coudreau, O., 1901, 1903 a, 1903 b; Couto de Magal-
haes, J. v., 1876; Couto de Magalhaes, J., 1902; Cr^qui-Montfort and Rivet
1912, 1913 a, 1913 b, 1913 c, 1913 d, 1913 e, 1913 f, 1914, 1914-19, 1916-17
1917-20, 1921, 1921-23, 1925-27; Crevaux, Sagot, and Adam, 1882; Cueva, 1893
CuUen, 1851 a, 1851 b (1853), 1866, 1868, 1875; Ciineo-Vidal, 1913, 1914, 1915a,
1915 b, 1915 c, 1916, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1920 a, 1920 b, 1922, 1930 a, 1930 b.
Dangel, 1930, 1931 a, 1931 b; Darapsky, 1888, 1889; Deletang, 1926-31; Del-
gado, A, and Vacas Galindo, 1929; Delgado, E., 1896-97; Denison, 1913; Denuce,
1910; Diaz Romero, 1918; Diaz, L., et Diaz, hijo, 1939; Dijour, 1931-32; Dobriz-
hoffer, 1784 (1822); Domfnguez, M., 1912; Domville-Fife, 1924; Donay, 1890;
Dornas Filho, 1938; Dorsey, 1898; Drumond, 1944, 1946; Ducci, 1904, 1905,
1911-12; Durand, 1915-18, 1921; Duroni, 1924 (1928), 1928; Dyott, 1926.
Echeverria y Reyes, 1890, 1900, 1912; Eckart, 1890; Ehrenreich, 1886, 1887,
1888, 1891, 1894-95, 1896, 1897 b, 1905; Englert, 1934; Eraso Guerrero, 1944;
Ernst, 1885, 1885 a, 1887 b, 1891, 1895; Eschwege, 1818, 1830; Espinosa, L.,
1935; Espinoza, A., 1938; Etienne, 1909, 1910; Ewerton Quadros, 1892.
F. M., 1907; Fabo, 1911; Falkner, 1774, 1899; Farabee, 1918 b, 1922, 1924;
Farfdn, 1939, 1941-42, 1942, 1943, 1944; Febres, 1765, 1864, 1882; Febres Cordero,
1921, 1942; Feijoo Reyna, 1924; Fejos, 1943; Fellechner, Miiller, and Hesse,
1845; Fernandes, J. A., 1892; Fernandez, L., 1884; Ferndndez Guardia and
Ferrez, 1892; Ferndndez de San Jos6 and Bartolom^, 1895; Ferndndez y Gonzdlez,
1893; Ferrario, 1927, 1933, 1934, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1942; Ferreira-Franga, 1859;
Ferreira-Penna, 1881; Fiebrig-Gertz, 1927, 1932; Figueira, 1878; Figueredo, 1701;
Figueroa, 1903; Flornoy, 1938; Fonseca, A., 1914 (1920); Fonseca, J. S. da, 1880-
81; Forero, 1934, 1939; Franco, 1882; Franco Inojosa, 1937; Freitas, 1910; Fric,
314 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ms.; Fri6 and Radin, 1906; Friederici, 1926, 1930; Fritz, 1922; Froes de Abreu,
1929, 1931; Fuhrmann, 1922; Furlong, C. W., 1917 b.
Gabb, 1875, 1886; Gagini, 1917; Galindo, 1834; Galvao, 1934; Gancedo, 1922;
Gandfa, 1931; Garbe, 1883; Garcia, J. A., 1917; Garcia, R., 1927; Garcilaso de
la Vega, 1723 (1869); Garraux, 1898; Garro, 1939, 1942; Gasso, 1908, 1910-14;
Gatschet, 1900; Gensch, 1908; Gez, 1915; Ghinassi, 1938, 1939; Giacone, 1939;
Giannecchini, 1896; Gili, 1902; Gilij, 1780-84; Gillin, 1936, 1940; de Goeje, 1906,
1908, 1910, 1924, 1928 a, 1928 b, 1929, 1929-30, 1930, 1930-31, 1931-32,
1932, 1932-33, 1934, 1935, 1939; G6mez Hardo, 1937; Gongalves Dias, 1855;
Gonzalez Holguin, 1607, 1608, 1901; Gonzdlez Sudrez, 1904; Gorrochotegui, 1918;
Greiffenstein, 1878; Grigdrieff, 1935; Grijalva, 1921; Groeber, 1926; Groeteken,
1907; Grubb, K. G., 1927; Grubb, W. B., 1911 (1913); Grupe y Thode, 1890;
Giiegiience, The . . . 1883; Guerrero y Sosa, 1932; Guimaraes, C. J. da S., 1865;
Guimaraes, G., 1930; Guimaraes, J. J. da S., 1854; Guimaraes Daupfas, 1922;
Gumilla, 1745; Gusinde, 1926 c, 1927 b, 1928 b, 1934, 1936; Gutierrez, 1871;
Guzmdn, 1920 a, 1920 b.
Haberl, 1928; Hanke, W., 1938; Hardenburg, 1910, 1912; Harrington, J. P.,
1925, 1943, 1944, 1945; Harrington, J. P., and Valciircel, 1941; Harrington, T.,
1925; Haseman, 1912; Hassel, 1902; Heath, E., 1883; Heath, G. R., 1913, 1927;
Henderson, A., 1846, 1847, 1872; Henderson, G., n. d., 1811; Henry, 1935, 1936,
1939, 1948; Hensel, 1869; Hermann, 1908; Herndndez, E., and Pinart, 1897;
Herrera, 1916, 1919, 1923, 1933, 1933-34, 1939 a, 1939 b, 1941 a, 1941 b; Hervds
y Panduro, 1800-05; Herzog, G., 1941; Herzog, W., 1886; Hestermann, 1910,
1914, 1914-19, 1925, 1927 a, 1927 b, 1927 c, 1929, 1938; Hilhouse, 1832, 1834;
Hocquart, 1916; Hoehne, 1915; Hoeller, 1932 a, 1932 b; Hoijer, 1941; Holmer,
1946, 1947; Holter, 1877; Horta Barbosa, 1922; Huaiquillaf, 1941; Hlibner, 1907;
Humboldt, 1822-27; Hunt, 1913 a, 1913 b, 1915 a, 1915 b, 1917, 1937, 1940;
Hunziker, 1910, 1928 a, 1928 b; Huonder, 1902; Hurley, 1931 a, 1931 b, 1932;
Hurtado, G. O., 1924, 1937.
Ignace, 1909, 1912; Igualada and Castellvf, 1940; Ihering, 1895, 1904, 1907,
1912; Imbelloni, 1928 b, 1936; Im Thurn, 1883; Isaacs, 1884; Iturry Nunez, 1939;
Izaguirre, 1927-29.
Jahn, 1914, 1927; Jduregui-Rosquellas, 1937; Jij6n y Caamano, 1919, 1921,
1923-24, 1938, 1939, 1941-43; Jimenez de la Espada, 1881-97; Jimenez Borja,
1937; Jimenez Moreno, 1936; Jimenez Seminario, 1924; Johnson, F., 1940;
Jomard, 1846, 1847; Jorge, 1924; Jos6 de Maria, 1918-19.
Karsten, 1919, 1920 a, 1920 b, 1921-22, 1922, 1923, 1932, 1935; Katzer, 1901;
Keller, Fr., 1874; Kersten, 1905; Kimmich, 1917-18; Kinder, 1936; Kissenberth,
1911, 1916; Knoche, 1931; Knudsen Larrain, 1945; Koch-Grunberg, 1902 a, 1902 b,
1902 c, 1903, 1906 a, 1906 b, 1906 c, 1908, 1909-10, 1910 a, 1910 b, 1911, 1912-16,
1913, 1914-19, 1915, 1922, 1928, 1932; Koch-Grunberg and Htibner, 1908; von
Koenigswald, 1908 a, 1908 b; Kok, 1921-22; Koppelmann, 1929; Koppers, 1926,
1927, 1928; Koslowsky, 1895; Krause, 1911, 1936; Krickeberg, 1922; Krug,
1925; Kruse, 1930; Kunike, 1916, 1919; Kupfer, 1870; Kysela, 1931.
Lafone-Quevedo, 1872 a, 1892 b, 1892-93, 1893 a, 1893 b, 1894, 1895 a, 1895 b,
1895 c, 1896 a, 1896 b, 1896 c, 1896-97, 1897 a, 1897 b, 1898, 1905, 1910 (1912),
1912 a, 1912 b, 1917, 1919 a, 1919 b, 1922, 1927; La Grasserie, 1890, 1892, 1894,
1898, 1900, 1904, 1906; Lahille, 1928, 1929, 1934; Lange, 1914; Larco Hoyle,
1938, 1939, 1944; Lares, 1918; Larranaga, 1924 a, 1924 b; Latcham, 1910, 1939 b,
1942; Latham, 1851; Leal, 1895; Leeris, 1592; Lehmann, H., 1945; Lehmann, W.,
1910 a, 1910 b, 1914, 1915, 1920; Lehmann-Nitsche, 1905, 1910-11, 1912 a, 1912 b,
1913, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 a, 1925 b, 1926, 1930 a, 1930 b,
1936-37; Lemos, 1920; Lemos Barbosa, 1937; Lengerke, 1878 a, 1878 b; Lenz,
Vol.6] LANGUAGES—^MASON 315
1895-97, 1904-05, 1904-10; Le6n, A. M., 1922, 1927, 1928-29, 1929, 1929-31,
1930 a, 1930 b, 1932-33, 1939, 1939-40; L6ry, 1599; Lillo, 1928; Lista, 1883, 1896;
Lizondo Borda, 1927, 1928, 1938; Llosa, 1906; Loayza, 1930; Lopes, 1925, 1934;
Lorenz, 1939; Lothrop, 1928, 1932; Loukotka, 1929, 1929-30, 1930, 1931 a, 1931 b,
1931-32 a, 1931-32 b, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1938, 1939 a, 1939 b, 1939 c; Lowie, 1933;
Lozano, 1941; Lozano-Machuca, 1885; Ludewig, 1858; Lugo, 1619.
Macedo y Pastor, 1931-35, 1936, 1939; Machado d'Oliveira, 1936; Machoni de
Cerdena, 1732 (1877), 1894; Magalhaes, 1919; Magalli, 1890, 1891; Magio, 1880;
Maglio, 1890; Maldonado de Matos, 1918 a, 1918 b; Mamiani, 1877; Marbdn,
1894; Marcano, 1890 a, 1890 b, 1891; Marcoy, 1867 (1866, 1869), 1875; Maria,
1914; Markham, 1864 a, 1864 b, 1871, 1894-95 (1910); Marliere, 1825 a,
1825 b, ms.; Marques, 1903, 1931; M^rquez Miranda, 1943, 1944; Martinez,
B. T., 1904, 1917, 1919; Martinez, T. A., 1916; Martinez Orozco, 1938; Martins,
1867; Mason, J. A., 1940, 1945; Massei, 1895; Mata, 1923; Matto de Turner, 1926;
Mayntzhusen, 1917, 1919-20; McGee, 1903; McKinney, Medina, and Penaranda,
1930; Medina, J. T., 1918, 1930 a, 1930 b; Medina, M., 1919-20, 1920-21; Meillet
and Cohen, 1924; Melo, 1927, 1929; Membreilo, 1897; Mercante, 1924; Merizalde
del Carmen, 1921; Metraux, 1929, 1930, 1936 a, 1936 b, 1940, 1942 a, 1942 b;
Middendorf, 1890, 1891, 1892; Milanesio, Domenico, 1898, 1917; Milanesio,
Domingo, 1918; Missao Salesiana, 1908; Mitre, 1894, 1909-10; Mochi, 1902-03;
Moesbach, 1929-31, 1936; Mollien, 1824 (1924); Monoyer, 1905; Montesinos,
1920; Montolieu, 1882, 1895; Moore, 1878; Morales, 1929; Mordini, 1935; Moreira-
Pinto, 1894; Moreno-Mora, 1922, 1934; Morinigo, 1931, 1935; Mosquera, 1866;
Mossi, 1916; Mostajo, 1923; Muller, Franz, 1934-35; Miiller, Frederich, 1882;
Murdock, 1936; Murrieta, 1936.
Narvdez, 1944; Navarro, 1903; Nimuendajd, 1914 a, 1914 b, 1914 c, 1914 d,
1915, 1923-24, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1928-29, 1929 a, 1929 b, 1931, 1931-32, 1932 a,
1932 b, 1946; Nimuendajii and Valle Bentes, 1923; Nino, 1917; Nordenskiold,
1905, 1910 a, 1910 b, 1911 a, 1911 b (1923), 1912, 1915 a, 1915 b, 1922, 1924 b,
1928, 1928-30, 1929 b, 1932, 1938; Noronha Torrezao, 1889; Nusser-Asport,
1890, 1897.
Oefner, 1942; Oiticica, 1933, 1934; Olea, 1928; Oliveira, C. E. de, 1930; Oliveira,
J. F. de, 1913 a, 1913 b; Oiiveres, 1934-35; Ollanta, 1878; Oramas, 1909, 1913 a,
1913 b, 1914, 1916, 1918 a, 1918 b, 1920; Orbigny, 1839, 1896; Ore, 1607; Orejuela,
1934; Ortiz, 1937, 1938, 1938-39 a, 1938-39 b, 1940 a, 1940 b, 1940 c, 1941 a,
1941 b, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1946; Orton, 1871; Osculati, 1854; Ossa V., 1938;
Osuna, 1921, 1923 a, 1923 b, 1924 a, 1924 b, 1924 c, 1925, 1926 a, 1926 b; Otero,
1938-39; Outes, 1913 a, 1913 b, 1914, 1926, 1926-27 a, 1926-27 b, 1928 a, 1928 b,
1928 c, 1928 d; Outes and Bruch, 1910.
Pablo del Santisimo Sacramento, 1933; Pacheco Zegarra, 1878; Palavecino,
1926, 1928, 1930, 1931-33; Panconcelli-Calzia, 1921; Pape, 1935; Paris, 1924;
Patron, 1918; Patr6n and Romero, 1923; Paula, 1924; Paula Martins, 1941, 1945 a,
1945 b; Paula-Souza, 1918; Pauly, 1928; Payer, 1906; Paz y Nino, 1936-37; Paz
Solddn, 1877; Peccorini, 1910; Pelleschi, 1881, 1896; Penard, A. P., 1928-29;
Penard, T. E., 1926-27, 1927-28; Penard, T. E., and Penard, A. P., 1926-27;
Penaranda and Medina, 1923; Perea y Alonso, 1937, 1938 a, 1938 b, 1942; Perez,
1935; P^rez Guerrero, 1934; Pericot y Garcia, 1936; Perret, 1933; PetruUo, 1939;
PfafF, 1890; Philipson, 1946 a, 1946 b; Pierini, 1908; Pinart, 1887, 1890 a, 1890 b,
1892 b, 1897, 1900; Pinart and Carranza, (eds.), 1890; Pindorama, 1937; Pinell,
1928; Pinto, 1938; Pittier de Fabrega, 1898, 1903, 1907; Pittier de Fdbrega and
Gagini, 1892; Platzmann, 1882, 1888, 1896, 1901; Pohl, 1832-37; Poindexter, 1930;
Polak, 1894; Polo, 1901 (1910); Pombo, 1931; Pompeu Sobrinho, 1919, 1928, 1930,
1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1939; Porter, 1911; Portnoy, 1936; Posnansky, 1915,
316 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
1918, 1931, 1934; Preuss, 1919-27, 1921-23, 1925; Prieto, 1885; Prince, C, 1905;
Prince, J. D., 1912, 1913 a, 1913 b; Pulgar Vidal, 1937; Puydt, 1868.
Quandt, 1807, 1900.
Radwan, 1929; Raimondi, 1862; Raimundo, 1934; Rat, 1897-98; Recalde, 1924,
1937 a, 1937 b; Reich, 1903; Reich und Stegelmann, 1903; Reichel-Dolmatoflf,
1944, 1945 a, 1945 b; Reinburg, 1921; Remedi, 1896, 1904; Renault, 1904; Restivo,
1892; Restrepo Canal, 1936; Reye, 1884; Rice, 1930, 1931, 1934; Richter, 1928;
Rimbach, 1897; Ripalda, 1923; Rivas, 1944; Rivet, 1905, 1907-08, 1910 a, 1910 b,
1911 a, 1911 b, 1912 a, 1912 b, 1916, 1920 a, 1920 b, 1920 c, 1921 a, 1921 b, 1924 a,
1924 b, 1924 c, 1924 d, 1925 a, 1925 b, 1925 c, 1925 e, 1926 a, 1926 b, 1927 a, 1927 b,
1927 c, 1928, 1929 a, 1929 b, 1930 a, 1930 b, 1934, 1941, 1943, 1943-44; Rivet,
Kok, and Tastevin, 1924-25; Rivet and Oppenheim, 1943; Rivet and Reinburg,
1921; Rivet and Tastevin, 1919-24, 1920, 1921, 1924, 1927-29, 1931, 1938-40;
Roberts, F. J., and Symes, 1936; Robledo, 1922; Robuchon, 1907; Rocha, 1905;
Rochefort, 1658 (1667); Rochereau, 1926-27, 1932; Rodriguez, M. C, 1921;
Rodriguez, Z., 1875; Rojas, 1942; Romano and Cattunar, 1916; Romero, C. A.,
1931; Romero y Cordero, 1930; Rond6n, 1910, 1915; Roquette-Pinto, 1912, 1917,
1935; Rosell, 1916; Rosen, 1904; Rosenblat, 1936; Roth, 1924; Rothlisberger,
1883-84; Rowe and Escobar, 1943; Rozo M., 1938; Rudolph, 1909; Ruiz Blanco,
1888 a, 1888 b, 1892; Ruiz de Montoya, 1876 a, 1876 b, 1876 c, 1876 d, 1892;
Ruiz Palazuela, 1927; Ryden, 1941.
Saavedra, 1931; Sdenz, 1876; Saffray, 1872; Sagot, 1882; Saint-Hilaire, 1830-33,
1847-48, 1851; Sala, R. P. A. M., 1920; Sala, G., 1897, 1905-06; Salas, 1918, 1919,
1924; Salath6, 1931-32; Saldias, 1912; Sampaio, T., 1890, 1912; Sanchez Labrador,
1896, 1910-17; San Romdn, 1890; Santa Cruz, 1913, 1921, 1922, 1923 a, 1923 b
Santa Teresa, 1924; Santo Thomds, 1891; Santos, N. C. dos, 1934 a, 1934 b,
Sanudo, 1923; Sapir, 1925; Sapper, 1897, 1901, 1905; Schermair, 1934; Scherzer,
1855; Schmid, 1860, 1912 a, 1912 b; Schmidt, M., 1902, 1903, 1905, 1912, 1914 a,
1914 b, 1917, 1929 a, 1936 a, 1936 b, 1937 a, 1937 b, 1937 c, 1938, 1941, 1942;
Schmidt, W., 1905, 1925, 1926; Schomburgk, 1847-48, 1849; Schuller, 1906,
1907 a, 1907 b, 1908, 1911 a, 1911 b, 1912 a, 1912 b, 1912 c, 1912 d, 1913 a, 1913 b,
1913 c, 1913 d, 1916, 1917, 1917-18, 1919-20 a, 1919-20 b, 1921, 1925, 1928, 1930 a,
1930 b, 1930 c, 1933, 1936; Schultz, T., 1816 (1850); Seemann, 1853; Seler, 1885,
1902 a, 1902 b; Selva, 1922; Senna, 1932; Serrano, 1936 a, 1936 b, 1936 c, 1941;
Sigifredo, 1942-45; Silveira, A. A., 1921; Silveira, E. da, 1935; Silveira, G., 1938;
Simoes da Silva, 1924; Simon, 1887; Simpson, 1940 c; Simson, 1879 a, 1879 b,
1886. 1899; Skinner, 1920; Skottsberg, 1913, 1915; Snethlage, E., 1910, 1932;
Snethlage, E. H., 1931, 1932 a, 1932 b, 1936; Socrates, 1892; Solari, 1928; Solfs,
1923, 1928; Soliz Rodriguez, 1926; Souza, A., 1916 a, 1916 b, 1920; Souza, C,
1875; Speck, 1924; Spegazzini, 1888; Spix and Martins, 1823-31; Squier, 1852,
1853, 1858; Stahel, 1944; Steere, 1903; Steffen, 1923; Stegelmann, 1903; Steinen,
1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, 1901, 1904, 1906, 1912; Steinthal, 1888; Stiglich, 1908;
Stirling, 1938; Stoll, 1884; Storni, 1944; Stout, 1947; Stradelli, 1910, 1929; Stromer,
1932; Studart, 1926; Sudrez, 1930; Sudrez de Cepeda, 1923; Swadesh, 1939;
Sympson, 1926.
TagHavini, 1928; Talbet, 1926; Talbot, 1931-32; Tapia, D., 1888; Tasc6n, 1934;
Tasso Yatahy, 1918; Tastevin, 1908, 1919, 1923 a, 1923 b, 1923 c, 1923 d, 1924,
1928 a, 1928 b; Taunay, 1868, 1888; Tauste, 1888; Tavera-Acosta, 1907, 1921-22,
1930; Tavohni, 1856; Taylor, 1946; Tebboth, 1943; Techo, 1673; Tello, 1913 b,
1923, 1931; Terto, 1917; Teschauer 1914, 1921, 1927; Tessmann, 1928, 1929, 1930;
Teza, 1868; Thiel, 1882, 1886; Thomas, C, and Swanton, 1911; Thouar, 1891;
Tocantins, 1877; Tola Mendoza, 1939; Tonelli, 1926, 1927, 1928; Torres, A. M.,
1931; Torres Rubio, 1603, 1619, 1754; Touchaus, 1908; Tranga, 1882; Triana,
Vol. 6] LANGUAGES—MASON 317
1907; Trombetti, 1925, 1928; Tschudi, 1853, 1866-69, 1884, 1891; Tulcdn, 1934 a,
1934 b.
Uhle, 1890, 1896, 1919, 1931; Up de Graff, 1923; Uribe, 1883; Uribe Angel, 1885;
Uricoechea, 1854, 1871, 1877; Urteaga, 1895.
Vacas Galindo, 1895, 1903 a, 1903 b; Vaisse, Hoyos, and Echeverria y Reyes,
1895; Valcdrcel, 1933; Valdivia, 1607 a (1894, 1940), 1607 b (1918), 1887 (1606),
1897; Valenzuela, 1918-19; Valle Cabral, 1880; Vallejo, 1910; Vara Cadillo, 1931,
1937; Vdsquez, 1902; Vazquez, 1921-24; Veigl, 1785 a, 1785 b; Velasco, 1840;
Velazco Arag6n, 1923; Veldzquez, 1916; Vellard, 1934-35, 1937; Vellard and Osuna,
1934; Verneauand Rivet, 1912-22; Vianna, 1928; Vignati, 1931 d; Villareal, 1921;
Villavicencio, 1858; Vinaza, 1892; Vocabulario comparado , . ., 1892; Voegelin,
1941; Vogt, P. F., 1902-03, 1904.
Wallace, 1853; Wassen, 1933, 1934 a, 1934 b, 1935, 1937, 1938; Wechsler, 1917;
Wegner, 1934 a, 1934 b, 1934 c; Whiflfen, 1913, 1915; White, 1884 a, 1884 b;
Wied-Neuwied, 1820-21; Wiener, 1880; Wilczynski, 1888; Williams, J., 1924,
1928-29, 1932; Wissler, 1917 (1922, 1938); Wolfe, 1924.
Yangues, 1888; Young, T., 1842.
Zeballos, 1915, 1922 a, 1922 b; Zeled6n, 1918; Zidek, 1894.

Part 4. Geography and Plant and
Animal Resources
geography of south america
By Carl O, Sauer
RELIEF
In major design tlie two continents of the New World have certain
striking resemblances. (For South America, see maps 7 and 8.)
Both are triangular, broad at the north, ending in an acute tip at the
south. Both have their great mountains at the west, fringing the
Pacific Ocean; and hence this ocean receives only a minor part of the
continental drainage. Both have wide, ancient highlands at the east,
largely reduced by long-continued erosion to hill lands and rolling
uplands. In both cases, between eastern uplands and western moun-
tains, lie great plains, now or in the past subject to heavy aggradation
from the waste of the elevated lands both to the east and west. A
broad resemblance may be pointed out between the continental posi-
tion of the Mississippi Basin and that of the La Plata, perhaps even
between the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and the Amazon Basins.
Thus far, an almost identical schematic diagram could be drawn for
the two continents, suggesting basically similar dynamics of crustal
modeling.
THE EASTERN HIGHLANDS
From the mouth of the Orinoco River almost to the estuary of the
Rio de la Plata an ancient land mass fronts the Atlantic Ocean, inter-
rupted only by the trough of the lower Amazon River. The Amazon
is no ordinary river valley but a great, and partly ancient, structural
depression, which has long separated the old land mass of Brazil to
the southeast from that of Guiana on the north. Together Brazil
and Guiana form the core of the South American continent, a stiff
fundament of ancient igneous and metamorphic rocks, partially
covered by sedimentary beds, mostly of Paleozoic age. The parallel
to the North American Laurentian Shield, the Old Appalachians, and
the Ohio Basin cover of Paleozoic sedementary rocks is apparent.
The Guiana Highlands.—These form the land surface between the
Amazon-Yapura and the Orinoco Rivers. It is to be noted that they
319
320 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
occupy all but a narrow coastal stretch of the colonies that bear their
name and also include most of Brazil north of the Amazon River, as
well as the southern half of Venezuela and a large part of eastern Co-
lombia. In length they are about equal to the North American Ap-
palachian area (Alabama to Gaspe Peninsula) ; in width they surpass it
considerably.
The greater part of this surface is underlain by igneous and meta-
morphic rocks, presumably ancient granites and gneisses, with in-
folded bodies of schists and quartzites, said usually to lie in east-west
strips. The quartzites commonly stand out as ridge makers. The
watershed between the lower Amazon River, on the one hand, and the
Essequibo River and streams of the northeast, on the other, constitutes
one of the highest and most dissected parts of the ancient rock mass,
culminating in the Sierra of Acarai, around 5,000 feet (1,500 m.).
Between the Amazon (Rio Negro) and Orinoco Rivers the watersheds
are in part indistinct. Yet about the Orinoco River, in southern Vene-
zuela, lie numerous detached mountain chains, supposedly of eleva-
tions to 6,000 feet (2,000 m.) and more and formed of granitic and
gneissic rocks. Mostly the granites and metamorphic rocks constitute
a rolling upland cut by many streams into an intricate and in part
irregular pattern of hills and valleys. The rocks are deeply weathered
and the residual soils, often brick red, are too greatly leached to be
fertile.
Beds of sedimentary rock, especially sandstones and conglomerates,
once overlay much if not all of the Guiana region, but have been largely
stripped off by erosion. There remain three major areas of sedimen-
tary cap: (1) The southern margin has fringing slopes down to the
Amazon, of a large variety of beds. (2) In the middle of the highland
lies a great block of sandstones and conglomerates, culminating around
8,000 feet (2,600 m.) in the Sierra of Roraima and westward in the
Sierra of Pacaraima. These beds form sheer cliffs enclosing table-
lands, deeply trenched by streams. (3) In the far west, almost against
the foot of the Andes, the mesas of Pardaos and of Iguaje separate the
Llanos of the Orinoco River from the alluvial lowlands of the Amazon
River. None of these uplands of sedimentary rocks is suitable for
agriculture. Throughout the Guiana Highlands, it appears that
agricultural advantage is limited to the valley bottoms and that these
are not of remarkable fertility.
The Brazilian Highland.—The BraziUan Highland, or upland as it
might better be named, is traced in outline as to its interior limits
by stream courses, not to be thought of as marking an abrupt change
from plateau to lowland. However, the northwestern limit is quite
weU indicated by the lower Amazon River, west to its junction with
the Madeira River, then by foUowiug the latter upstream to its junc-
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 321
tion with the Beni River, Here is the most interior end of the BraziHan
uplands. Continuing thence, the boundary swings sharply south-
eastward, along the eastern side of the lower Mamore River, and
following the entire length of the Guapore River to the interlacing of
its headwaters with those of the Paraguay River. The rest of the
land boundary is parallel to, and at varying distances to the east of,
the course of the Paraguay-Parana, south to lat. 30° S. Here the
bounding escarpment runs directly eastward as the Serra Geral,
across the State of Rio Grande do Sul to the sea in the vicinity of
P6rto Alegre. The Highland fills not only the greater part of the
political frame of Brazil, but also includes the Misiones Territory
of the Argentine, the southeastern part of Paraguay, and may even
be considered as entering the easternmost tip of Bolivia.
This, the greatest geologic block of South America, resembles the
Guiana Highlands in materials and surface, with the difference that
in the Brazilian Highland, land surfaces derived from sedimentary
rocks (sandstones and conglomerates) predominate over those formed
by the degradation of granites, gneisses, schists, and metamorphic
rocks.
The ancient crystalline and metamorphic fundament of Brazil
is widely exposed in three areas: (1) The eastern border of the High-
land against the Atlantic; (2) the greater part of the State of Goi^s,
where the drainage of the upper Tocantins River has uncovered the
basement rocks over a large area; and (3) the northwest flank, sloping
down to the Amazon and Madeira Valleys. A lesser fourth region
might be added, about the headwaters of the Paraguay and Guapore
Rivers, below the scarp and Plateau of Mato Grosso, and situated in
the State of Mato Grosso and in eastern Bolivia. Of these areas, all
but the Goias one are marginal to the Highland; all appear to be un-
distinguished as to relief, and are sometimes referred to as somewhat
dissected peneplains. The soils are reddish, and where derived from
schistose rock are likely to be tough and compact and of low fertility.
The eastern area of the basement rocks may be divided into three
subregions: The "shoulder" of Brazil, comprising the six small States
of the northeast, behind Cape Sao Roque; the interior basin of the
Sao Francisco; and the Serra do Mar from Bahia to Santa Catarina.
The physical characteristics of these three subregions are as follows
:
(1) The northeastern part of Brazil is a plateau or peneplain of
crystalline rocks attaining, behind Recife, maximum heights of about
3,000 feet (1,000 m.) in the highlands of Borborema. Here and there
a sharp ridge of quartzite rises, as in the Serra da Itabaiana, straddling
the lower Sao Francisco River. The descent from highland to coast
is in general gradual, and the coast area itself has low slopes developed
on various sedimentary rocks.
322 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
(2) The basin of the Sao Francisco, in the western part of the
State of Bahia, is considered a peneplain, over which the river wanders
at a very low gradient. Only upon reaching the State of Pernambuco,
on its swing to the east, does its course accelerate. Here at the
western boundary of the State of Alagoas, are the granite canyon
and falls of Paulo Affonso. A short distance below, the river is at
grade, from Piranhas to the sea.
(3) The Serra do Mar, of granites and gneisses, forms an increasing-
ly impressive background to the coast as one goes south from Bahia.
A short distance behind Rio de Janeiro it attains a height of 7,000
feet (2,200 m.), and it continues as an unbroken front range to its
termination in Rio Grande do Sul. Excepting the area from Santos
to Rio de Janeiro, fan slopes and even coastal terraces form a narrow
but important corridor between serra and sea; here mountain streams
deposit their alluvium in flood plains and deltas. Behind the Serra
do Mar at the city of Rio de Janeiro, the Parahyba River (of the
south) drains a structural basin, which is parallel to the coast and runs
the entire length of the State of Rio de Janeiro.
Inland from the Serra do Mar, and stretching north from Sao Paulo
into the great bend of the Sao Francisco River, is a highland of most
complicated structure and relief. This is known in the north (Bahia)
as the Chapada Diamantina, in the center (Minas Gerais) as the Serra
do Espinha^o, and at the south (behind the cities of Rio de Janeiro
and Sao Paulo) as the Serra da Mantiqueira. Ancient folding and
faulting has thrown a great series of rocks, ranging from old crystalline
and metamorphic members of the Brazilian Shield to Paleozoic sedi-
mentary rocks, into parallel strips, trending on the whole parallel to
the coast line. The result of its erosion is a relief somewhat reminiscent
of our folded Appalachians, parallel valleys in the weaker rocks, master
streams that cut directly across the structural lines in gorges, with
cliff-fronted, smooth-topped interfluves on resistant rocks, A be-
wildering variety of highly metamorphosed sandstones (quartzites
and itacolumites) provides the principal resistant, ridge-forming beds
of this area.
At the south and southwest, that is, in the States of Santa Catarina,
Parand, and parts of Sao Paulo, the surface is formed by beds of
basalt and red sandstone, of relatively late age, spread out over the
older rocks of the plateau. This area is sometimes called the Plateau
of Parand. The volcanic materials in general weather into deep, red,
productive soils, which also contribute to the fertility of alluvial soils
derived therefrom. Where basalts cap, or are interbedded with shales
and weak sandstones, high cliffs develop, as along the edge of the
Plateau and along the stream courses (e, g., the valley of the Uruguay
River),




BULLETIN 143, VOL. 6, MAP 8

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 143. VOL. 6. MAP 8

BULLETIN 143, VOL. 6, MAP 9
20-
10-
iW
500
500
/<M
1000
^ Ml
1000
30 20 10

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY
BULLETIN 143. VOL. 6. MAP 9

Vol.61 GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 323
The great remainder of the Brazilian Highland, including almost
the whole of Mato Grosso, Maranhao, and Piaul, is a plateau of
sandstone, conglomerate, and shale, sloping westward to the Amazon
lowland. Its margin against the Paraguay and Guapore lowlands is
an enormously long scarp, rising about 600 to 1,300 feet (200 to 400 m.)
above the adjoining western lowlands. This scsrp is cut into buttes
and bastions by the headwaters of the Paraguay and Guapore Rivers,
and there bears the name of Serra dos Parecis. Its summit, however,
stretches northward as a high smooth plain into the Mato Grosso
and is there called the Campos dos Parecis. Relief in the sandstone
plateau is a matter of dissection by streams; adjacent to large streams,
or Avhere drainage lines are closely spaced, it is a land of cliffs, mesas,
and buttes; otherwise, the interfluves may be very smooth. In
general, the soil is considered as thin and low in fertility.
THE CONTINENTAL LOWLANDS
Llanos of the Orinoco.—The Llanos of the Orinoco lie north of
the Orinoco and Guaviare Rivers; west of the junction of the Orinoco
and Apure Rivers, they form a plain like the North American Great
Plains, rising steadily to the foot of the Andes, and traversed by
streams descending from the Andes across a surface in part built up
of their deposits. East of the Apure River, the Llanos are formed by
a series of mesas, some of which drain north into the Caribbean Sea.
These mesas are dissected by streams, with valleys about 600 feet
(200 m.) deep. The mesa country abuts sharply on the delta of the
Orinoco. The surface of the Llanos consists of varying sedimentary
waste, cobbly, sandy, and clayey, in large part cemented at the
surface or at slight depth into hardpan. The amount of alluvial land,
aside from the delta, is not great along the Orinoco or its tributaries.
Most of the plains have never been used for agriculture and probably
never will be. Numerous streams of large flow, issuing from the
Andes, have built broad fans, in part of good fertility, especially
along the northwestern margin of the Llanos.
The Amazon Lowlands.—The lowlands of the Amazon River are
shaped like a long-stemmed fan: The stem is the lower Amazon below
its junction with the Madeira River; the flaring sides of the fan are
contained between the courses of the Madeira and the Yapura Rivers.
The lower valley is a structural trough, with older formations, in
part those of the Guiana and Brazilian Higlilands, approaching close
to the river, as for instance at the Garganta of Obidos. Since different
parts of the upper Amazon Basin receive their rains at different times
of year, the lower flow is somewhft equalized, and maximum flood
heights are only aroimd 20 feet (6 m.) The size of the flood plain is
moderate compared to the volume of the river. Indeed, on its lower
794711—50 22
324 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
course, the alluvial plain is scarcely wider than that of the middle
Mississippi, banks of high terraces accompanying the lower river.
The flood plain (varzea) holds a loose braid of river arms and cut-offs;
lakelike enlargements, especially at the mouths of tributaries,
suggest a recent sinking of the land. The estuary of the Amazon
River is not in any ordinary sense a delta; its mouths have been
deeply drowned and the larger part of the principal island, Marajd,
is elevated land with deeply weathered soil.
The broadly triangular interior basin of the Amazon, between
the Madeira, Yapura, and Ucayali Rivers, the latter following the
foot of the Andes, is a vast network of convergent, heavily meandering,
and heavily flooding and depositmg streams. The interfluve areas,
however, are of markedly higher land, somewhat ridged by dissection
of deeply weathered sediment, in part a gently rolling country of low
hills. C. F. Marbut (1924) has estimated that in the whole of the
Amazon Basin not more than 10 percent is alluvial land.
Llanos de Mojos.—The Bolivian share of the Amazon Basin is a
markedly different country from the rest. Between the Beni River
and Santa Cruz de la Sierra lie the Plains of Mojos or Mamor6,
drained into the Amazon by way of the Madeira River. This is a
vast alluvial plain, really flat, overwhelmingly subject to shallow
flooding during the rainy period. Here and there low "islas" rise
enough above the plain to escape flooding; these have been especially
important as sites of habitation. The flatness of this country may
be due to the barrier of rock at the rapids of the Madeira River
(the innermost edge of the Brazilian Highland), which forms a base
level for the country behind. At Santa Cruz de la Sierra the pro-
jecting inner laiee of the Andes and the farthest outliers of the Bra-
zilian Shield approach to within 200 miles (300 km.) of each other.
This corridor, the Llanos de Chiquitos, still drains northward, but
immediately south lies the land of the Chiriguano , the northern end
of the Gran Chaco.
The Southern Plains, mostly in the La Plata Basin.—The plains
between Santa Cruz de la Sierra and Patagonia include the follow-
ing: (1) At the north the Gran Chaco, a remarkably smooth plain
for the most part, alternately flooded and baked dry. It consists of
light-colored soils, in the main, for climatic reasons. (2) South of
lat. 30° S., with change of climate the Chaco is replaced by the (a)
black earths of the Pampa, which again change westward and south-
ward, with increasing dryness, into the (6) brown soils of the Monte.
The differentiation of these areas is, however, a matter of climate and
vegetation rather than of surface. As to surface conditions, there is
nothing more to be said than that they are plains with few and shal-
low valleys. (3?) The Paraguay-Parand lowlands constitute one of
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 325
the world's great areas of alluviation. The usual width of the alluvial
belt is greater than along the Amazon River, (a) The upper Para-
guay River, between Cuyab^ and Corumba, in BrazU, floods an enor-
mous basin, which is for the most part permanently swampy and
comprises El Pantanal, probably the largest swamp in South America.
Here alluviation is in process of burying the far interior outliers of
the Brazilian Highland. (6) South of Corumba the drainage is only
relatively better. Swamps and backwaters (pantanales and esteros)
extend into the basal parts of the hill country of Paraguay, and a
great reach of alluvium lies along the western or Chaco side of the
Paraguay River, (c) In the Parand Valley of the Argentine, natural
levees, ''old rivers," subparallel tributaries, and other features are
reminiscent of the lower Mississippi Valley of North America. (4)
East of the Parana River, and especially east of the Uruguay River,
is a country that is intermediate between the Pampas of the Argen-
tine and the Brazilian uplands. Its geology is that of Brazil, an
area of eruptive and sedimentary rocks. Relief and elevation are
slight, though the plains are over-topped here and there by cuestas
and low ranges of resistant rock. In the smoother parts the land is
made of materials that are intermediate between the black lands of
the Pampas and the red lands of the Brazilian uplands. It is a
transition area in every respect, reckoned perhaps better to the low-
lands than to the uplands. The name "Uruguayan Pampa" is
applied to the southern part of these plains.
THE PATAGONIAN PLATEAU
East Patagonia or the Patagonian Plateau is built of many kinds of
rock ranging from ancient granites to basalts of late age, with a great
range of sedimentary beds between. Horizontal surfaces predomi-
nate, heavily covered with cobbles and gravels, especially in the
eastern part. Numerous terrace-flanked valleys descend from the
Andes to the sea. It should be noted that most of the Strait of
Magellan and Tierra del Fuego physiographically are part of
Patagonia.
THE WESTERN CORDILLERAS AND LOWLANDS
West Patagonia.—The southernmost part of the Andes, south of
the Gulf of Ancud, is a young mountain range erected out of much
the same ancient rocks as form the core of Brazil. This range has
been subjected to heavy glaciation (moraine-daramed lakes He at
the foot of the Andes north to lat. 39° S.). Its coast line is one of
the best-developed fiord coasts of the world. Beyond lat. 47° S.
glaciers reach the heads of the fiords. A curious feature of the moun-
tains is that they are completely traversed east-west by low basins,
326 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
in which lie chains of lakes. Morainic dams across such basins, lying
well east out on the Patagonian Plateau, divert water across the
range to the Pacific.
Old Chile.—This area stretches from Coquimbo south to Chiloe
Island and consists of three parallel strips: (1) In the interior the
high, simple chain of the Andes, in the main of sedimentary rock, on
which, south of Santiago, are superimposed a series of volcanoes.
This sierra is deeply excavated by streams, which have eroded it to a
narrow, sinuous crest line. On the Chilean side the lower snow line
rises from 4,900 feet (1,500 m.) at the south to 15,000 feet (4,500 m.)
at the north; on the drier Argentine side it is higher. (2) At the west-
ern foot of the Andes is the Valle Lonjitudinal. As a continuous de-
pression it begins a short distance north of Santiago and extends
south to pass beneath the Gulf of Ancud. Northward it is continued
as a string of small basins to Coquimbo. The basins are deeply
aggraded with waste of the mountains, especially by coalescent fans
from the Andes. The northern area has weathered into productive
chestnut-brown soils; south of Concepci6n increasing podsolization
characterizes the soils and diminishes their fertility. (3) A coast
range, containing old crystalline rocks at its core, stretches the entire
length. Drainage is generally by valleys that cut directly across the
coast range. The antecedent streams descending from the Andes
have held their seaward course during the late uplift of the coastal
mountains. On the seaward side is an impressive development of
discontinuous terraces.
The Pampean Sierras.—The Argentine provinces of the northwest,
Cdrdoba, Tucumdn, Catamarca, La Rioja, San Luis, and San Juan,
occupy a series of ranges and basins that are southeastern outliers of
the Andes. Here an ancient part of the crust, to which have been
added later volcanics, has been buckled and broken by the Andean
orogeny into a series of long north-south blocks. Aggradation has
filled the floors of the intervening basins. The landscape is similar
to the North American Great Basin, but the ranges are of greater
reUef (the Sierra de Famatina rises to nearly 21,000 feet (6,400 m.)).
Many small streams descend from the ranges and form well-watered
alluvial cones at their bases.
The Bolivian Plateau.—Northward from the Chilean Province of
Coquimbo, north of latitude 28° S., the design of the Andes changes
and becomes a double and iriultiple chain. In northeastern Chile the
saline basins (salares) of Pcdernales and Atacama, at about 8,200 feet
(2,500 m.), are wedged between two chains. East thereof, across the
main Andean Cordillera, and in the extreme northwest of the Argen-
tine, is the Puna de Atacama at about 11,500 feet (3,500 m.), a cold,
arid plateau with feeble streams descending into it and ending in salt
Vol.6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 327
flats. Still farther northeast additional parallel Cordilleras, with high
narrow basins between (Argentine States of Salta and Jujuy), form a
link between the Eastern Andes of Bolivia and the Pampean Sierras.
The northeastward rise of intermontane surfaces to constitute dry,
cold plateaus, overtopped by north-south cordilleras, marks the transi-
tion from the Argentine and Chile to the Bolivian Plateau.
In Bolivia three main ranges may be recognized: The great western
wall that rises from the Coastal Desert of Atacama (not to be confused
with Puna de Atacama) ; a central range swinging north on the eastern
side of Lake Poop6, Oruro, and La Paz; and at the northeast, the
Sierra de Cochabamba, which descends to the Amazon Plain. The
land between the western and the central cordillera is an undissected,
cold plateau or puna, of interior drainage, windswept flats, salt marshes
and salty lakes, with lesser buttes and ridges upon it. To this area
may be reckoned the basin of Titicaca with its sweet-water lake. The
extreme length of undissected and undrained Andean plateaus then
(including the basins described in the preceding paragraph) would be
from below the Nudo de Vilcanota in southern Peru (about lat. 14°
30' S.) to the Volcdn de Copiapd in Chile (almost in lat. 28° S.). East
of the central Bolivian Cordillera (various names, e. g., Cordillera de
los Frailes) an originally similar puna surface, made up of old and
partly lithified alluvial waste, has been dissected by terrace-bordered
streams, flowing eastward and southeastward out of the Andean High-
land. The remnants of the plateau surface are around 13,000 feet
(4,000 m.), more or less the same as in the undissected puna, but the
valleys are trenched far below that cold level.
The PeruTian Andes.—The Peruvian Andes also have parallelism
of cordilleras with intervening puna surfaces. The cordilleras form a
loose braid, the strands diverging and converging into knots (nudos).
The old basin surfaces of the puna range from more than 13,000 feet
(4,000 m.) at the south to considerably less than 10,000 feet (3,000 m.)
at the north. Drainage is complete in the Peruvian Andes, and all the
old basins are cut through by vafleys. The westernmost cordillera is
the main watershed. From it streams flow to the Amazon River,
finding their way northwestward between parallel ranges and gradually
breaking across them into the Montana, or eastern Andean slope open-
ing into the Amazon Lowlands. Interior Peru is an undulating high
plateau, overtopped by ranges 3,000 or 6,000 feet (1,000 or 2,000 m.)
higher, and incised by streams flowing mainly north in terrace-bordered
barrancas that may lie as much or more lower.
The arid West Coast.—From Copiap6 (lat. 28° S.) to Pisagua Qat.
19° S.) no permanent stream reaches the Pacific Ocean. This is the
stretch most properly called the Desert of Atacama; even the slopes of
the Andes are bare to about 8,000 feet (2,500 m.). Andean torrents
328 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
carry their deposits westward into basins that resemble the Valle
Lonjitudinal of Central Chile, except for their aridity. These long
basins have been deeply filled with alluvium and impregnated with
alkali; they are the famous nitrate basins of North Chile, the pampas
of Tamarugal and Paciencia, and other pampas. On their seaward
side is a low coast range, trimmed by waves into forbidding cliffs.
From Arica northwestward to the Bay of Pisco are discontinuous
stretches of coast raoge remnants, such as the Peninsula of Paracas
that shelters the Bay of Pisco. Behind such ranges lie pampas, rising
at the east through steep fans to the Andean front. Mountain streams
carry water at least seasonally to the sea and have formed deep inci-
sions in pampa and coast range alike, with small but fertile bodies of
alluvial land.
North of Pisco the sea has destroyed the old coast range, except for
small, sparsely strewn islands extending from the Chinchas to the
Lobos groups. lea has a basin like those of the pampas to the south.
North thereof, through the Province of Lima, a series of alluvial fans
coalesce, their seaward margins cut by waves. In Ancash the sea
washes the foot of the Andes, and the habitable surfaces are in moun-
tain piedmont valleys rather than on alluvial fans.
The North Peruvian Coast plain stretches from the vicinity of Tru-
jillo to Tumbez. Here behind detached, elevated Coastal fault
blocks are the Plains of Tumbez and the dune-covered desert Plain
of Sechura. Coastal dunes extend south beyond Trujillo. In the
soft coast plain materials, sizable Andean streams have enlarged wide
valley floors (Chiclayo, Moche, Chira), constituting the most extensive
and valuable agricultural surfaces of the Peruvian coast.
The Ecuadorean Andes and Fore'ands.—Ecuador is in physical
contrast to both Peru and Colombia: (1) The Coastal area is neither
desert like Peru, nor rain forest like Colombia. Weathering, erosion,
and deposition take the forms appropriate to a climate intermediate
as to season and amount of precipitation, the conditions being those
of a rather moist savanna. (2) A well-developed structural lowland
runs north and south from the Gulf of Guayaquil to Esmeraldas.
(3) Its southern end has been drowned to form the Gulf of Guayaquil,
the largest embayment on the Pacific Coast north of the Gulf of
Ancud. This drowning of a strongly alluviating lowland has given
rise to a tangle of estuaries, swamps, and overflow lands. (4) West of
the longitudinal valley a poorly known hill land stretches along the
sea, principally in the Province of Manabi. It appears to lack striking
features and to be a roUing upland, in part a plateau, with soils of
varying attractiveness. (5) The Andean belt is extraordinarily
narrowed in Ecuador, and here only is properly called a double range,
the crests of which are only 60 miles (100 km.) apart. (6) The whole
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 329
inter-Andean stretch is a series of high basins (hoyas), separated from
each other by cross ranges (nudos) . Drainage of one is to the Amazon
River; of the next to the coast. (7) From Cuenca northward the
Andes are surmounted by great volcanic cones, such as Cotopaxi and
Chimborazo. (8) Especially on the eastern Andean flanli, erosion has
uncovered the old igneous and metamorphic base, which contributes
auriferous sands to the piedmont streams of the Oriente, as the
Montana is called in Ecuador.
The Northern Andes.—In this arei may be placed not only western
Colombia and northern Venezuela, but also at the east, the Islands
of Trinidad and Tobago, and at the west, Panama as far as the Bay of
David. North of Ecuador the Andean chains diverge sharply, with
an easternmost chain trending straight east along the coast of Vene-
zuela and across the Island of Trinidad. At the northwest, a chain
of Andean structure forms the Isthmus of Panamd. Between lie
several chains running northward to the Caribbean Sea and between
the chains are structural basins, drained northward by streams and
forming southward gradually rising and open passageways from the
Caribbean Sea and Central America to the high Andean plateaus.
(1) Most important is the easternmost cordillera, that of Bogota,
with its wide, cold, rolling summit plateaus (paramos) and high
lagoon-studded basins (savannas). The Cordillera of Merida in
western Venezuela is a continuation, as are the markedly lower ranges
farther east, along the Venezuelan Coast. (2) The broadly oval
basin of Maracaibo, with fresh-water lake in the center, bordered by
extensive swamps, lies between the Sierra of Merida and (3) the
CordiUera of Perija connecting with the high, granitic Sierra Nevada
de Santa Marta. The latter looks down from an elevation of well
above 17,000 feet (6,000 m.) on the Caribbean Sea and is the highest
range adjacent to Atlantic waters. (4) The course of the Magdalena
River is through long basins, the upper one partly aggraded from
volcanic sources, the lower part widening out into (5) the broad basin
of northern Colombia, comparable to that of Maracaibo, but fiUed to
form an alluvial land, heavily interspersed with sw^amps and small
lakes. (6) The central cordillera, between the Magdalena and
Cauca Valleys, is dominated by volcanoes in the southern part; north-
ward it descends to form the irregular Plateau of Antioquia. (7) The
Cauca trough is best marked between Cartago and Call (around
2,300 feet (700 m.) elevation); above, it rises rapidly 3,000 feet (1,000
m.) to the aboriginally important basin of Popayan. Still farther
south the high basin of the Patia connects with the hoyas of Ecuador.
(8) To the main western sierra, there is added (9) north of the Bay of
Choc6 a lower coastal range. (10) Between the two is the basin of
Atrato and Gulf of Uraba, of evil repute because of their great rain-
330 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
forest swamps. (11) The coastal range is continued in the spline-
shaped sierras of Panama, which carry Andean structure and basal
Andean igneous rocks to the volcanic country of Chiriquf.
In many parts of the northern Andes exposure of basal granitic and
metamorphic rocks has resulted in the concentration of gold sands
in bars of piedmont streams. From the Panamanian sierra of
Veragua, through the upper reaches of the Atrato to the land of El
Dorado about Bogota, and beyond, eastward, gold had extraordinary
cultural importance among the aborigines.
The Antillean chain.—Three dissimilar areas are to be noted:
(1) The Lesser Antilles.—These are a simple volcanic island chain
from Grenada to St. Kitts, with deep rich soils on their piedmont
slopes. The islands north of St. Kitts, however, are made up of
mingled volcanic and marine beds and are not mountainous; Barbuda,
in fact, is purely a low limestone plateau. The Virgin Islands are
transitional in structure between the volcanic Lesser Antilles and the
folded Greater AntUles.
(2) The Greater Antilles.—East-west axes of crustal deformation
have determined the design of the large islands, (a) One of these
swings across the Strait of Yucatan to determine the general form of
Cuba; topographically, it is expressed principally in the Organos
Range of western Cuba. (6) A second forms the Caymdn banks and
islands, the Sierra Maestre of south Cuba, and coalesces with the
first in the Baracoa Highlands of the extreme southeast, {c) South
of it lies a deep oceanic trough, extending from the Gulf of Honduras
between the Caymans and Jamaica, through the Windward Passage,
and out to the Atlantic Ocean north of Haiti and Puerto Rico.
id) South of this narrow deep, the crust has been deformed to give
rise to the islands of Jamaica and the Peninsula of Jacmel in Haiti.
All the east-west axes of deformation are knotted together in the
important central highland of the Island of Haiti, the gold-bearing
Sierra de Cibao, from which the zone of Antillean folding runs east
through Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Haiti is dominated by these east-west lines of structure. Almost
the whole of the island is an alternation of ranges and basins, resulting
from differential erosion, and the filling in of structural depressions.
Puerto Rico has a central folded core, the northern and southern
flanks being covered by limestones, and the drainage in general is
transverse to structure and strike of the rocks, in contrast to Haiti.
Jamaica has small areas of the deformed core exposed in the higher
parts, such as the Blue Mountains, but is mostly covered with lime-
stone beds, raised to form one of the notable tropical karst lands.
Cuba has exposed discontinuously a backbone of igneous and meta-
morphic rocks, but in major part is covered by various marine sedi-
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 331
ments. The development of sink features is less advanced than in
Jamaica. In general, Cuba appears to be in long-continued process
of emergence by stages from the sea, for the island is mostly a series of
broad marine terraces, ranging from 20 to more than 1,000 feet
(6-305 m.) above sea level. Coral reefs screen large parts of the
coast (the Jardines Islands off the southern coast).
(3) The Bahama Islands.—These low islands of porous, poorly
cemented limestone have no counterpart southward, but find their
nearest cognates in the peninsulas of Florida and Yucatan. To each
piece of emerged land there is attached a larger area of shoal, or bank.
This association of island and shoal gives a peculiar character to the
human ecology of the Bahamas.
CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
(Maps 9 and 10)
TROPICAL RAIN FOREST (AF AND AM CLIMATES)
Choco-Darien-Mosquito Coast.—The most extreme development of
the rainy Tropics in our hemisphere is north of the equator, at the
meeting place of the two continents. The west coast of Colombia,
the Choc6 country, and the old Dabaibo land are thought to have
the heaviest rainfall of the New World, from 240 to 312 inches (6-8 m.)
a year, without cessation or important diminution at any season.
The swamps of the Atrato Basin are equally formidable at all times;
the feeding streams know no low water, the basin is inundated by
continuous drenching rains. On the Isthmus of Panama saturated
air and over-saturated ground are characteristic of the Caribbean
side, however, with some respite from drenching in spring. The
amount of rain here, is apparently from 120 to 240 inches (3 to 6 m.)
a year. (The latter figure is from Greytown; Portobelo has 156
inches (4 m.).) Northward, along the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua,
the rainfall diminishes to about 120 inches (3 m.) at Cape Gracias a
Di6s; in the back country a permeable subsoil further diminishes the
wetness of the land and the exuberance of the vegetation.
Gulf of Honduras Coast.—From Cape Gracias d Di6s to the Cocks-
comb Mountains of British Honduras, the lowlands and lower moun-
tain slopes are still tropical rain forest. Annual rain (between 72
and 120 inches (2 and 3 m.)) is sufficient to maintain heavy forests
in active growth throughout the year, although there is an almost
dry season in spring (heaviest rains in fall). The composition of the
forest changes rather notably as against Panamd and the Gulf of
Darien. The reason, however, is geologic rather than climatic: The
Gulf of Honduras lies on the North American side of the old sea
barrier between North and South America (across Nicaragua; land
332 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
connection established at end of Tertiary). The Honduras forest,
therefore, is composed predominantly of species identical with or
similar to those of Mexico, whereas Costa Rica and Panamd, vegeta-
tively are largely South American.
Amazon-Guiana rain forest {Af and Amw ' climates).—In these
equatorial lowlands the change in temperature between seasons is
negligible, that between night and day important. Day and night
throughout the year are of almost equal length, and normally the
cooling of the atmosphere at night is enough to bring a daybreak that
is decidedly chilly. The most important climatic differences are those
between the upper and the lower Amazon River. The former has a
full humid tropical climate {Af), with abundant rains throughout the
year, total amounts probably ranging between 72 and 120 inches (2
and 3m.). In the middle and lower Amazon the rainy season develops
strongly at the end of the calendar year, with bright weather and
only occasional thunder showers from July to September {Amw '
climate). Total rainfall is under 72 inches (2 m.). In the coast area,
from the mouth of the Amazon to that of the Orinoco River, rainfall
is again heavier (72 to 120 inches (2 to 3 m.), perhaps 156 inches (4 m,)),
but in fall the majority of days are rainless.
The cessation of rain in the Amw ' area is not sufficiently long to
produce a suspension of plant growth; for agriculture the Am land is
somewhat more attractive than the Aj country, because the soil is
more workable and better aerated as the result of the dry weather.
The native vegetation appears, within the Amazon-Guiana area,
to be differentiated chiefly in terms of the drainage of the surface.
(1) The coast of Guiana is a swamp savanna, or rather a great, coastal
mangrove swamp behind which is a fresh water, swampy savanna
(pripris), with clusters of palms (on drier spots?). (2) The igapo,
or swampy river lowlands, are most frequently inundated and of
reduced diversity of vegetation. Especially along the lower Amazon
there are numerous wet prairies in the forest. (3) The higher flood
plain, only inundated in the greater floods, and reasonably well
drained naturally during most of the year, is called the varzea, with
great variety of hardwoods, softwoods, palms, lianas, and epiphytes.
(4) On the "upland" surfaces of the older beds, the terra firma, the
best-known trees are the caucho {Castillo) and the Brazil nut or
castanha {Bertholletia) .
West Indian rain forest.—The Lesser Antilles of the eastern
Caribbean are extraordinarily well exposed to tropical ocean air,
and they have rainfall generally in excess of 72 inches (2 m.) annually.
Slopes facing the sea may receive as much as or even more than
156 inches (4 m.) of rain a year. As is usual in these latitudes, the
maximum of rain is in summer, when the trade winds are replaced
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 333
by calms; the minimum occm's dm-ing spring. The heaviest rainfall
in the West Indies is in northeastern Jamaica, where Moore Town
records 220 inches (560 cm.) a year. The northern sides of Haiti,
Jamaica, and Puerto Rico have well-developed Am climates, and
supported, aboriginally, correspondingly heavy rain forests, now
largely destroyed through cultivation.
Brazil Coast rain forest.—The coast of southern Bahia to the Rio
Mucuri and again a strip about Santos have tropical warmth through
the year and rainfall of and above 72 inches (2 m.), without a dry
period. The Bahia coast is outlined by mangrove swamps, with
tropical palms, Cecropia, and various dyewoods conspicuous in the
lowland forests behind the coast.
THE MONTAfJA (BORDER OF A AND C CLIMATES IN THE ANDES)
The lower Andean slopes adjacent to the humid tropical lowlands
are loosely lumped under the term "Montana," the slopes in which
rainy tropical and mesothermal climates meet. Adequate meteoro-
logic observations are almost lacking in this area, and vegetational
studies are too few to give a satisfactory picture of vertical or hori-
zontal distribution of plants. In the northern Andes tropical tem-
perature values appear to exist on the Andean slopes to an altitude
of about 5,000 feet (1,500 m.). Moist air is rapidly cooled as it is
carried up the mountain slopes; rainfall appears to increase steadily
up-slope to an altitude of 8,000 or 10,000 feet (2,500, or 3,000 m.).
The intermediate slopes (very roughly between 4,920 and 9,840 feet
(1,500 and 3,000 m.)) are mesothermal (C) rather than tropical (A),
and their upper levels are prevalently shrouded in cloud or mist.
This is the land of the cloud forest, the famed Ceja de la Montana,
which has been Httle explored, and whose hchen-choked forests are
ahnost uninhabited. The Ceja separates the puna Highland popula-
tion from the tropical piedmont settlements of the lower montana.
Schematically, it might be said that the montana is divided as foUows
:
(1) The Ceja of evergreen, misshapen trees and scrub, cool, foggy
C chmate; (2) principally between 6,560 and 8,528 feet (2,000 and
2,600 m.), the mesothermal forests (warm C climate), known to us
as the home of the cinchona; (3) at lower altitudes (upper levels of
A climate), an exceedingly luxuriant tropical forest, including great
palms, coca, cacao, Castilla, and Hevea.
It should be noted that in Colombia and Ecuador, where humid
tropical lowlands (Af or Aw) flank the Andean Highlands on both
the Pacific and Caribbean sides, forest conditions exist in the western
ranges which are much like those of the Montana of eastern Perd.
334 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
TROPICAL SAVANNA (AW)
Central America and West Indies.—This has been and is the most
important tropical climate for human occupation. The climate is
developed along southern and western coasts especially, in the lee
of the trade winds, mostly below an elevation of 2,600 feet (800 m.).
The range of mean temperatures as between the warmest and the
coldest month usually is only 3 or 4 degrees, though it may reach 6
or 7 degrees Centigi-ade in northerly localities. The daily range of
temperatm-e, therefore, still exceeds greatly the annual range. The
mean annual rainfall ranges, at different places, from about 32 to
63 inches (80-160 cm.). There are rainless months, but the dry
season is not entirely without rain. Winter is the dry if not the
rainless season; summer is the rainy season. In a good many locali-
ties, especially in the islands, there is a double maximum, at the
time of sun overhead, with a second short period of low rainfall in
July. In the majority of localities, winter dryness is sufficient to
introduce at least a partial resting period for plants, but not the
marked suspension characteristic of this climate in many parts of
South America.
The name "savanna" is thought to have come from the Arawak
of Cuba. On much of this island the Spanish discoverers found
grassy plains, with clumps of palms or groves of yellow pine. The
pine savannas of Cuba have their counterpart in the Bahama Islands
and in the open pine woods of Florida. Elsewhere about the Carib-
bean Sea and Central America the Aw climate is not typically repre-
sented by grasslands ; where such occur, the association of grass seems
to be with fiat surfaces and heavy soils that reduce root penetration.
On alluvial lowlands the vegetation, both as to composition and
size, is much the same kind of forest that develops in the Af climate.
On hill slopes, terraces, and average coast plain it is monte alto, a
woodland in size between forest and brush, consisting of scattered
trees of large-growing species, as the guanacaste (Enterolobium)
,
with a great variety of shrubby species between. Areas of thin, dry
soils may be covered by thorn scrub and spiny succulents. Climbing
and clambering plants are numerous (vine ferns, clambering canes,
cactus, smilax, the latter the sarsaparilla of early export from the
islands). The majority of species are deciduous; during the dry
season spots of green are made by palms, the succulents, and by cer-
tain evergreen trees (the guyacdn (Guaiacum or Lignum vitae) and
tropical "cedar" (Cedrela), which belongs not to the Pine, but to the
Chinaberry family).
The alternation of wet and dry season is expressed in a strange
and varied plant chemistry. There are dye-woods in number (fustic
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 335
of genus Chlorophora, the spiny Campeche wood, logwood and brazil-
wood of the genus Haematoxylum, dividivi and brazil of the genus
Caesalpinia) ; extraordinary concentrations of tannin in bark, root,
and seeds of many genera; copal gum from the genus Bursera (syn.
Elaphrium); poisons and drugs of many kinds (e. g., in the Spurge
family various species of Euphorbia, Croton, Jatropha, Hura, Hippo-
mane) ; and cotton trees (Ceiba, Bombax). Two of the most numerous
and economically diversified families are the mimosas and beans.
Of the latter, we have here not only the ancestral home of the culti-
vated lima, kidney, and navy beans, but of woody forms the Balsam of
Peril, or Tolu Balm (Toluijera) ; native anil (Indigojera) ; several
sources of barbasco to stupefy fish (Lonchocarpus, Piscidia syn.
Ichthyomethia, Erythrina, Cracca) ; and others from which a variety
of poisons (Abrus, Sophora) and dyes (Diphysa) are obtained.
Savanna climate of the Orinoco and Magdalena Basins.—Obser-
vational data are still very inadequate. Caracas, at an elevation of
3,418 feet (1,042 m.), has an average annual rainfall of 32 inches
(80 cm.), extremes lying between 19 and 47 inches (50 and 120 cm.).
More than half the annual rainfall comes between June and Sep-
tember, winter and spring being dry, but not rainless. (In vernacular
use in many places of northern South America and Central America,
the rainy season is called winter, in contrast to the terms used here.)
The dry season is more marked and longer than in the West Indies
or Central America.
Streams descending from the cordilleras into the flat and wide
basins of the lower Magdalena and the Maracaibo Rivers flood broadly
and for long periods. Here, therefore, swamp and flood plain forests
of tropical rain-forest type are developed. Farther inland and
upgrade these are narrowed into gallery forests, along the stream
courses. Such also are the gallery forests of the Orinoco River, in
places developed as pure palm stands (morichales) . North of the
Orinoco River and east of Lake Maracaibo are areas of thorn scrub
(chaporrales) . The larger grass savannas appear to be in the Meta
and Apure drainage of the Llanos, the reduced reality of the old pic-
ture of the gi'eat grassy plains of the Llanos of the Orinoco.
Brazilian caatinga and campos.—The driest part of Brazil is in
the northeast, in and behind the State of Rio Grande do Norte,
where certain small areas probably are steppe (BS) rather than
savanna (AW). The northeast is also subject to notable irregularity
in amount of rainfall, resulting at uncertain intervals in disastrous
droughts (seccas) uncommon to such altitudes. Between Natal and
Bahia, the season of rain shifts to the winter months ; elsewhere there
is mostly a simple summer or faU maximum, with a long, dry, even
rainless winter and spring. Southward and westward there is a
336 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
gradual increase in the amount of rainfall and the length of the rainy-
season. In the Llanos de Mojos the annual rainfall probably is
around 72 inches (2 m.) ; it is still an area of marked contrast between
summer rain season and winter dryness, of floods in summer, of dried-
out stream beds in winter.
The common characteristic of the vegetation is adaptation to rest-
ing through the long time of rainless skies. Under conditions of
minimum rainfall (and coarse-textured soils) it forms an association
of coarse grass, with sparse low woody plants and cacti (sertao; the
term also has a wider meaning of waste land). The northeastern
highland for the most part is occupied by caatinga, similar to the
monte of the Pacific Coasts of Central America and Mexico, but with
more sharply developed tropophytism, owing to the sharper anti-
thesis of wet and dry seasons. A scrub forest of gray, bare trunks
in the dry season, it is quickly turned green with the rains. The
under story is well populated with cacti and bromelias. Spines and
thorns arm most plants, woody, succulent, or herbaceous. Gallery
forests composed of a variety of tropical hardwoods and palms
(carnauba, buriti) line the banks of the Sao Francisco River and its
tributaries. Westward and southwestward, into Goias and Mato
Grosso, grassy savannas (campos) lie on smooth uplands, gaUery
forests of tropical luxuriance with groves of miriti and buriti palms
reach up the major stream courses. Probably more widespread are
the campos cerrados in which, as in the savannas of the north, the
grasslands are sown with tropophytic scrub. The name Mato
Grosso, given to the great interior State and signifying "great forest,"
originated in the Cuyabd area of the south, where the swamp forests
of the upper Paraguay River meet the farthest interior extension of
the Amazonian forests along the Guapore River. It is misleading,
therefore, as a vegetational term for the great interior and northern
parts of this State.
STEPPES AND DESERTS
Caribbean scrub steppes.—Most of the southern shores of the
Caribbean Sea are characterized by marked aridity. At the west the
semiarid coast begins at the western base of the Sierra de Santa
Marta; the Peninsula of Goaiira is mostly covered with thorn scrub
(especially dividivi), grass, and cactus. The Peninsula of Paraguand,
which forms the Bay of Coro, is said to lack all permanent streams
and the adjacent mainland coast to be featured by thickets of huisache
and cuji {Acacia farnesiana and other species). The rainfall records
at La Guaira and Cumand show only 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 cm.) a
year, which are near-desert values. Eastward the Gulf of Cariaco and
the islands of Cubagua and Margarita are desert, but a few miles
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 337
beyond, the southeastern end of the Peninsula of Paria is covered by
rain forest; rarely is as great a climatic contrast found in as short a
distance. Offshore the Dutch islands, as well as the Venezuelan
islands, are very deficient in rain (9-20 inches (24-50 cm.)) and have,
moreover, high loss of moisture into the limestone beds of which they
are composed.
In French Haiti the west coast of Gonaives (from M61e St. Nicholas
to Gonave Island) is semiarid; in the Dominican Republic the Neyba
Basin and Bay are even more so.
Arid West Coast.—From the vicinity of TrujiUo in northern Peru
to Copiap6 in Chile, the Pacific Coast has mean annual temperatures
averaging about 4 degrees C. below normal. This is also the area of
greatest aridity, an aridity nowhere else approached in the New
World. So absolute is this desert that long stretches of it are without
visible plant hfe; no rain may fall for years, even well up on Andean
slopes. The most arid section of all is northern Chile, its dryness
lessened at times by sea fogs, especially in winter.
The Peruvian Coast, because of the northwest-southeast trend of
both Coast and continent, is penetrated during the day by off-sea
south winds, which bring some precipitation to the lower Andean
slopes. In winter, fog banks form strongly along the Coast, dripping
occasionally a mist caUed garua. Slopes exposed to the drifting fog
then become covered with the quick green of grasses and herbs (loma
vegetation). North of Lambayeque a broad cover of desert scrub
(Prosopis) aud cactus spread over the lowlands to the sea, and beyond
the Ecuadorean border the Coast becomes semiarid rather than arid.
The Ecuadorean Coast, from south to north, shows gradation from
desert to tropical rain forest. The utility of the Peruvian Coast to
man is high because numerous streams collect water from the high
Andes to form oases of immemorial culture in the desert. Some have
their sources beyond the crest of the western cordillera; others receive
a fair summer run-off from rainfall on the higher, ocean-facing Andean
cordillera.
On the Chilean Coast, on the other hand, a different morphology of
Andes and Coast and also aridity extending to higher altitudes than
in Peru reduce the streams to occasional torrents. Only south of
Copiap6 do streams of any importance flow to the sea; here also steppe
vegetation covers the uplands, and winter rainfall increases steadily
southward, so that beyond Coquimbo (lat. 30° S.) the arid lands are
left behind.
The dry lands from Patagonia to the Gran Chaco.—Deficiency of
moisture marks the east coast from the Strait of Magellan north to the
Colorado River; iu the interior marked dryness reaches along the
Andean base north beyond the Pdcomayo River. This stretch of 2,000
338 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
miles of dry plains, basins, and plateaus includes (a) in the Chaco
probably the highest summer mean temperature of the continent, (6)
in the basins of Northwest Argentina the hottest summer days, and
(c) in southern Patagonia almost the least amount of summer warmth
at low altitudes. Patagonia experiences bitter winter cold; killing
frosts extend far into the Gran Chaco. The Chaco has a tropical-
rain regime, in its marked summer-rain, winter-dry periods; its winter
temperatures, however, are too low for tropical climates.
The vegetation of the semiarid parts of the Gran Chaco is scrub
forest, mLxed with grassy plains, the latter apparently developing
under conditions of flooding. Thorn scrub is dominated by mimosas,
acacias, and great cactus thickets. The Argentine plains and basins
west of C6rdoba, sometimes called the Monte, or Chafiar Steppe, are
similar to the mesquite brush land of the Texas-Mexican border.
Here undrained areas or areas of minimal drainage form bare salt
pans, and broad fringes of useless salt bush. The Patagonian steppe
is a mingling of low brush and clumps of bunch grasses. The maximum
attraction to settlement always has been in the basin margins of
Northwest Argentina, where mountain streams spend their waters on
low fans, readily utilized for irrigation.
ANDEAN CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
Andes of Santiago and Mendoza.—Bleak, unforested slopes extend
far to the south of both cities. The Andean slopes on the Argentine
side are covered with cactus and scrub monte to the headwaters of
the Neuquen River, where the Patagonian forest begins. On the
Chilean side the southern forest extends somewhat north of Talca
(about lat. 35° S.) on the lower Andean slopes. North thereof scrub
occupies the lower mountains; at higher elevations are coarse Alpine
grasses. The lower limit of permanent snow rises from about 8,200
feet (2,500 m.) at the headwaters of the Neuquen (lat. 37° S.) to
about 16,400 feet (5,000 m.) between San Juan and Coquimbo.
Punas of Atacama and Bolivia.—The increase of rainfall from the
Atacama coast desert to the Bolivian plateau is slow and slight.
Ollague, the Chilean border station on the railroad from Antofagasta
to Bolivia, at an elevation of 12,000 feet (3,700 m.), has an annual
rainfall of 2 inches (6 cm.),
(1) The whole higher, western part of the Bohvian plateau and the
Argentine Puna de Atacama are tundra, cold steppe, or cold desert,
collectively called the puna brava. Cushions of llareta mingle with
resinous tola heath and the harsh grass (Stipa), ichu, forming a sparse
cover. Salt flats are bare of vegetation. The tola heath extends
into the Peruvian high plateau behind Arequipa. (2) The basin of
Lake Titicaca, sheltered within its mountain rim, is warmer, less
BULLETIN 143, VOL. 6, MAP 10
20-
10-
500
/
500
KM
1000
^ Ml
1000
30 20 10

BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOCY
BULLETIN 143, VOL. 6, MAP 10

Plate 28.—Southern Chile. Top: Islands near Calbuco south of Puerto Montt.
The fires are burning off the slopes to prepare for planting. Center: Terraces
near Castro, Island of Chiloe. Bottom: Flood plain at mouth of the Rio Bfo-
Bio. Trees are eucalypt\is. (Courtesy Jonathan Sauer.)
i o
2q :;3
i oq
^

j2 a
3 —
bC 02
.2 C
-
"2
o a
- o3
_0 O
H o
^ to
o
J
Cm
Plate 32.—The Peruvian Andes. Top, tejt: Looking r.own C(;ueorada de iSan
Salvador on Rio Vilcanota below Cuzco. Top, right: Canyon of the Rimac a
few kilometers below San Mateo. The terracing is archeological. Bottom:
Pass at 14,020 feet with Nudo de Vilcanota in background and marshy Uaneta
in foreground. (Courtesy Jonathan Sauer.)
Plate 33.—The Peruvian and Chilean coastal desert. Top: Crescent-shaped
dune, or bancon, near Camana. Center: Hills covered with sand blown from a
nearb}^ ocean beach, north of Chala. Bottom: Tamarugos, Prosopis sp. (?),
fed by ground water seeping into basin. Thirty kilometers north of Pintados,
Tarapacd. (Courtesy Jonathan Sauer.)
Plate 34.—Andean vegetation types. Top, left: Frailejones (Espeletia sp.) on foggy paramo above Guasca,
Colombia (elevation 3,400 meters). Top, right: Dry cliff vegetation on Rio Urubamba, Ollantovtambo,
Peru. Bottom: Ceja de la Montana vegetation of 10,000-foot cloud belt, between Sibambe and'Tambo,
Ecuador. Trees are covered with epiphytes and parasites. (Courtesy Jonathan Sauer.)
Plate 35.—Peruvian and Ecuadorean landscapes. Top: Oasis of Vitor in coastal
desert west of Arequipa. Center: Eroded fields on sides of Rio Vilcanota Valley
at Tinta, south of Cuzco (elevation 3,470 meters). Bottom: The Ecuadorean
Highlands near Otavalo. (Courtesy Jonathan Sauer.)
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 339
subject to temperature extremes, and above all rainier than the puna
to the south; it is indeed mild and rainy enough to fall, barely, within
the mesothermal humid climate {Cwh). Here agriculture can be
carried on without irrigation, not only of Andean potatoes, but, with
special care, even of hardy forms of maize. (3) In the dissected
puua of central Bolivia, the elevations of the puna surface (12,500
feet (3,800 m.±) are covered with tola, llareta, and ichu, as to the
west, and serve as pasture and fuel. Habitation here, however, is in
general shifted into the warmer levels below the puna, in valleys
sunk into the highland.
The East Andean flank of Bolivia and Tucuman.— (1) North of
Santa Cruz de la Sierra the front of the eastern cordillera against the
interior plains is covered by montana forest, usually cloud blanketed
to about 11,000 feet (3,400 m.). (2) Above the Chaco plains a heavy
forest, including temperate-zone deciduous forms, covers the eastern
slopes. It is well developed in the sierra behind Tucumdn, its upper
limit here only at about 4,600 feet (1,400 m.). (3) The inner racges
and vaUeys vary a good deal in terms of their exposure to moist air
from the east or drier air from the south. A schematized division is
often used: (1) The cabecera del valle, above 8,528 feet (2,600 m.);
(2) between 8,500 and 5,500 feet (2,600 and 1,700 m.) the valle or
medio yunga; (3) below 5,500 feet (1,700 m.) the yunga, devoted to
warm-land crops. Potatoes are grown in the higher elevations, maize
throughout but most successfully and of greatest variety at the inter-
mediate heights.
The Peruvian Andes.—The rainy seison is the warm season, here
called invierno; the dry season is called verano. The puna is domi-
nated by tola heath only near the Bolivian border, elsewhere being
mostly bunches of ichu grass and cushions of llareta. North of Caja-
marca it gives way to turf-forming jalca grassland, resembliug the
pdramos of Colombia. Agriculture on the puna is limited to the
growing of potatoes, quinoa, and oca, though the term "puna" is
sometimes restricted to the pasture lands above the limit of agricul-
ture. Cuzco 11,200 feet (1,400 m.)) is about 2 degrees warmer than
the Titicaca Basin and has 31 inches (80 cm.) of rain. Around it and
down its flanking valleys lies one of the prized agricultural areas of
the Andes, passing at a distance of about 100 miles along both the
Apurimac and Urubamba Valleys into tropical montana. The basin
of Huanuco is dry, but well watered by streams. North thereof
stretches the 300-mile (500-km.) trough of the upper Maran6n River,
a cactus-covered steppe, deeply dissected and of little agricultural
value. More important to settlement have been smaller valleys and
gentler slopes at higher elevations, such as those of Huar^z, Caja-
marca, and Chachapoyas (8,000 to 10,000 feet) (2,400 to 3,200 m.) . An
794711—50 23
340 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
outlying area of aboriginal importance is the savanna of Moyobamba,
a dry sandy plateau (around 2,600 feet (800 m.)) surrounded by rain
forests of the Marandn and Huallaga Rivers, agriculturally important
for cotton and tobacco.
The Andes of Ecuador.—From Cuenca north inter-Andean rainfall
lacks the simple contrast between rainy and dry season, and tends to a
double maximum and minimum. Northward, also, the bases of the
mountains are immersed both on the Pacific as well as the Amazonian
side in tropical rain forests, nearly uninhabited, diflScult to penetrate,
and lacking the climatically and vegetatively transitional valleys of
Perd.
The Colombian Andes.—Here three zones were especially important
to early habitation: (1) At high levels, around 10,000 feet (3,000 m.),
the paramos provide excellent pasture and suitable conditions for
potato culture. The pdramos of the Cordillera of Bogota have been
of most importance to settlement, but other pd^ramos of the eastern
Cordillera, extending into Venezuela, were similarly preferred sites of
habitation. (2) The high level savanna basin (around 8,000 feet
(2,500 m.)) in particular of the eastern cordillera, are important agri-
cultural sites, being largely planted to maize. (3) The low steppe and
desert basins of Magdalena and Cauca yield tropical products, in
part by irrigation.
The tectonic structure of Colombia gives rise to the greatest diver-
sity of climate; indeed, one finds here almost every climate of South
America, excepting those of Cs type. In short distances one may pass
from tropical rain forest, through tropical savanna, to desert and
steppe or to humid temperate uplands. The spreading design of the
Andes gives added diversity of exposure and increases the variety of
local climates still further, in contrast to the simplicity of Andean
structure to the south. In all respects Colombia has the most minute-
ly detailed and contrasted pattern of physical conditions in South
America. Considering also the diversity of useful minerals and its
superior position with regard to continental communications, it is
obvious that nature has marked out here the most advantageous land
for cultural development.
HUMID TEMPERATE LANDS OF THE SOUTH
Pampas of La Plata.—^Below Sa^nta Fe the Rio de la Plata drains
a prairie land, as large and as rich as the prairies of the Mississippi
VaUey and with a much milder climate. The coldest part of the
Pampas, the Patagonian border, has mean winter temperatures cor-
responding to those of Fort Worth, Tex. Midsummer weather aver-
ages about the same as Iowa. Rainfall is well distributed throughout
the year, and in amount as in our prairie States.
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 341
The natural vegetation and its distribution as regards relief and
drainage also resembled our prairies. Tall perennial grasses covered
the plains; thin bands of woodland (especially mimosas) followed the
stream courses. On irregular terrain woods cover was normal. There-
fore, hills and breaks were wooded, plains grassy.
The middle Parana.—The ascent up the Parana Kiver is by gradual
stages into the Tropics ; northward the cool season grows less and less
marked, rainfall is more and more concentrated on the summer months,
and increases in total amount, especially northeastward. Concepcion
has a tropical climate; Asuncidn is still mesothermal. The land of
the Chiarani and of modern concentration of populations is not tropical.
Below Concepci6n the flood plain of the Parana River and its tribu-
taries contains large prairies and wet meadows broken by strips of
forest (e. g., quebracho) and by groves of palms {Copernicia cervfera).
East of Asunci6n, uplands reaching toward the Paraguay River
formed a park landscape, a transition land in which floristic elements
from the northern savanna, the western Chaco, and the south Brazilian
Highland mingled. Here, for instance, is the western limit of thickets
of yerba mate {Ilex paraguayensis) . The climate, lacking extremes of
all sorts, is extraordinarily favorable to a great variety of plants,
including cultivated forms. The Guarani had the use of an unusually
large variety of domesticated plants.
Highlands of Southeast Brazil.—The lowland country of Rio
Grande do Sul belongs to the Pampa Prairie; the Serra Geral marks
the beginning of forests mixed with grasslands that extend north
across the Parand Plateau. The climate is warm in summer, spring-
like in winter; with abundant rainfall, heaviest in summer, but not
infrequent in winter. Killing frosts occur and even snow falls occa-
sionally. Deciduous forests occupied the valleys; on the upland
prairies, forests of Araucaria and thickets (of mate) alternate.
In Sao Paulo and northeast thereof the elevation of the Brazilian
Highland is sufficient to introduce a long strip of mesothermal chmate
that continues north to about lat. 15° S. Here there is marked
contrast between summer-rain period and winter dryness. Frosts
may occur in winter. The original vegetation is thought to have
consisted of deciduous forest (especially on igneous rock) interspersed
with grassy plains.
Central Chile.—Toward the southern end of the Atacama Desert
the so-called Mediterranean regime of rainfall sets in. Except for
the curious coast strip at the northeast of Brazil this is the only part
of South America with winter rains and summer drought. Beyond
lat. 32° S. the rainfall increases sufficiently to form a humid or at least
subhumid climate (Cs). Conditions are quite similar to those of the
west coast of the United States and of Canada. The march of temper-
342 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ature and rainfall at Valparaiso is almost identical with the coast of
Southern California (e. g., San Luis Obispo). Santiago, in the interior
valley, is a close counterpart climatically of Los Angeles, though some-
what colder in winter. Valdivia (Cf) is like the outer coast of Van-
couver Island; the west Patagonian coast reproduces conditions along
the coast of Alaska.
Vegetatively the Csb climate is still a monte. The schematized
change between the largely thorny monte and grasslands of the north
and the high latitude "beech-conifer"" forest is said to take place on
the Rio Biobio in lat. 37° S. Actually, the southern forest extends
farthest north in the Andean foothills on the crest of the Coast range
and is most retracted in the central longitudinal valley. The north
is a land of grass, cactus, and scrub (especially Acacia). The interior
valley south almost to the Rio Biobio was an open thorny mimosaceous
woodland (espinal) ; the coastal zone was heavier brush with Puya
and cacti, adding trees southward. The "beech" (Nothofagus)
forests of the south are diversified as to variety of trees and support
many climbers, epiphytes, and a ground cover of lush-growing cane.
In the northern part of the forest are two smaU areas of the Araucaria
imbricata, the cones of which afforded a significant source of food to
the aboriginal population. South of lat. 47° S. the forest becomes
notably impoverished in size, variety, and extent, and passes over into
tundra growth at the farthest end of the continent.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TO ACCOMPANY MAP 10*
(Characteristic plants significant in native economy given for each association
cited. The explanation of the symbols for these associations appears on the
map.)
I. Humid forests.
A. Lowland tropical rain forests.
1. Amazon-Guiana rain forests. Latex-yielding plants: Hevea sp.,
Castilla ulei, Mimusops balata. Nut-yielding plants: Bertholletia
excelsa (Brazil nut), Virola sebifera (ucuuba nut), etc.
la. Amazon varzea jungle (alluvial flood plain). Oil-nut and fiber-
bearing palms: Attalea excelsa (urucury palm), Astrocaryum
tucuma (tuciim palm), Euterpe oleracea (assahy palm), etc.
Nut-yielding hardwoods: Carapa guianensis (andiroba nut),
etc. Ceiba pentandra (sumaumeira, or kapok tree).
2. Colombia-Panamd rain forest. Palms: Phytelephas macrocarpa (tagua
nut palm), Carludovica palmata (toquilla palm), Oenocarpus sp.,
Elaeis melanococca (corozo palm), Bactris (syn. Guilielma) sp.
(chontaduro palm). Latex-bearing trees: Castillo elastica, Mimu-
sops balata.
'Compiled by Robert West, also author of map 10.
Vol. 6] GEOGRAPHY—SAUER 343
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TO ACCOMPANY MAP 10—Continued
I. Humid forests—Continued
A. Lowland tropical rain forests—Continued
3. Dyewood-palm rain forest of the Caribbean. Dyewoods: Haema-
toxylon campechianum (campeche wood), Caesalpinia echinata
(brazilwood). Palms: Attalea cohune (cohune palm), Oreodoxa
regia (palma real) in Caribbean Islands. Other plants: Swietenia
macrophylla (mahogany), Castilla elastica, Ceiba pentandra, Cedrela
odorata, Genipa americana (jagua).
4. Brazil coast rain forest. Dyewoods: Caesalpinia echinata (brazil-
wood). Palms: Astrocaryum tucuma (tucum palm), Attalea indaya
(inday palm), Euterpe oleracea (jassara palm), Cocos coronata
(jeriva palm)
.
5. Mixed savanna-rain forest (Northeast South America). Palms:
Mauritia flexuosa (moriche, miriti palm), Copernicia tectorum,
Maximiliana regia. Latex-bearing trees: Mimusops balata, Hevea
benthamiansa. Nut-bearing trees: Dipteryx odorata (tongka bean),
etc.
B. Montana rain forest (e. g., eastern slopes of Andes). Wax-yielding
palms: Ceroxylon andicola (palma de cera), Oreodoxa andicola. Other
plants: Cinchona sp., Erythroxylon coca (coca).
C. Semideciduous upland forest.
Brazil. Leguminous trees: Myrocarpus fastigiatus (cabreua), Hy-
menaea stilbocarpa (jatoba), Sweetia elegans (perobinha), Couratari
sp. (jequitiba).
Eastern Bolivia and Northwest Argentina. Podocarpus sp. (pino).
Acacia sp., Alnus jorullensis (Alizo).
Ci. Mixed semideciduous forest-xerophytic scrub.
D. Middle latitude mixed forests.
1. Beech-conifer forest (Southern Chile). Beech: Nothofagus sp. Coni-
fers: Fitzroya patagonica, Libocedrus chilensis.
2. Oak-conifer forest (Highlands of Central America and Caribbean
Islands). Oak: Quercus sp. Conifers: Pinus sp.
3. Oak Forest (Highlands of Costa Rica and Panamd). Quercus sp.
4. Araucaria forests.
Araucaria imbricata (Southern Andes), A. brasiliensis (Southern
Brazil)
.
II. Savanna.
A. Sapote jungle of southern Yucatdn. Achras sapota (chicosapote)
;
Acrocomia vinifera (coyol palm).
B. Shrub-palm savanna.
Llanos of Orinoco Basin. Shrubs: Bowdichia virgiliodes, Curatella
americana (chaparro). Palms: Mauritia flexuosa (moriche palm),
Copernicia tectorum (llanos palm).
Campos of Central Brazil. Shrubs: Bowdichia virgiliodes, Hancornia
sp. (mangabeira) , Caryocar butyrosum (piquia), Anacardium occiden-
tale (cajii nut). Acacia sp.; palnis: Mauritia vinifera (buritf palm), M.
flexuosa (miritf palm).
344 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TO ACCOMPANY MAP 10—Continued
II. Savanna—Continued
B. Shrub-palm savanna—Continued
Savannas of Central America and Caribbean Islands. Shrubs and
trees: Toluifera pereirae (bdlsamo) in northern Central America,
Parmentiera edulis (huajilote), Crescentia sp. (calabazo), Mimosa sp.,
Acacia sp.
Bi. Palm forests of eastern Maranhao. Orbignya sp. (babassii
palm), Euterpe oleracea (assahy palm).
C. Guiana Coast swamp savanna. Mangrove swamp: Avicennia nitida,
Rhizophora sp. Palms: Mauritia flexuosa; various sedges.
D. Swamp-palm savanna (Mojos plains; Parand-Paraguay flood plain).
Palms: Mauritia vinifera (buritl palm), Copernicia cerifera (carnauba),
Cocos yatay (yatay palm), C. australis (pind6 palm), etc.
E. Pine-palm savanna (Caribbean area). Palms: Attalea cohune (cohune
palm), Sabal sp. (palmetto), Oreodoxa regia (palma real) in Caribbean
Islands, Copernicia sp. Pine: Pinus tenuifolia, P. occidentale, P. cubensis.
III. Xerophytic scrub.
A. Caatinga scrub forest (northeast Brazil). Palms: Mauritia vinifera
(buritl palm), Copernicia cerifera (carnauba palm). Dye woods:
Caesalpinia echinata (brazilwood). Balsam: Bursera sp. Latex:
Manihot glaziovii (manigoba). Nut-bearing plants: Anacardium
occidentale (acaju nut).
B. Pod-bearing leguminous scrub forest and scrub steppe.
1. Scrub steppe (monte). Prosopis sp.; species of Mimosa, Acacia, and
Caesalpinia; Larrea sp. in more arid areas.
2. Patagonian scrub steppe and desert. As in (1), but with predomi-
nance of Larrea and in far south, Azorella sp.
3. Scrub forest of Gran Chaco. Quebrachia sp.; leguminous shrubs
and trees, as in (1); various palms, as in (II, D).
IV. Prairie grasslands.
A. Pampa grassland. Grasses: Stipa sp., Cortaderia argentea (pampa
grass). Shrubs: Prosopis sp. (algarrobo). Acacia cavenia, etc.
V. Alpine.
A. Puna grassland. Bunch grasses: Stipa ichu (ichu grass), Festuca sp.
Various annual grasses and herbs; shrubs; Azorella sp. (llareta).
Ai. Tola heath puna. Lepidophyllum quadrangulare (tola bush).
B. Paramo grassland. Grasses: (all perennial) Andropogon sp.; various
shrubs: Polylepis sp.
C. Tundra. Low shrubs, mosses.
VI. Desert.
A. Coastal desert of Peru and Chile. Practically vegetationless except for
cacti (Cereus).
B. Fog vegetation of Peru coast (Lomas vegetation). Predominantly
annual grasses and herbs.
C. Saline (playa) areas.
D. Ice desert.
FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY OF SOUTH AMERICA
By Raymond M. Gilmorb
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This paper is written to serve primarily as a zoological guide to
anthropologists. It discusses the "South American" (Neotropical)
fauna and its relation to aboriginal man through a description of the
principal animal groups and species and their general history, ecology,
regional distribution, and utilization by man. Geographically, this
account covers South America, and Central America as far north as
Honduras.
There are many varieties of South American animals, and a large
number are archaic endemics. These, and many geologically recent
invaders, are considered as peripherally located in relation to late
world centers of higher evolution, and therefore as backward or weak,
even though some may be highly specialized in one way or another,
and a few may have considerable competitive strength, even in direct
struggle with animals of more progressive central world areas.
The idea of a scale of evolution and a ranking of animals as progres-
sive or retrogressive, strong or weak competitively, specialized or
generalized in structure, function, and behavior, is directly related
to the phylogenetic and geologic history of the fauna discussed. The
relationship between the evolutionary ranks or positions of animals
and ethnozoology is not well understood, but some trends appear
to exist. Most of the higher domesticates and semidomesticates are
from the higher categories of animal life, but such factors as conven-
ience in size, utility of products or functions, and availability of the
animal itself may be as cogent reasons for its domestication as a higher
mentality and behavior, adaptability, and ecology favorable to man.
Man utilized this fauna in many ways: for food, hide, fur, thread
(sinew), rope, pets, ceremonies, medicine, and for controlled produce
and work (domestication and semidomestication) . In this exploita-
tion, and indirectly through his presence in numbers and through
deforestation concomitant with agriculture and the building of perma-
nent settlements, man influenced adversely the adjacent fauna by
reducing the numbers and range of the aJEfected species. On the other
hand, man himself was affected and his occupation of some areas
345
346 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
retarded by certain animals, particularly by insect pests and animal-
borne diseases; and in his exploitation, man may have saved by domes-
tication certain species from extinction, such as the alpaca, and per-
haps the llama and cavy (guinea pig), if one believes, as do some
authors, these animals to be distinct species not derived from any
living wild form. (See discussions of these species.) Though this
view is not supported here, except possibly with the alpaca, it appears
to be valid as regards other domesticated plants and animals in the
world, such as the potato, corn, tobacco, peanuts, and tomatoes in
the New World (Cook, 1925, p. 41), and the horse, zebu, dromedary
camel, and Pere David's deer in the Old World. From the many
species of cultivated plants which exist only in the domesticated
state in the New World, in comparison with the few animals that
can be placed with certainty in this category, it can be concluded that
plants were domesticated long before animals in the New World.
Such "conservation" was accidental, and truly conscious conserva-
tion did not develop until Inca times, when it was practiced on the
vicuna (and guanaco), guano bird, and perhaps some other species.
Also, as far as known, aboriginal man in Neotropica did not process
any animal product except possibly red dye from cochineal insects;
i. e., he did not tan hides into leather by chemical means (tannic
acid, etc.), prepare perfumes from animal musk or ambergris, or make
glue from animal gelatin, or soap from fats.
The following animals, with their uses, were the most important
to the aborigines of South America.
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
Llama {Lama glama glama, or L. glama): Transport of burdens; meat, wool, hide,
medicine, ceremony, sinew, pets.
Alpaca {Lama pacos): Wool, meat, ceremony, medicine, hide, sinew, pets.
Cavy, or guinea pig {Cavia porcellus, or C. p. porcellus): Meat, ceremony, medi-
cine, pets.
Muscovy duck {Cairina moschata): Meat (with eggs), pets.
(The dog. Cams familiaris, and the turkey, Meleagris gallopavo, were not Neo-
tropical endemics, though they were found in South America in aboriginal
times as cultural elements diffused from North America.)
SEMIDOMESTICATED ANIMALS
Hunting huron {Galictis furax): Pets, hunting chinchillas.
Otter {Lutra sp.): Pets; fishing.
Extinct abrocoma {Abrocoma oblativa): Ceremony, food (?).
Extinct paca {Cuniculus thomasi): Ceremony, food (?).
Rhea {Rhea americana and Pterocnemia pennata): Food, feathers, pets.
Tree ducks {Dendrocygna viduata and D. bicolor): Food, pets.
Steamer duck {Tachyeres pteneres): Food, pets.
Trumpeter {Psophia): Pets, sentinels.
Chachalacas {Penelope, Ortalis): Food, pets.
Curassows (family Cracidae, several genera): Food, sentinels, pets.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 347
Stone-plover {Oedicnemus dominicensis) : Pets, sentinels.
Parrots (family Psittacidae, especially genus Amazonia): Pets, feathers.
Suckerfish {Echeneis naucrates) : Capture of turtles, manatee, and fish.
OTHER IMPORTANT ANIMALS
Monkey (family Cebidae, many genera): Food, pets.
Armadillos (especially Dasypus novemcinctus) : Food.
Extinct ground sloths (several families): Food (?).
Extinct and living capromyid rodents of Antilles: Food, pets (?).
Agouti {Dasyprocta, several species): Food.
Capybara {Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) : Food, hide.
Paca {Cuniculus paca): Food.
Bristle rat {Proechimys, and the extinct Antillean Brotomys and Boromys): Food.
Plains viscacha {Lagostomus maximus): Food.
Mountain viscacha {Lagidium viscacia): Food, wool.
Mara {Dolichotis australis): Food.
Cavies (especially genera Galea, Caoia, and Microcavia): Food.
Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys, several species): Food.
Rabbits (Sylvilagus, several species): Food.
Sea lion {Otaria flavescens) : Food, hide.
Fur seal {Arotocephalus australis): Food, hide, fur.
Marine otter (Lutra felina): Food, fur.
Long-nosed raccoon (Nasua): Pets.
Jaguar (Felis onca): Sport, hide, ceremony, art.
Puma (Felis concolor): Sport, hide, ceremony, art.
Ocelot (Felis pardalis): Pets, ceremony (?).
River dolphin (black, Inia geoffroyi; pink, Sotalia pallida): Food, hide, ceremony,
mythology.
Manatee (Trichechus manatus and T. inunguis): Food, fat (oil), hide.
Tapir (Tapirus, Tapirella): Food, hide.
Peccary-pig (Tayassu tajacu and T. pecari): Food, hide, pets.
Deer (Odocoileus, Blastoceros, Ozotoceros, Hippocamelus, Mazama, Pudu): Food,
hide, sinew, pets, bone and horn implements.
Guanaco (Lama glama guanicoe or L. guanicoe): Food, hide, fur, wool, pets,
medicine, sinew.
Vicuria (Lama vicugna or Vicugna vicugna): Food, hide, fur, wool, pets, medicine,
sinew.
Tinamou partridges (family Tinamidae): Food.
Guano bird, cormorant (Phalacrocorax bougainvillii): Guano, food.
Ducks and geese (order Anseriformes) : Food.
Condor (Vultur gryphus): Ceremony, art.
Toucans (family Ramphastidae, many genera): Feathers, pets.
River turtle (Podocnemis, and chelids): Food.
Iguana (Iguana): Food.
Pirarucu (Arapaima gigas): Food, implements.
Unarmored catfish (Platystoma, etc.) : Food.
Dourado (Salminus): Food.
Sabalo (Prochilodus) : Food.
Spiny lobster (Panulirus): Food.
Fresh-water shrimp (Macrohrachium): Food.
Ants, mosquitoes, and other noxious insects: Pests, vectors of disease.
Razor clam or mussel (Mytilus): Food, implements.
Conch (Strombus): Food, implements.
348 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
DEFINITION OF NEOTROPICAL REGION
Soutli America, with the Caribbean Antilles (West Indies), and
Central America (south of the tableland of Mexico) constitute what
is called the Neotropical Region; it is one of the six major continental
zoogeographic regions (or realms) of the world (marine regions not
considered here).
The other five of the six regions are as follows: (1) Nearctica: North
America north of tropical Mexico; (2) Palearctica: Asia (except the
southeast portion), Europe, and Africa north of the Sahara Desert;
(3) Ethiopia: Africa south of the Mediterranean strip, and Mada-
gascar; (4) Orient, or India: Tropical southeast Asia, and Malaysia;
and (5) Australasia: Austraha, New Guinea, New Zealand, and
Oceania. The Nearctic and Palearctic regions are often combined as
Holarctica because their relationships are obviously closer than usual.
(See Lydelvker, 1896; Sclater and Sclater, 1899.) Certain students
think that Oceania also can be separated validly as an independent
area.
Neotropica is not the largest region in size, but it covers the greatest
area in latitude (78 degrees) and has the highest percentage and great-
est number of unique, or endemic, forms. This amazing amount of
endemism, coupled with general richness of fauna, is due to a combina-
tion of (1) large area, (2) diverse environment, (3) long isolation (of
South America proper) as a continental island during most of the
Tertiary geologic epoch, (4) a good stock of animals before isolation,
and (5) a position peripheral to the Holarctic land mass.
South America proper (omitting the Central America subregion)
covers 6,825,876 square miles (equals two-thirds of North America
with Central America, one-third of Eurasia, five-eighths of Africa,
2% times Australia), an area large enough for diverse biological develop-
ment. South America has the highest mountains and the highest
extensive habitable areas, the most absolute deserts, and the most
tropical rain forests of the Western Hemisphere, and many other
environments permitting biologic diversity. South America was
isolated from North America as a continental island from the time of
the Eocene (basal Tertiary) until about the middle Pliocene; thus
allowing the time factor in biologic development to work well toward
end points of adaptive (radiative) evolution. Before Eocene isola-
tion, South America undoubtedly had a diverse fauna, and this, in
isolation for a long time, evolved into many distinct lines of morphol-
ogy. Lastly, South America occupies a peripheral position to the
Holarctic land mass and is thus the home of many rehct forms. At
the start of isolation in the Eocene, the fauna consisted of endemics
and intruders, and these could be conceived as evolutionarily semi-
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 349
static; but under the influence of the isolation, some were sufficiently
plastic to produce many new lines of phylogeny, or were able to persist
and to continue to evolve in the absence of invasion of "higher"
forms from other regions.
All these factors give South America (Neotropica proper) its unique-
ly high position among zoogeographic regions as concerns richness
and endemism of fauna (and also flora).
Neotropica, in addition, has a large number of relatively recent
(post-Contact, late Pliocene through Recent) invader forms from
North America, and its fauna today is characterized by this mixture
of old endemic with recent invader endemic and pure intrusive forms.
Man and other dominant northern animals are post-Pliocene invaders.
GENERAL FAUNA OF NEOTROPICA
On first acquaintance most of the Neotropical animals seem strange,
and some actually bizarre. The following list will give some idea of
the many forms that the visitor from another region may encounter.
Mammals.—Marsupial opossums; many strange bats, including the leaf-nosed
species and the true blood-sucking vampire; marmosets and prehensile-tailed and
other related monkeys; the anomalous sloths, armadillos, and truly edentulous
placental anteaters; many rodents, some large, including cavies, capybaras,
agoutis, pacas, chinchillas, viscachas, maras, etc.; the long-nosed raccoon, and
kinkajous; cats of various types, including pumas, jaguars, and many spotted
and unspotted smaller species; many mustelids, including a giant river otter, and
irara and hurons; a bear; foxes, and an aberrant bush dog; deer and peccary pigs,
llamas, alpacas, guanacos, and vicunas; tapirs, manatees, and river dolphins.
Birds.—The rhea; tinamou quails, and partridges; boat-billed herons, jabiru
storks, and trumpeters; the screamers, and Muscovy and other ducks and geese;
pigeons and doves; condors, buzzards, and hawks; curassows and chachalacas;
hoatzins, wood-rails, sun-bitterns, seriemas, oilbirds, toucans, cotingas, wood
hewers, hummingbirds, macaws, and many parrots and parakeets; as well as ant-
birds, swallows, orioles, blackbirds, orop4ndolas, tanagers, thrushes, sparrows,
and finches; etc.
Reptiles.—Crocodiles and caymans; the matamata and other river turtles;
tortoises; iguanas and other large lizards; boas and anacondas; poisonous fer-de-
lances and the giant bushmaster; etc.
Amphibians.—Burrowing wormlike caecilians; marsupial and viviparous frogs;
horned frogs and poisonous toads, etc.
Fishes.—The lungfish; an amazing array of large and small catfish, both armored
and unarmored; electric and mud eels, and the fresh-water sting ray; giant "pira-
rucu"; carnivorous fishes; the salmonlike "dourado," and many midget fish-bowl
beauties; etc.
Other animals.—Myriads of insects, including biting flies and mosquitoes; huge
wasps and tiny stingless bees; fire ants, army ants, leaf-cutting ants, giant solitary
ants, and ground and tree termite "ants"; lanternflies; huge forest moths and
brilliant morpho butterflies; ticks and red bugs; giant bird spiders; centipedes,
huge land snails, and the strange many-legged Peripatus, etc.
350 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
HISTORY OF NEOTROPICAL FAUNA
The Neotropical fauna has a unique geologic history, which is
responsible for its present constitution. The following geologic scale
is used, in order of older to younger:
Mesozoic Era Secondary
Cenozoic Era
Paleocene Epoch
Eocene Epoch
Oligocene Epoch / Tertiary
Miocene Epoch
Pliocene Epoch >
Pleistocene Epoch lot
Recent (Holocene) Epoch J
Early Mesozoic contact period.—In the late Mesozoic and basal
Tertiary (Paleocene), South America was connected with some other
continent, almost certainly North America. During these milhons of
years, the fauna of South America was partially the same as that of
the connecting continent. The basic Tertiary vertebrate faima in-
cluded marsupial, chiropteran (bat), primate, edentate, rodent, and
ungulate stock among mammals; and Pleurodira and Testudo (?)
turtles and Caiman crocodiles among reptiles ; also many more nonfossil
groups.
Tertiary isolation period.—During the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene,
and basal half of the Pliocene, South America was a continental island
(Central America, as it existed, was a part of North America).
From the basic faunal stock arose the present primary endemics, and
also many others now extinct. Of the latter, those represented by
fossils were mostly mammals, and included the carnivorous bory-
haenid and rodentlike polydolopid marsupials and typothores, ground
sloths, glyptodont armadillos, horselike proterotheres and notohippids,
cameUike macraucheniids, hippolike toxodonts, tusked astropotheres,
mastodonlike pyrotheres, clawed herbivorous entelonychians (homa-
lodotheres), etc. Many of these were distinct and in morphology
were "outrageously absurd" (Scott, 1937, p. 518), and all were con-
fined to South America. No anthropoid, humanoid, true carnivore,
murid, proboscidean, true equid, cervid, or bovid stocks developed in
South America (these are of Old World or Nearctic origin) . All the
types—those specialized and later to become extinct, and those special-
ized or generalized and surviving today—swarmed over South
America, and for the aeons of its continental-island existence filled the
many ecologic niches. (See Scott, 1937; Rusconi, 1933.)
Mid-Pliocene to Recent contact period.—In the mid-Pliocene, land
contact occurred with Central and North America, and persisted to
date, perhaps with some short intervals of disconnection. (See
Matthew, 1939; Simpson, 1940 a, p. 157, 1940 b, and 1943, p. 416; and
Scott, 1937, p. 121.)
Vol.61 FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY GILMORE 351
Immediately after this continental contact a great interchange of
animals began and has continued to date, though more northern
animals went to South America than vice versa because (1) the
northern animals were more efficiently specialized along many similar
lines of adaptive morphology and were better competitors, and (2)
Central America was a southern fringe of Nearctica and was inhabited
by tropical evolutes of the higher northern stock (as well as by some
relict peripheral stock). To South America from the Tertiary
Nearctic Central America went the already semitropically adapted
Nearctic Pliocene forms of bats, cricetid rodents, rabbits, cats, wolves,
foxes, mustehds, bears, deer, tapirs, true horses, peccaries, camelids,
mammoths, and mastodons, as well as some birds and other animals.
This invasion continued through Pleistocene and Recent times, and
man was one of the later invaders (late Pleistocene or early Recent).
The fate of the northern invaders was good ; they penetrated far, and
most survived, except the horses, wolves, saber-tooth tigers, mam-
moths, mastodons, and most of the bears. No Nearctic bovids
(cattle, bison, buffalo, sheep, goats, etc.), however, penetrated to
South America, probably because none was a semitropical adaptive
inhabiting Nearctic Pliocene Central America; but all apparently were
inhabitants of plains and mountains of higher latitudes and were
rather far removed from the bridge area.
Conversely, from south to north, especially into the tropical and
subtropical zones of Central America and southern Recent Nearctica,
went some opossums, bats, monkeys, ground and tree sloths, glypto-
donts and other armadillos, anteaters, hystricoid rodents, humming-
birds, parrots, etc., but no unique Neotropical ungulate stock, which
already had died out or which was confined to the plains of southern
(temperate) South America. In the favorable zones of Central
America and southern Mexico, the numerous Neotropical invaders
competed well and survived to give the present Central American sub-
region its Neotropical character. Farther north in North America,
where some forms penetrated (especially the gromid sloths and glypto-
donts) few survived. Of mammals, only the porcupine, opossum, and
nine-banded armadillo remain today (the collared peccary may be a
relict from a more widely distributed North American Pleistocene
stock, and the originally Nearctic ocelot, jaguar, and long-nosed
raccoon may be reverse fringe invaders). If the Cenozoic intercon-
tinental separation had existed in southern Nearctica, and if pre-
Pliocene Neotropica had possessed a northern semitemperate fringe,
especially with plains ecology, the number of Neotropical forms pene-
trating Nearctica would have been vastly larger.
This contact between South and North America was an important
event in Neotropical faunal history, because the "age of mammals"
352 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
was at its peak; that is, mammals were numerous and many were
extremely specialized (man was one), and the periphery of each con-
tinent was invaded by the dominant members of all types on the
adjacent periphery of the other.
It must be noted, however, that Central America was narrow, and
(1) the progress of invaders was a slow infiltration rather than a rapid
mass invasion, (2) only those species crossed which were tropical
adaptives of adjacent peripheral portions of North and South America,
and (3) exclusive members of the temperate portions of both continents
lived away from the land bridge and did not make the crossing. This
latter point was abrogated somewhat by equatorially shifting isotherms
during Pleistocene glaciations accompanied by equatorially moving
species. Prehistoric man entered South America over this narrow
Central American route. This migration was slow, whether man
inhabited the New World during or after the last glaciation. His total
extension of range from Bering Strait to Cape Horn must have taken
several millennia at least.
Northern forms today are replacing Neotropical endemics, pushing
them into small peripheral or centrally isolated habitats of extreme
conditions; the White man's replacement of the aborigines has been
extremely rapid and is stiQ continuing.
The spread of species in "new" territory, previously accessible or
inaccessible, has not been studied extensively; certainly, reversals and
oscillations are common in range extension over long periods and great
distances. Such reversals may be caused by extremes of climate of
temporary nature (droughts, floods, cold spells, etc.), dynamic geologic
catastrophes (volcanic eruptions, lava flows, etc.), and biologic factors
(disease, strong competition from a newly encountered competitor,
loss or change of vegetation, etc.). All these points should be weighed
in any consideration of intercontinental movement of North and
South American organic forms.
The Neotropical fauna can be divided into historic types as follows:
ENDEMICS
PRIMARY (from basal SECONDARY (from post-Pliocene
Tertiary stock) Nearctic invaders)
Indigenous: evolved from Evolved: e. g., guanaco, Relict: e.g., Relatively
old stock, e. g., cavy, maned fox, pampa bear (?), unmodi-
armadillo, etc. Probably deer, etc. peccary, fied: e. g.,
etc. man, puma,few relict species remain
unchanged from the origi-
nal Paleocene stock.
etc.
INTRUSIVE
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 353
Many of the endemic species, and most of the endemic genera and
families, are primary endemics, i. e., are Neotropical throughout their
geologic history, and are descendants of those types which were iso-
lated in South America in the early Tertiary. Other endemics, mostly
in the lower levels of genera and species, are secondary endemic and
descendants of invader (intrusive) forms from North America in post-
contact (post-Pliocene) times. These secondary endemics are the
result of modification subsequent to invasion, or of subsequent extinc-
tion of related stocks in North America, i. e., they are relicts.
If one considers the higher taxonomic levels, such as families and
even orders, the distinction between primary and secondary endemics
is quickly apparent. All Bradypodidae (tree sloths), Dasypodidae
(armadillos), and Myrmecophagidae (anteaters) are primary endemics,
as are also the Callitrichidae (marmosets), Cebidae (monkeys), His-
tricomorpha (histricomorph rodents), etc. However, all Felidae
(cats), Canidae (dogs and foxes), Mustelidae (mustelids, weasellike
animals)—in fact, the whole order Carnivora in Neotropica—and
Cricetidae (cricetid rodents) are intrusive, though many have become
secondary endemics subsequently. The camelid alpaca, guanaco,
and vicuna likewise were originally intrusive. Relatively unmodified
invaders are not numerous; the puma and man are two.
Some of the primary endemic stocks have relatives in Africa and
Australia, and this fact has prompted some authors to postulate late
continental drift, or land bridges across the Atlantic or the Pacific
Ocean. The faunal history of South America before the Tertiary is
obscure, but the Tertiary history is clearer and is best explained by the
theory of Matthew (1915, republished in 1939) of the evolution of the
higher forms, including man, in Holarctica, and their penetration at
opportune times (when land connections existed) to peripheral conti-
nents where they suppressed less dominant forms, and where they
remained and became relatively primitive in their turn by the extinc-
tion, or the emergent evolution of related populations in the central
Holarctic areas of their origin. Such a sequence of events is known
to have occurred when South America w^as united to North America
via Central America in Mid-Pliocene times.
ECOLOGIC AND ZOOGEOGEAPHIC DIVISIONS OF NEOTROPICA
Ecologic divisions.—Broadly speaking, Neotropica has tropical and
temperate climates and ecologic formations (the Andean summits are
boreal). The tropical portion greatly exceeds the temperate; the
Amazon drainage alone comprises 2,000,000 square miles. This
is important because it is not in tropical Neotropica, but in the tem-
perate regions that man developed his highest cultures with a com-
354 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
plex ethnozoology; and in Neotropica the temperate area is limited
to the relatively narrow southern portion of South America.
(1) Tropical ecologic formations are (sensulato) the rain forest, dry
forest, infertile plain, river (fluviatile) , and marine shore. Most
are correlated with a monotonous warm temperature and high rain-
fall, which are considered enervating to man and to other temperate
mammals.
The rain forest is the most typical aspect of tropical ecology, and,
as elsewhere in the world, shows biologic nature in some of its most
riotous and overwhelming manifestations. Literally hundreds of
species of plants and animals, both similar and greatly different, are
found within a short radius, though generally individuals of each kind
are relatively scarce, and fewer species are utilized by man than might
be expected. Man's ethnobotany is better developed than his
ethnozoology. Animals are spotty in distribution and often in many
places in the depths of the rain forest they seem to be entirely absent,
though careful search will disclose many small forms. Invertebrates
seem to be the dominant form of animal life, and mammals seem not
to be numerous as regards either species or individuals. Decay is
rapid, and food preservation is difficult. Nature where disturbed
reestablishes itself rapidly, and offers strong competition to man,
whose cultural advancement involves permanent interference and
permanent modification of nature. Fishes are one of the most im-
portant forms of animal life for man.
There is no parallel in Neotropica to the tropical southeastern
Asian culture-complex of water buffalo-pig-chicken-rice. These species
are present today but are post-Columbian introductions and do not
form a special culture complex.
The river (fluviatile) aspect of tropical ecology is also characteristic,
and in the rainy season it extends its boundaries far over floodable
lowlands. Aquatic and arboreal animals are common, and terrestrial
forms are found adjacent on the margins; occasionally some species
(turtles) occur in surprising concentrations of number; manatees and
fishes are important also. Transportation by boat is efficient, and
man has found the river environment best suited to his success in the
lowland Tropics in relation to other associations.
Plains (grasslands), large and small, are present in tropical Neo-
tropica, but these are generally swampy in the rainy season and rela-
tively infertile. In recent times these plains have not produced a
complex fauna of easily utilized and numerous individuals of a few
species, such as have the more fertile plains of North America and
Africa. If such a fauna existed in the past on the tropical plains of
Neotropica, it has become extinct.
The ecology of tropical marine shores is complex where rivers deposit
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 355
nutrient-ricli silt and waters into relatively quiet bays, or where deep,
cold nutrient-bearing ocean water wells up near the coast. Mangrove
swamps are also abundant in animal life. Pure sand beaches and
surf-pounded rocky shores have the poorest faunas. Man probably
was governed by ease of exploitation in utilizing shore faunas, and
probably preferred in tropical waters the sheltered bays near river
mouths rather than the mangrove swamps, sandy beaches, or rocky
shores. Shellfish and crustaceans would be used more by man than
fishes. Islands with coral reefs are, however, richer in fish than in
moUusks.
Tropical mountain ecology, like certain marine formations, is well
suited to man, but is of small area in Neotropica. Along the northern
Andes and on the Guiana Higlilands the tropical mountain conditions
approach those of the temperate zone, though seasonal changes are
less marked.
(2) Ecologic formations of temperate Neotropica lie mostly in the
south, and include plain, steppe, and mountain, with some desert and
boreal parts, but there are relatively few strictly desert or boreal
species because these parts are comparatively small and are stocked
from the fauna of the other larger biotas. However, the desert and
boreal steppes were important in the ecology of man because, when
met adaptively, they usually offered oasislike conditions for concen-
trgtted populations.
The steppes and plains of southern temperate Neotropica hold a
typical plains fauna, including camelid species, maras, plains viscachas,
armadillos, tuco-tucos, rheas, certain tinamou partridges, upland
shorebirds, etc. This present-day fauna is only a remnant of a far
richer Pleistocene fauna, which included also horses, toxodonts,
glyptodonts, ground sloths, bears, wolves, elklike deer, etc. Such a
fauna is comparable, though on a smaller scale, with the bison-antelope-
elk-wolf-hare-prairie squirrel-prairie chicken fauna of the North
American Great Plains, and it is similarly comparable with the
antelope-zebra-wildebeest-hartebeest-lion-dog-ostrich-guinea fowl,
etc. fauna of the eastern and southern plateaus and plains of Africa,
which, of the known Recent plains faunas, is the richest in large
animals.
In temperate Neotropica, man is an important faunal element and
may have been so in late Pleistocene times also; certainly he was a
strong contemporaneous competitor with a number of now-extinct
mammals. Mongolian man, like Caucasian man, probably is an
organism of temperate ecology and climate; apparently he finds these
conditions most agreeable and responds with high physical and
mental activity. The cold and dry climates of the temperate region
are favorable for food preservation which is an important factor
794711—50 24
356 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
in permanent human habitation and in the development of animal
husbandry and agriculture.
In the extreme southern part of temperate Neotropica, man built
around the plains fauna, particularly the guanaco and rhea, an
ethnozoologic culture without domestication which is comparable to
the bison-antelope culture of the Plains Indian or to the caribou-elk
culture of the north woods and tundra Indians, both of North America.
In the northern and altitudinally higher parts of temperate Neotropica
(Peru, Bolivia, Northwest Argentina, North Chile), man built around
the llama, alpaca, cavy, and Muscovy duck a culture with domesti-
cation which was far more complex than the comparable yak-horse-
Bactrian camel culture of high central Asia. In the mentioned
altiplano area of South America ethnobotany was highly developed
also, and cultivated plants were numerous, e. g., maize, potato, bean,
squash, quinoa, tobacco, and coca. Here human culture culminated
in the remarkable Inca Empire.
This northern steppe-mountain extension of southern temperate
Neotropica deserves special consideration. It was the home of the
highest human culture and the greatest development of domesticated
animals and cultivated plants in Neotropica. It is a region of rapid
transition between boreal, temperate, and tropical formations; between
cold and dry, and warm and humid climates. It has tundra, steppe,
mountain, temperate forest, tropical forest, and desert. Finally, the
greatest regional concentration in Neotropica of different plant and
animal species appears to be found in this region, especially on the
eastern slopes and foothills of the PeruvianAndes. Such a phenomenon
may be the result of quick transitions due to altitude, coupled with
deep and isolated river valleys in an extremely rugged terrain. An
apparently similar area of transitional zones exists in southwestern
Asia (Iranian-Mesopotamian area), where the highest of known
domesticated animal-cultivated plant complexes was developed:
horse, camel, cattle, pig, goat, sheep, wheat, barley, rye, sorghum,
etc. The Maya-Nahua-Aztec cultures probably developed also in an
area of similar transition; that is, between southern steppe Nearctic
and northern tropical Neotropica.
With the high human cultural development of these transitional
regions may be correlated two phenomena: (1) Marked climatic
change in the past 10,000 years or so, and (2) extinction of most of the
parent species of the present domesticated animals and cultivated
plants.
The ecology of temperate marine shores is complex and the fauna is
rich, especially in sheltered areas near the outlets of streams or where
deep cold waters well up near the coast. River and deep ocean waters
are rich in dissolved nutrient-salts (nitrates, phosphates, and silicates)
.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 357
The extreme southern and southwestern shores of South America are
favored by fertile waters and deep embayments where Httoral hfe
flourishes. Accompanying the aquatic life is a rich fauna of vertebrates
(fishes, birds, and mammals), all of which were easily and extensively
utilized by aboriginal man.
The ethnozoology of the middle Andean region, which includes
areas of transition between temperate and tropical formations, is in
itself a large subject, and for this reason is not given special treatment.
Its scope can be judged by the following list of animal representations
(incised figures, zoomorphic pots) made from a personal cursory
examination of pre-Inca and Inca pottery in the museums at Lima
and Chiclin, Peru:
Mammals: Opossum (?), bat (but none of tropical leaf-nosed varieties), howler
monkey, cebus monkey, spider monkey, other monkeys (?), nine-banded armadillo,
rat (eating corn), mice, spotted cat (common and obviously kept as pet), jaguar (?),
puma, black cat (black jaguar or small jaguarondi), dog, fox, deer (white-tailed),
fur seal, sea lion, llama, alpaca, dolphin. Birds: Raptorial bird (one with snake
in claws and another holding a spotted sharklike fish), "spotted" owl, "barred"
owl, speckled shorebirds and partridge (incised speckling or barring may be merely
a method of showing feathers), macaw, toucan, crested hawk, condor (many,
one eating a child), wild pigeon or dove, Muscovy duck, boat-billed heron,
crested duck or goose, kingfisher or hummingbird, casque-billed curassow, razor-
billed curassow, booby, pelican, flamingo, and some flying birds with long bills.
Reptiles: Spotted snake, lizards including striped ones, snakes, turtles, and
tortoises. Amphibians: Frogs and toads, some spotted, and eared (stylized).
Fishes: Various, including spotted shark and sting ray. Invertebrates: Grasshopper,
spiders, ants, fresh-water shrimp, lobster, crab, scorpion, octopus or squid (these
may refer to the starfish because of five, six, or seven arms, though the arms are
curled at the tips), conch, clam, fresh-water snail. (See also Schmidt, M., 1929 b.)
Additional data which indicate the complex ethnozoology of the
Inca region are found in the following quotations from Garcilaso de
la Vega (Markham's ed., 1869, vol. 2). These apply to gift animals,
zoologic parks, totemic and deity animals, etc.
... on the principal festivals of the year, especially on the greatest of all in
honour of the Sun, called Raymi [p. 22] . . . the Curacas presented to the Yncas
many wild animals, such as tigers, lions, bears, monkeys, cats, macaws, vultures
and the birds they call condors. They also presented large and small serpents,
. . . [and] great toads and lizards. The Curacas from the sea-coast presented
seals and alligators [p. 23].
There was some recollection left of the districts [of Cuzco] where these animals
were kept, when I departed from Cuzco. . . . [There was the] district of Amaru,
which means a very large kind of serpent. The parts where they kept the lions,
tigers, and bears was called Puma-curcu and Puma-chipana, [from] the name of
lion [which] they called puma [p. 30].
The birds, that they might breed more conveniently, were kept outside the
city. Hence, an estate about a league to the south of Cuzco, is called Suri-
hualla, or "the plain of ostriches" [p. 31].
358 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
The fierce animals, such as tigers, lions, serpents, toads, and lizards (besides
those set apart for the splendour of the court) were kept to punish criminals
... [p. 31].
[At the festival of Raymi, some Indians] came in a costume neither more nor
less than that in which Hercules is painted, wrapped in the skins of lions, with
the heads fixed over their own. These were the Indians who claimed descent
from a lion. Others came attired in the fashion that they paint angels, with
[the] great wing of the bird called Cuntor [condor].
. . . These are the Indians
who declare that they are descended from a Cuntor [p. 160].
[Gold figurines of animals were offered] in the form of sheep [llamas], lambs,
lizards, toads, serpents, foxes, tigers, lions, and many sorts of birds [p. 160].
The province of Pumallacta was the village of the puma, which
was worshiped by the people as a god (op. cit., p. 341). Near Sullano,
the people worshiped pumas and tigers to whom they sacrificed human
hearts and blood (op. cit., p. 425). At Chayapoyas, east of Cajamarca,
the people worshiped the condor as their chief god, and also snakes
(op. cit., p. 278). In the mountains east of Lima, the inhabitants
of Xauxa (Sausa) worshiped dogs (op. cit., p. 279).
Such special features of mid-Andean ethnozoology as the conserva-
tion and utilization of guano birds, the immense drive-hunts (chacus)
,
and the feline and serpent motifs in art, as well as many other details,
are treated in the following pages under the species concerned.
Zoogeographic divisions.—Zoogeography, ecology, and ethnozoology
are closely interrelated. Zoogeographic areas of various degrees of
exclusiveness are characterized by an assemblage of animals which is
different from that of an adjacent area. There are several zoogeo-
graphic divisions of the tropical portion of Neotropica because of
different geologic histories. The temperate portion is a single zoo-
geographic subregion. This systematization allows for a good under-
standing of the Neotropical fauna.
Four main subregions may be considered in Neotropica. (See
map 11.) For a summary of the interpretations of different authors
on Neotropical zoogeography, which superficially show much dis-
agreement, see Lane (1943), Lydeklver (1896, pp. 135 ff.), and Sclater
and Sclater (1899, pi. 3). The differences shown by these authors in
the number and extent of subregions probably result from the use of
either large or small taxonomic divisions as a basis of regional
differentiation.
(1) Guiana-Brazilia. South American tropical forest-river ecologic formations.
(2) Central America. Central American tropical forest-river ecologic forma-
tions.
(3) Antillea. Greater Antillean insular tropical forest-marine ecologic forma-
tions.
(4) Patagonia-Chilea. South American temperate-boreal steppe-mountain
ecologic formations.
The Patagonia-Chilea subregion is the most distinctive, and may
Vol. 6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 359
Map 11.—Zoogeographic subregions of Neotropica.
360 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
legitimately be considered coordinate with a combination of the other
three subregions (as was indicated under ecology). Guiana-Brazilia
is the typical Neotropical tropical subregion, and has two outlying
tropical subregions: Antillea, where conditions of continued insular
isolation have resulted in remarkable faunal distinctness ; and Central
America, which is really a mingling ground between Nearctica and
Neotropica, but its flora and climate and most of its faunal elements
are tropical (Neotropical), and it is considered a subregion of the latter.
Transitional areas between subregions are considered by some as
subregions, but are better treated as smaller subdivisions of equal
rank with other subdivisions of the larger subregions.
The climate, vegetation, and geomorphology of these regions are
discussed elsewhere in this volume (pp. 319-344), and the main types
are shown on maps 8, 9, and 10.
Guiana-Brazilia subregion.—This includes all of tropical continental
South America (excluding the extreme northwest coastal strip of
Colombia and Ecuador) and the Lesser Antilles. The indistinct
southern periphery extends from the high Andes of northern Perri and
southern Ecuador south on the east side diagonally to the La Plata
River regioD, and on the west side of the Andes, south to southern
Peni. Thus the southwestern boundary surrounds a northern
fingerlike extension of the Patagonia -Chilea subregion in the central
Andes.
The fauna is diverse; it is characterized by most of the didelphid
opossums and bats, most of the monkeys, marmosets, anteaters,
sloths, armadillos, rabbits, squirrels, typical hystricomorph rodents
(spiny rats, bristle rats, agoutis, pacas, capybaras, and Caina guinea
pigs, etc.) ; the raccoon, kinkajou, tayra, ocelot, jaguarondi, and jaguar,
maned fox, bush dog, spectacled bear, river dolphin, tapir, manatee,
small brocket deer, huge swamp deer, peccary, etc. Most of the
rich Neotropical bird fauna is found here, including the chachalacas,
curassows, trumpeters, parrots, macaws, toucans, tinamous, etc.;
also most of the rich reptile, amphibian, and fish life, including the
famous abundant river turtles. This is also the subregion of unbeliev-
ably abundant insect life and of tropical disease—faunal factors
which make habitation by man so difficult in places at certain times.
(See Mello Leitao, 1937.) Domesticated animals are largely absent;
even the cavy, dog, and Muscovy duck are not universally distributed
in this subregion.
Central America subregion.—This comprises all of Central America
south of the tableland of south Mexico, and also the narrow rain
forest coastal strip of western Colombia and Ecuador.
Climatically and geomorphologically it is similar to Guiana-
Brazilia, and vegetationally it has similar associations but with many
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 361
different species and even genera. Likewise with the fauna: the
stocks are similar, but most of the species and some of the genera are
distinct. In addition, it is a transition zone between North and
South America and has a number of endemic forms of Nearctic
animals and plants. Its local endemism in the smaller taxonomic
units of predominantly Neotropical origin and its tropical climate
give it subregional rank in Neotropica.
Antillea subregion.—This comprises the Greater Antilles and
Bahama Islands (excluded are the Lesser Antilles and the islands
lying on the continental South American Caribbean shelf, such as
Trinidad, Margarita, Tortuga, and Aruba).
The fauna is an aberrant derivative of the Guiana-Brazilia and
Central America subregions, with some Nearctic elements, and it
is characterized today by its poverty and high endemicity (distinct-
ness). Most of the species, many of the genera, and even some of
the families are unique. The most important types are certain bats,
ground and arboreal rodents of the family Capromyidae, the Solenodon
insectivores, certain very specialized birds, large ground lizards, local
marine fish, and land and water mollusks. Moreover, in the Pleisto-
cene and Recent, many other types existed which were similarly
endemic, and these included the megalochnid ground sloths, additional
capromyid rodents, as well as some large dinomyid and heptaxodontid
rodents, nesophontid insectivores, certain bats, the giant barn owl
and a macaw of Hispaniola, and a quail-dove of Puerto Rico. All
of these types had representatives living up to late pre-Columbian
times, and some as late as the occupation by Whites. Their extinction
was undoubtedly accelerated by primitive man through agriculture
and hunting (especially effective in insular restricted areas), and by
the White man through both these factors and the accidental introduc-
tion of the house rat and the intentional introduction of the Burmese
mongoose. In certain middens, skeletal remains of the extinct types
are common. (See Allen, G. M., 1942.)
This extinct fauna, plus the living endemic types (few are mammals),
contained relatively few species, but was rich enough in individuals
(there were no carnivorous mammals except insectivores) to have
afforded man an abundant supply of food, perhaps sufficient, with
marine species such as conch, clam, crab, lobster, fish, and turtle, to
support his existence without agriculture if necessary. The islands,
in climate and natural food, were favorable for human settlement.
Access for man and animals was easiest on the southeast through the
Lesser Antilles from the adjacent northern shore of South America.
Some large water gaps blocked most of the animals, but man easily
crossed these by boat.
In the Antillea subregion were two domesticated animals, namely,
362 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
the Muscovy duck and the cavy (gumea pig, Cavia porcellus; see
Oviedo y Valdes, 1851, 1: 390); but these species undoubtedly were
brought from neighboring northern South America or Central America
by the Arawak. There was an autochthonous culture trait involving
the use of the suckerfish ("pegador," Echeneis naucrates) for fishing
and for the capture of manatee and turtle, but this animal cannot be
considered truly domesticated.
The origin of the Greater Antillea fauna is shrouded in mystery;
it has been suggested that a land connection existed between the
Lesser Antilles and northern South America, or between Cuba and
Jamaica and Central America, or between Cuba and Florida. Con-
versely, land connection has been denied, and only chance dispersal
for lucky waifs held logical. Neither theory explains satisfactorily
all the zoogeographical problems. (See Barbour, 1914; Anthony,
1925-26, pp. 194-223; Darlington, 1938; Myers, 1938; Matthew, 1939;
and many others.)
Patagonia-Chilea subregion.—This comprises the southern temperate
and antarctic sections of South America with a long tongue of the
high Andes to northern Peru.
The characteristic fauna includes some aberrant didelphid and
caenolestid opossums, and some distinct armadillos; many specialized
hystricomorph rodents, such as chinchillas, viscachas, maras (harelike),
chinchilline rats, octodon rats, and tuco-tucos (gopherUke), most of
the wild cavies (except Cama),mole rats, etc. ; huemal deer, the camelid
llama, alpaca, guanaco, and vicuna; rheas, some tinamous, many
ducks and geese, condors, etc. Insect life is relatively little varied and
not abundant, but a few haematophagous species are severe pests.
The fauna is as distinct as, though less rich than, that of the Guiana-
Brazilia and Central America subregions together, and far richer than
the equally distinct Antillea fauna.
The combination of fauna, flora, and climate (temperate steppe-
pampa-desert-mountain ecology), as in similar places elsewhere, seems
to have been conducive to human cultural advancement. In the
southern extremes of the area, man built a culture around the guanaco
and rhea, supplemented on the coast by marine species. In the
northern part of the area, at medium to high altitudes, and where
transition from boreal to tropical conditions was sharp, man built a
highly complex culture around the domesticated Uama, alpaca, cavy,
Muscovy duck, and cultivated plants. In the eastern part, on the
vast humid grassy pampas, mammal species were few (Hudson, 1892).
Patagonia-Chilea is the most important subregion ethnozoologically.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 363
FAUNA OF NEOTROPICA
GENERAL
There follows a classified discussion of the main animal groups
found in Neotropica. A finer degree of classification is used with
mammals, because they are the types most frequently and most
thoroughly utilized by man and the best-known to the writer and
most readers. Some birds, fishes, crustaceans, and mollusks are also
important, and many middens along the southern and Antillean coasts
are filled with the hard remains of the latter three groups. However,
this does not indicate a natural unimportance for stOl other groups
—
particularly insects, whose pest importance may be so great that whole
regions are rendered almost completely uninhabitable at certain
seasons. In fact, were some of these pestiferous insects larger or
more numerous, neither man nor beast could survive their blindly
instinctive, overwhelming aggression (or defense). Mosquitoes, ants,
biting flies of sundry sorts, wasps, ticks, mites, and their accursed ilk
are found in the Tropics of South and Central America in an abundance
which is at first wonderfully amazing, but soon afterward superlatively
vexatious. Diseases through protozoal, bacterial, or viral agents
are there also, and though the exact amount of pre-Columbian human
and animal disease is not known (especially as concerns the modern
scourges of yellow fever, malaria, syphilis, and dysentery), there
probably were enough diseases, such as verruga, cutaneous leish-
maniasis ("uta," "espundia"), etc., to be factors of prime importance
in limiting the distribution and very existence of man and some ani-
mals in certain areas. The verruga belt on the western slope of the
Peruvian Andes may have had a powerful effect in isolating Highland
from Coastal cultures at certain times and in certain places. Some of
the swift-flowing streams of the east Andean foothill region along most
of its central and northern length are so heavily infested with simulium
flies ("merihui," "borrachuda") that human habitation in the dry
season is rendered exceedingly difficult.
MAMMALS (MAMMALIA)
Members of this class are common, and are the most important
ethnozoologically of aU classes of South Americaji animals. As noted
on previous pages, there is an abundance of rodents, many of large
size, but there is also a scarcity of large ungulates. Three mammals
were domesticated: the llama, alpaca, and cavy (guinea pig) ; and many
others were semidomesticated or culturally closely integrated. Of
38 families of land mammals, 23 are primary endemics; and there are
8 additional families of marine mammals which are nonendemics.
(See Cabrera and Yepes, 1940.)
364 SOXJTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Order MARSUPIALIA: Opossums
All opossums are primary endemics, belonging to the families
Didelphidae and Caenolestidae, and the order is distributed over
Neotropica except Antillea. Most of the species are small and un-
important, although one, the common large opossum (Didelphis,
"gamba," "sarigue," "chucha"), may be important for food through-
out continental Neotropica, except most of Patagonia-Chilea. It is
abundant where present and easy to capture.
Order INSECTIVORA: Insectirores
Family Nesophontidae, Antillea: These small rat and mouse-sized
mammals are thought to be extinct, though some lived at least until
early post-Columbian times in Cuba and Hispanioia, They were
part of the archaic AntUlean fauna which was exterminated by man's
occupation; none was known to have been eaten.
Family Solenodontidae, solenodons; also of the Greater Antilles
exclusively: Three species are known, all the size of a large rat or
small cat. They are the "ayre" of Oviedo (Solenodon paradoxus)
from Hispanioia, and the "almiquis" (S. cuhanus and S. poeyanus) of
Cuba. Formerly, they were abundant, but now are becoming extinct
through man's agency. Both are members of the archaic Antillean
fauna; none was an important source of food.
Family Soricidae, shrews: One genus (Cryptotis) is intrusive into
Central America and extreme northern South America from Nearctica.
Its several species are unimportant to man, but its distribution shows
the natural route of entry of one form of Nearctic invader—the more
temperate form which is confined to mountains in its southern distri-
bution. Cryptotis is a mountain form in Central America and northern
South America, though it is widely distributed altitudinally in its
Nearctic range (eastern United States). Evidently Cryptotis pene-
trated the mountains of Central America, and thence to the middle
range of the Colombian Andes, from where it spread east to the
western Venezuelan Andes (dead end?), and south to southern Ecua-
dor, where it evidently has been blocked by the Huancabamba Valley.
It has not been taken in the low western Colombian Andes, nor in the
isolated high Santa Marta range in northern Colombia. (See Tate,
1932.)
Order CHIROPTEKA: Bats
Neotropica has 10 families of bats, of which 7 are primary endemics.
The true blood-sucking vampires (Desmodontidae) are the. most im-
portant; some others enter into folldore; and some were eaten like the
fruit bats of the Old World. The true vampu'es, "vampiros" {Des-
modus rotundus, Diaemus youngi, Diphylla ecaudata) are found in
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 365
Guiana-Brazilia and Central America, and are the only sanguivorous
bats in the New or Old World. They are of small size (body 6 to 8
cm., or 2% to 3^ inches; wingspread 20 to 30 cm., or 8 to 12 inches)
with small ears and long thumbs. Each upper central incisor is lance-
like with an acute point and a razor-sharp sloping lateral edge; each
upper canine is long, sharp, and with a rear cutting edge; the other
teeth are vestigial. There is no nose "leaf," or tail. Vampire bats
can crawl actively on walls of their cave homes, or on their victims, or
on the ground nearby. The sldn of the victim is opened by the cut-
ting incisors, and the flowing blood is lapped, not sucked; the saliva
may contain an anticoagulant (Bier, 1932), These bats are severe
pests where common; they feed exclusively on fresh blood and vic-
timize man and domestic animals as well as wild species. They cause
considerable physical discomfort and mental anguish, and today they
are laiown to carry rabies on Trinidad Island and horse tryanosomiasis
("mal de cadeiras," "quebra bunda") in southern Brazil, where
high losses of horses have occurred. However, they have not been
incriminated as a vector in similar epidemics on the Ilha de Maraj6,
at the mouth of the Amazon. Their importance as vectors of diseases
in aboriginal times is not laiown, but the presence of vampires in the
foothills of Northwest Argentina is said to prevent alpaca raismg
today, and probably this was also the case formerly (Romero, E. C,
1927, pp. 99-100; see also Ditmars and Greenhall, 1935; Allen, G. M.,
1939). Ignacio de Armas (1888, pp. 25-26), under the name 'Thyl-
lostomus spectrum," noted Oviedo's remarks on the vampire bat and
such cm-es as placing hot embers or hot water on the bleeding incision.
The former author also noted the depredations of the bats on the
exploring parties of Balboa in Panama, Garay in "Pdnnco," Diego
de Ordaz along the Orinoco, Herreira in New Grenada, and Cabeza
de Vaca in Paraguay, The bats molested not only human beings,
but also horses, cattle, and chickens, to such an extent that the expe-
ditions or settlements were endangered. Presimiably such vampire-
human relationships reflected the general conditions under which the
aborigines lived in these regions.
The large chiroptivorous bull-dog bat {Phyllostomus hastatus) is
much larger and more fearsome-appearing than the vampires, but it is
not dangerous to man or to most other animals except small bats.
Other species of bats are unimportant.
Cobo (1890-95, bk. 14, chap. 11, p. 205) said that the wool of
"murcielago" (bat) was woven into cloth with that of vicuna. This
statement has been quoted though it is not known to have been
verified by subsequent microscopic wool examination. Bats of the
middle Andean region are small and have short wool, and are not
known to inhabit caves in abundance great enough to supply wool
366 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
for a textile art; nor is it seen how, in any way, bat wool could be
advantageous in weaving, though the short hairs with rough cortical
scales arranged in distinct nodes should felt well. Pteropid fruit
bats of the Indo-Australian region have a wool of 2 to 3 cms., and
long enough to weave, but these do not inhabit South America.
Order PRIMATES: Monkeys and Marmosets
This order is found in Guiana-Brazilia and Central America.
Monkeys are important as food because of their vegetable and fruit
diet, and as pets because of their relatively high intelligence and
human appearance.
Family Callithrichidae (syn. Hapalidae), marmosets, "saguims,"
"titis": There are many species of marmosets, but all are small and
squirrellike, with a long but nonprehensile tail, monkey face, and claws
on all digits except the big toe. They are utilized principally as pets.
Family Cebidae, monkeys, "macacos," "monos." There are 11
distinct groups (genera) of monkeys and they are confined to the
tropical part of Neotropica, except the Antilles. All are used as food
and pets, but some are more desirable than others, particularly the
capuchin, or roll-tailed monkey ("prego," "machin," Cehus, pi. 36)
the spider monkey ("coata," "marimondo," Ateles) ; the woolly monkey
("barigudo," Lagothrix); and the howder monkey ("guariba,"
"alouate," Alouatta, pi. 36). All these genera are of large size (3 to
9 kg., or 6 to 20 lbs.).
Monkeys are hunted by stealth and bow and arrow, or blowgun and
poisoned dart. Cehus can be decoyed by calling. Pets are obtained
usually as babies from their slain mothers.
Ignacio de Armas (1888, pp. 23-24) believed that many alleged
cases of cannibalism, especially of children, in the early Spanish ac-
counts, stem from observations of natives eating monkeys, not human
beings. He also noted the observations of Humboldt, Schomburgk,
and Bates on the ease of making such an interpretation even when
personally participating in a meal of laiown monkey meat. However,
cannibalism was practiced in Neotropica to some extent.
No monkeys occurred naturally on any Antillean island except
Trinidad, and possibly Barbados. However, archeological remains
of cebids have been found in Cuba (a spider monkey, the Montaneia
anthropomorpha of Ameghino) and Hispaniola (the genus not certain;
Miller, 1916; 1929, p. 5), thus indicating travel and commerce between
the Greater Antilles and the mainland, especially Central America,
with accompanying inferences of ocean navigation on the part of the
natives.
Family Hominidae, man; entire Neotropica: All members of this
family in Neotropica are Homo sapiens; no undisputed fossil species
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 367
are known. (See McCown, this volume, p. 1; Hrdli6ka et al., 1912.)
Subspecies or races, as the result of biologic responses to certain en-
vironments, are not discussed here.
Primitive man was, and is, definitely an important dominant ele-
ment of the natural fauna. As a sedentary or roving intelhgent species
hving in small groups with intragroup cooperation and intergroup
conflict, preying on animal hfe throughout the year, and gathering
vegetable food seasonally, he had in general a strong adverse effect
on his environment. He built cultures around nuclei of large pop-
ulations through his organizing, cooperative activities; he drove out,
captured, or exterminated his human enemies, or vice versa; he waste-
fully depleted his neighboring animal and plant food to the point,
perhaps, of contributing to the extermination of some species; he
deforested by fire, and caused erosion and change in local bioecology;
and he also domesticated and cultivated to the point perhaps of saving
certain species from extinction.
The infiltration of primitive man into South America from North
America was relatively slow because of the narrow entrance tln'ough
Central America and the different and imfavorable environments
which he encountered in comparison with those on the southern fringe
of Nearctica. Probably southern Nearctic man, before penetration
into South America, was predominantly an adaptive of the open
terrain, high altitude, dry and fairly thin air, and large range of
diurual temperature of the southern Highlands of Mexico. Pene-
trating into post-Pliocene Neotropica, he encountered heavy forest,
low altitude, humid and heavy air, and hot and constant temperature.
This is today a difficult environment for temperate man because of the
difficulty of regulating body temperature and tbe resulting physical
and mental lassitude even despite man's efficient temperature-
regulating mechanism. This environment and climate have their
world's largest distribution in South America. It is hkely that river
travel was well developed before man adapted himself successfully
(relatively speaking) to the vast, humid, tropical regions of South
America.
A second difficult environment for man to meet adaptively was
that of the high paramo-punas of the Andes from Colombia to
Chile, especially in Peru and Bolivia where extensive tablelands
offer the second largest high altitude habitable area of the world
(the largest is Tibet in Asia). Here, extremely thin and dry air, great
range of diurnal temperature, and perhaps scarcity of food offered
considerable obstacles. However, human beings, perhaps hill and
mountain people, adapted themselves successfully to this extreme en-
vironment. The desert conditions of west coastal Peril and northwest
coastal Chile were also met with appropriate physiologic adaptation
368 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
to constantly high, temperature, dry air, and scarcity of water. Man
can endure and adapt himself better to hot or cold dry climates tban
to hot and humid ones, if he can obtain sufficient water and salt.
In fact, man appears to have been stimulated to his greatest physical
and mental vigor in adverse environments in Neotropica, except in
the humid lowlaads where perhaps he never really successfully has
adapted himself. If man entered at an early date, say 10,000 to
20,000 years ago, he probaoly encountered less difficulties of climate
and environment than today because of a general southward shift
of isotherms and climatic belts during the expiration of the last ice age.
No anthropoid ape nor cercopithecid monkey (Old World type) is
known to occur naturally in Neotropica (or in any part of the New-
World), though two West African guenon monkeys (of the genus
Cercopithecus) were introduced in the early 18th century: C. sabaeus
has become established on Grenada and C. mona on Barbados and
St. Kitts m the Lesser Antilles (Allen, G. M., 1911, pp. 251-253).
The spurious anthropoid ape {Amer-anthropoides loysi) described by
Montandon (1929 c) from notes and photographs originating in
northeast Colombia, is certainly a brown spider monkey, Ateles
hybridus (the Ateles behebuth hybridus of Kellogg and Goldman, 1944,
p. 27; see also Ashley-Montagu, 1929; Cabrera, A., 1930; and
Hooton, 1942, pp. 271-273).
Order EDENTATA: Sloths, Armadillos, and Anteaters
All edentates are exclusively Neotropical primary endemics, and
truly are among the queerest of beasts in the animal kingdom. The
order includes the extinct giant armadillos and extinct ground sloths,
some members of which were contemporaneous with early man who
perhaps "contributed" to their extinction.
Family Bradypodidae, tree sloths, "preguigas," "pericos"; two-toed
(Choloepus) , and three-toed (Bradypus): Both tbe two-toed and
three-toed sloths are utilized for food and are taken easily without
weapons. They are sluggish, and they hang or progress along branches
upside-down or sleep in a crotch, but rarely are found low enough or
concentrated in numbers large enough to form a reliable source
of food. Individuals are taken often when the forest is felled, espe-
cially when this is done rapidly with modern axes. Bradypus appar-
ently is semirestricted to the embauba tree (Cecropia), whose leaves it
relishes. The embauba, however, is myi-mecophilous and is inhabited
by a species of vicious, highly poisonous, tiny, red fire ant, which
apparently does not molest the sloth, but effectively prevents chmbing
the tree or attack upon the sloth by other animals or by man. Sloths
have teeth and can inflict a]painful|bite. Choloepus weighs 5 to 8 kg.
(11 to 18 lbs.); Bradypus, 2 to 4 kg. (4}^ to 9 lbs.).
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 369
Family Dasypodidae, armadillos, "tatus," "quirquinchos," "cachi-
camos", etc.; niae-banded and relatives (Dasypus), six-banded
(Euphractus) , hairy {Chaetophractus and Zaedius), soft-tailed (Cabas-
sous), giant (Priodontes) , three-banded or ball armadillo (Tolypeutes)
,
and pygmy (Chlamyphorus) : All armadillos are utilized extensively
for food where they are common, particularly the Dasypus (pi. 42),
which is widespread over all tropical and semitropical Neotropica,
is very tasty, and is a relatively poor burrower. Carapaces are used
often as containers. All types can be taken by hand, but pursuit
and capture is aided by dogs. All species have teeth (simple pegs),
but are quite harmless.
Family Myrmecophagidae, anteaters, "tamanduas," "oso hormi-
gueros"; pygmy or silky (Cyclopes), common (Tamandua), and giant
(Myrmecophaga, pi. 37); Guiana-Brazilia and Central America: None
of the anteaters is very important ethnozoologically, though the
pygmy and giant species are striking enough in form and behavior to
elicit attention, and the giant anteater can be a dangerous adversary,
striking laterally with powerful, huge-clawed forefeet. All are
truly edentulous.
Family Glyptodontidae, glyptodonts or extinct armadillos: Many
genera were common in the Pleistocene and some survived until the
Recent time when they were contemporaneous with early man, who
probably hastened their extinction by pursuit and annoyance. Some
were huge, the size of a bear.
Families Megalochnidae, Megatheriidae, Megalonychidae, and
Mylodontidae, extinct ground sloths: Remains of many genera have
been found in the Pleistocene of Neotropica, expecially in Patagonia-
Chilea, and some occurred far north into North America. A few
species survived untU a late Recent date to judge from the freshness
of bone, skin, dung, and even blood from certain spots in Patagonia,
the Andes, the Antilles, and Arizona. These are known to have been
contemporaneous with, and probably to have been hunted by, primitive
man, who may have hastened their extinction. It is improbable,
however, that ground sloths were stabled in caves at Last Hope Inlet
(Ultima Esperanza), Patagonia, by primitive man and used as a
semidomesticated food animal, as has been claimed. (See Bird,
1938 a; also Beddard, 1902, p. 182; Ley, 1941, pp. 189-193.)
Order RODENTIA: Rodents
The Rodentia include a multitude of species of many families.
The most important in Neotropica are the Hystricomorpha and the
myomorph family Cricetidae.
370 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Suborder DUPLICIDENTATA
(Often considered as a distinct order, Lagomorpha)
Family Leporidae, rabbits and hares: In Neotropica, as secondary-
endemics, are small cottontail rabbits, "coelhos," "conejos" (Syl-
vilagus), which are common in Guiana-Brazilia and Central America
and are much utilized for food. They are taken by any weapon,
snares, or by hand, often with the aid of dogs.
The European hare {Lepus europaeus) and the European rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus) have been introduced recently into the
Patagonia-Chilea subregion, where they are now feral in great numbers
and are important faunal elements and food sources. They were
introduced also into some of the Lesser Antilles, but failed to become
well established.
Suborder SIMPLICIDENTATA
This suborder includes all other rodents; often considered as the
true order Rodentia.
Infraorder HYSTRICOMORPHA
There are many families of hystricomorphs, whose distinction, in
some cases, is doubtful, but which are included here for easier recog-
nition. They are primary endemics and are exclusively Neotropical
except for some distant families in Africa, one of which extends to
southern Asia.
Family Erethizontidae, porcupines, "porco espinhos": There are
several genera (Coendou, Echinoprocta, Chaetomys) found in the
Guiana-Braziliaj and Central America subregions. They are of
rather large size (2 to 4 kg., or 4K to 9 lbs,), and are lethargic and
defenseless against man; hence they are easy prey. The meat is
eaten and the quills may be used for clothing adornment. Coendou
(pi. 42) is the most common and widely distributed; it possesses a
dorsally prehensile tail which is unique among mammals. The North
American porcupines (Erethizon) are of Neotropical origin, but are
now extinct south of the southwestern United States.
Family Dinomyidae, tailed paca, "pacarana" (Dinomys branickii):
This species is the only living member of its family and is found in
the eastern central and northern Andes. It is large (10 to 15 kg., or
22 to 33 lbs.), lethargic, a prized food animal, now rare though prob-
ably commoner in aboriginal times, and is so easily tamed that it
would appear to be domesticable.
The family included other members, which are now extinct. They
included the large "quemi" (Quemisia quemi) of Oviedo y Valdes
from Hispaniola and the Puerto Rican quemi (Elasmodontomys
ohliguus), as well as the large (black-bear size) Amhlyrhiza inundata
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 371
from Anguilla and San Martin Islands in the extreme eastern Greater
Antilles (Allen, G. M., 1942, pp. 126-128). The quemis were for-
merly abundant on their islands of the Greater Antilles; they were
contemporaneous with man, and were utilized for food, perhaps to
the point of extinction (Miller, 1929).
Family Echimyidae, bristle and spiny rats of several genera:
These stiff-haired rats are found in the Guiana-Brazilia and southern
Central America subregions. The bristle rat (Proechimys, pi. 41),
the size of a house rat, is one of the commonest small mammals of the
jungle; it has white tasty flesh, and is probably an important food
animal. The spiny rats {Echimys, Mesomys) are less common and
less important; some are arboreal.
The recently extinct Brotomys of Hispaniola and Boromys of Cuba
(the "mohuys" of Oviedo y Valdes) were common in aboriginal times,
and were stated to have been greatly esteemed as food. Their extinc-
tion was accelerated by man with his agriculture and introduced
competitive animals. The bony remains indicate that the mohuys
were simUar to Proechimys in size and structure.
Family Capromyidae, hutias : The hutias are exclusively Antillean,
and many species have become extinct since the arrival of primitive
and civilized man. Most were the size of a large rat or a small cat;
and probably all were highly palatable and constituted an important
source of food in aboriginal times. Oviedo's "hutia" of Hispaniola
was probably Plagiodontia or Isolobodon, or both (Miller, 1929).
Krieger (1929, p. 19, quoting Oviedo y Valdes) stated that a ". . .
Plagiodontia was reserved for the exclusive use of the cacique and his
family." One species (P. hylaeum of Hispaniola) is still living (Miller,
1927).
The abundance and diversity of the capromyids in the Greater
Antilles and their importance in the archaic fauna, which once was
utilized extensively by primitive man and is almost extinct today,
are shown as follows: Of 18 known species of capromyids, 9 are extinct
and subfossil in caves and middens, 7 are living and rare (approaching
extinction ?), and 1 is of doubtful status. G. M. Allen (1942) included
the capromyids with the Echimyidae.
Family Heptaxodontidae : This family represents a distinct group
of once numerous but now entirely extinct rodents of the Greater
Antilles. All were primary endemics, similar to the echimyids in
size and somewhat similar to the dinomyids in structure, and were
contemporaneous with aboriginal man as late as early post-Columbian
times. Remains have been found in middens and caves of Puerto
Rico (Heptaxodon hidens) and Jamaica (Clidomys osborni and C. parvus,
Spirodontomys jamaicensis and Speoxenus cundalli; Allen, G. M.,
1942, pp. 125-126; Anthony, 1925-26, p. 206).
794711—50 ^25
372 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Family Dasyproctidae, agoutis, "cutias," "jochis"; primary en-
demics, exclusively Neotropical: The common agouti (Dasyprocta,
pi. 41) is probably the most important year-round food animal in
the jungles of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America, and is easily
hunted with bow and arrow or blowgun from ambush, or taken by
snare or by hand after being run to cover in a shallow burrow or hollow
log by dogs. It is large (2 to 4 kg., or 4K to 9 lbs.), diurnal, a woods
inhabitant, cursorial and not a burrower, highly palatable, and
common. It has been introduced recently into some islands of the
Greater Antilles (Howes, 1930). The smaller, wire-tailed Myoprocta
is of less importance and is more restricted in range (northern Guiana-
Brazilia) .
Family Caviidae, cavy, mara, and capybara, and perhaps paca; all
primary endemics and exclusively Neotropical: This is an important
family.
The cavies, "preas," "cuis," and "coris" {Cavia, pi. 38, Galea,
Microcavia, and Kerodon) are common over most of Neotropica (except
Central America and the Antilles) in grasslands, brush, or highlands
(puna-steppe), but generally they do not occur in heavy jungle.
They are relished for food, and are diurnal and easily caught. One
member, the common cavy, or guinea pig {Cavia porcellus), has been
domesticated (see p. 454) probably from the wild cavy of Peril.
The mara, Patagonian hare or cavy (Dolichotis australifi, pi. 36),
found in the Patagonia-Chilea subregion, is an important food animal;
it is large (75 cm., or 30 in., long and weighs 10 to 15 kg., or 22 to
33 lbs.), diurnal, and a semigregarious, plains inhabitant. Recently
it has been farmed for meat and fur in Argentina. The dwarf mara
(Pediolagus salinicola) is found on the saline flats of Northwest Argen-
tina, and is less important.
The capybara {Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris
,
pi. 40), of Guiana-BrazUia
and Central America, is the largest living rodent (50 to 75 kg., or 110
to 165 lbs.), and is gregarious, aquatic, common, and an important
source of food and hides. It can be taken by bow and arrow or pit
trap.
The paca {Cuniculus paca, syn. Aguti and Coelogenus, pi. 38), also
found in the Guiana-Brazilia and Central America subregions, is con-
sidered one of the most desirable of food animals because of its deli-
cious, whitish meat. It is large (to 10 kg. or 22 lbs.), solitary, a woods
inhabitant^ and is hunted with dogs, which drive the paca into a
burrow or the water. It is considered by some authors as belonging
to a distinct family.
The recently extinct paca {C. thomasi), found in Machu Picchu
tombs and middens, was used perhaps ceremonially as a food offering
to the deceased (Eaton, 1916). It may be considered as having been
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORB 373
a semidomesticated animal. The species was characterized by small
size and large tympanic bullae, and was closely related to but prob-
able not derived from the living mountain paca {C. taczanowski)
.
Family Chinchillidae, chinchillas and viscachas; Patagonia-Chilea:
Primary endemics and exclusively Neotropical.
The chinchilla (Chinchilla chinchilla) lives in the High Andes of
ChUe, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peril. It is small but highly prized
for its extremely soft and thick fur, which in Inca times was reserved
especially for members of the royal family. The meat was eaten by
the lower classes. The animal is now almost extinct, though it is
"farmed" in Argentina, Chile, the United States, and Switzerland for
its fantastically high-valued fur.
The viscachas are important food animals and are used also for
fur and wool. Both Garcilaso and Cieza de Le6n remarked on the
fine quality and high value of viscacha robes. The mountain viscacha
{Lagidium, several species) occurs in the High Central and Southern
Andes; it is of cat size (1 to 2 kg., or 2 to 4K lbs.), and is semigregarious
in large scattered colonies in the rocks. The plains viscacha (Lago-
stomus maximus, pi. 41) is found on the humid pampas of eastern
Patagonia-Chilea, where it is the most common mammal (Hudson,
1892, p. 10). It is the size of a small dog (5 to 8 kg., or 11 to 17 lbs.)
and is gregarious in numerous and compact but small colonies in
ground burrows.
A recently extinct "plains" viscacha, Lagostomus crassus, was
described from late Recent deposits near Cuzco, Perd (Thomas, O.,
1910, p. 246), and a lower incisor of L. crassus or L. maximus was
reported from a Machu Picchu grave by Eaton (1916, p. 57). Both
occurrences indicate probable utilization by man of a now extinct
species, and the recent extinction of the group over an extensive
northern area, perhaps accompanied by progressive aridity and
devegetation of the region.
Family Octodontidae, certain "octodont" rats and mice; Patagonia-
Chilea exclusively; primary endemics: There are six genera, of which
the tuco-tuco (Ctenomys) is probably the most important. This
animal is a burrower in colonies, is of rat size, and can be captured
by hand. It was used for food by the Ona and Tehuelche.
Family Abrocomidae, other octodonts; High Andes of southern
Bolivia to middle Chile; primary endemics: The abrocoma is of large
rat size, with dense and soft fur and palatable flesh. One extinct
species (Abrocoma oblativa) was described from remains found in
tombs at Machu Picchu, Peril, by Eaton (1916). Its recent extinc-
tion reduced the range of the genus in the north, as is the case of the
plains viscacha, perhaps for similar reasons of climatic change or
human persecution. Eaton was convinced that this extinct abrocoma
374 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
was used as a food offering in burial rites of the Machu Picchuans.
If so, it might have been semidomesticated or even completely domes-
ticated. Certainly this custom was a local phenomenon and disap-
peared with the death of the city, but if the custom and the associated
mammal had become more widespread, A. oblativa might be an existent
domesticated animal today. Its origin even might be sought in north
Chile, which is the home of the living, slightly smaller A. bennettii.
Suborder SCIUROMORPHA
Family Sciuridae, squirrels, "caxingueles," "ardillas"; Guiana-
BrazUia and Central America ; secondary endemics from post-Pliocene
Nearctic stock: This entire suborder is represented in Neotropica by
tree squirrels only; there are no ground squirrels or other sciuromorphs.
There are several genera, but these are of little importance to the
aborigines because of the difficulty in hunting. All are arboreal,
diurnal, and palatable.
Suborder MYOMORPHA: Regular Rats and Mice, "Ratos," "Camondongos," "Pericotes"
Family Cricetidae, cricetid rodents; entire Neotropica except
Antillea; secondary endemics: There are many genera, but most are
small and unimportant, except possibly the large members of Oryzomys
(most common genus), of which one species {0. xanthaeolus) is exceed-
ingly common in south Coastal Peru in quadrennial cycles when it
devastates the crops, as it probably has done for millennia. There
are numerous figures of rats eating corn on the pre-Columbian pots
in the museum in Lima (Gilmore, 1947, p. 236). The large bank-rat
(Nectomys squamipes) is common in the woods of Guiana-Brazilia and
may be of value as food.
The so-called "muskrat" of the Lesser Antilles (Megalomys; not
the muskrat of North America, Ondatra) was a large rat (to 70 cm.,
or 30 in., total length), and was apparently prized for food. It hved
on Martinque, St. Lucia, and Barbuda Islands until post-Columbian
times, but it is now probably extinct, another victim of man's competi-
tion. (See Allen, G. M., 1942, pp. 90-93.)
"Domestic" house rats and mice {Rattus and Mus) of the family
Muridae accompanied the White man in his occupation of the Antilles
and the continent, and in many places are exceedingly common.
However, they generally are confined to the larger centers of popula-
tion and do not enter into aboriginal ethnozoology, though Miller
(1929) believed that Oviedo's "mures y ratones" on Hispaniola were
introduced Mus.
Family Heteromyidae, pouched rats and mice: One genus (Hetero-
mys) is geologically a late intruder into northern South America
from Central America. It is unimportant ethnozoologically, but its
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 375
distribution shows the natural routes of a lowland invader from Ne-
arctica upon arrival m South America: south, down the west coast
and low ranges of the Andes of Colombia to western Ecuador, down
the Cauca and Magdalena River valleys of Colombia (dead ends ?);
and east, along the north coast of Colombia to northern Venezuela.
Heteromys has attained the Meta region of eastern Colombia, pre-
sumably around the northern end of the Venezuelan Andes. (Com-
pare with the mountain distribution of a highland invader, Cryptotis
(p. 364).)
Order CARNIVORA: Carnivoroua Mammals
In Neotropica, this order includes members of all living families
except the Hyaenidae and Viverridae (and viverrids are represented
now on several Antillean islands, and in British Guiana (?), by the
introduced mongoose, Mungos hirmanicus)
.
Family Procyonidae, raccoons, "quatis," "coatimundis" {Procyon
and Nasua), and the arboreal and nocturnal kinkajous, "juparas"
(Potos, pi. 42, and Bassaricyon) ; secondary endemics, perhaps acci-
dentally intrusive from Nearctica before Pliocene contact: All mem-
bers of this family tame easily when young, and are important as pets.
Nasua is very common and may have been used also for food. Potos
may be connected with the Amazonian "jupara" ceremonies.
Family Mustelidae, otter, "lontras," "nutrias" {Lutra undPteroneura);
skunks, "jaratatdcas," "zoriUas" iConepatus); weasel, "comadreja"
(Mustela) ; hurons {Grison, Galictis, Lyncodon) ; and iraras or tayras
{Jayra); entu'e Neotropica except Antillea; secondary endemics: A few
species are important. The common river otter {Lutra) is found in most
fresh-water streams, is easUy tamed, and makes an affectionate pet, and
is said to have been used for fishing in Colombia (Smith, in Allen, J. A.,
1904, p. 454). In southern Mexico and adjacent regions, the river otter
had much mythological and religious significance, especially in connec-
tion with drowned persons and hunting rituals (Ignacio de Armas, 1888,
pp. 46-47), and these customs may have spread to nearby Central Amer-
ica. The culture trait of fishing with tamed otter was not as common
in the New as in the Old World. (See Gudger, 1927.) The giant
river otter, "ariranha" {Pteroneura brasiliensis), occurs in the Orinoco,
Amazon, and La Plata River systems, and is conspicuous by its large
size (to 2 m., or 6% feet, total length). The skin is believed by some
to be impervious to water and hence valuable for clothing or other
protection (Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 157). The marine otter,
"chinchimen" (Lutra felina), of south coastal Chile and Patagonia,
was hunted extensively for fur (and meat ?) by the Chono and Ala-
caluf, often with the aid of especially trained dogs. (See Gudger,
1923, p. 567.) The huron (Galictis furax) was tamed by the natives
of southern Bolivia and northern ChUe to hunt chinchillas in their
376 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
burrows, much as the ferret was trained to hunt rabbits in Europe
(Bridges, 1846, p. 482). Cieza de Ledn's remark (Markham's ed.,
1864, p. 402) that these were the best*ferrets in the world indicate
the high degree of training and the pre-Colombian origin of the trait.
Family Felidae, cats of many sizes and colors, some spotted; entire
Neotropica except Antillea; secondary endemics: The most im-
portant are the jaguar, puma, and ocelot. The jaguar, "onga,"
"tigre" (Felis, or Panthera, onca, pi, 39) of Guiana-Brazilia and
Central America, is large (50 to 100 kg., or 110 to 220 lbs.), a jungle
inhabitant, truculent, common where proper food is available, and a
highly desired hunting trophy. It is killed by special techniques,
one of which involves provoking a charge and impaling the animal
on a spear with butt braced on the ground. The jaguar is important
in folklore and mythology, as weU as a deity and totemic animal,
and with the puma was used by the Inca to punish criminals. The
puma, "onga sussuardna," "leon" (Felis, or Puma, concolor, pi. 39),
ranges over entire Neotropica except AntiUea; in fact, it has the
greatest range of any mammal species in the Western Hemisphere,
occurring from central Canada to Tierra del Fuego, from the Atlantic
(formerly) to the Pacific, from mountain top to jungle, and over
plains and deserts. It is large (50 to 75 kg., or 110 to 165 lbs.),
prized as a hunting trophy, and especially common in Patagonia-
Chilea where lamoid camelids and, more recently, sheep form an
abundant food supply. It was captured by the Inca in their vicuna
"drives" (chacos) and used as an instrument of torture and execution
(lion pits). The feline motif of Highland Andean cultures may be
based on the puma, and perhaps also on the jaguar. The ocelot,
"jaguatierica," "tigrillo" (Felis, or Leopardus, pardalis, pi, 37), is a
beautifully striped and spotted cat of medium size (10 to 12 kg., or
22 to 26 lbs.) which ranges over Guiana-Brazilia and Central America,
It is common, a jungle inhabitant, tamable when young, and often
kept as a pet, perhaps by the Inca higher classes for pomp and probably
for symbolism also. The Museo Chiclin has a figurine which portrays
a tame ocelotlike cat at the foot of a high official who is seated on a
throne.
The marbled cat (Felis hracatta), of the southwestern Brazilian
planalto, has been suggested, without confirmation, as the wild
progenitor of the "Brazilian tortoise-shell cat" by Ballon (1897).
Family Ursidae, bears, "ursos": This family is represented in
Neotropica today by one relict species, the spectacled bear, "jucumdri"
(Tremarctos ornatus), which is found on the High Eastern Andean
slopes from Venezuela to Bolivia, It seems to be an important
animal in legends in the southern part of its range, and many fantastic
qualities and even shapes are attributed to it. The recently extinct
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 377
bear (Arctotherium brasiliensis) from Lagoa Santa caves, in eastern
Brazil, probably was contemporaneous with early man.
Family Canidae, dogs, foxes; entire Neotropica except Antillea;
secondary endemics: All the native Neotropical canids are foxes,
with the exception of the bush dog. The tawny wild dog, "perro
cimarr6n" of Argentina, has been shown by A. Cabrera (1934) to
have been a feral pariah dog of European stock brought in by the
Spaniards. A true wolf {Canis nehringi) existed in Argentina in late
Pleistocene (and early Recent ?) times, but it is not known to have
been contemporaneous with early man. Nor is it known that the
blood of any Neotropical fox has entered into any breed of aboriginal
dog despite assertions by Latcham (1922). Rarely do foxes and true
dogs cross, and then the offspring may be infertile. However, Krieg
(1925) reported two litters from a cross between "Psendalopex azarae"
{=Dusicyon gymnocercus) and a fox-terrier hybrid (terrier X fox ?).
(See p. 424 for discussion of dogs.)
The classification of the South American canids is as follows
:
Osgood, 1934 Cabrera and Yepes, 1940
Family Canidae Family Canidae
Subfamily Caninae Subfamily Caninae
Dusicyon Dusicyon australis
(Dusicyon) australis Pseudalopex culpaeus
(Dusicyon) culpaeus gymnocercus
(Dusicyon) gymnocercus gracilis
(Dusicyon) griseus Lycalopex sechurae
(Dusicyon) sechurae Atelocynus microtis
(Dusicyon) microtis Lycalopex vetulus
(Lycalopex) vetulus Cerdocyon thous
(Cerdocyon) thous Urocyon guatemalae
Urocyon cinereoargenteus Chrysocyon brachyurus
Chrysocyon brachyurus Icticyon venaticus
Subfamily Cyoninae (Kraglievich,
1930 b)
Speothos venaticus
The forest fox, "raposa do matto," "zorro" (Dusicyon thous, syn. D.
cancrivorus) is found over the forested region of Guiana-Brazilia and
extends to Tucumdn in the south. This species was said by Latcham
(1922, p. 17) to have been domesticated in northern South America,
and to cross with the true (European) dog. He also suggested that
it may have been the progenitor of the aboriginal hairless dog. His
assertions as to its easy interbreeding with dogs and its being the
ancestor of the hairless dog are probably incorrect, but that the species
may have been tamed and even semidomesticated is indicated by
Latcham's quotation from Oviedo y Valdes. The description of the
animal in this account corresponds well to D. thous, but Oviedo stated
378 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
that he saw only one individual which had been brought to Hispaniola
from Cartagena. The crab-eating propensity of the species, described
by Oviedo and others, has not been verified subsequently as a charac-
teristic trait, and probably the story resulted from a confusion of the
fox with beach-scavenging feral dogs, or even with the large raccoon,
"guachinin" (Procyon cancrivorus). Rare individuals of D. thous
conceivably might have been the basis of some of the numerous
descriptions of a mute dog, "perro mudo," which was noted in northern
South America in early colonial times. (See p. 425.)
The "culpeo," Andean fox (Dusicyon culpeus) is a large fox of the
southern Andes and Patagonia. Latcham (1922, p. 19) erroneously
considered it as having been the stem form of the aboriginal Pata-
gonian and Fuegian dogs.
The large maned fox, "lobo do matto," "zorro de crin," "aguard-
guazii" (Chrysocyon brachyurus, syn. C. jubatus, pi. 42) is a huge fox
(weight, 20 to 30 kg. or 44 to 66 lbs.) with large ears and extremely
long legs (height at shoulder, to 90 cm., or 36 inches), and short body
and tail. It lives in the bush and forest patches of the plains of
southern Guiana-Brazilia (Bolivia and central Brazil to Paraguay
and Uruguay) , and is a striking animal in form and behavior, Latcham
(1922, p. 14) stated that it might have been the progenitor of the
•'perro cimarrdn," quoting Torres, who identified dog remains from
sites on the Rio Parana as of the latter type. The maned fox was
suggested also by Latcham as possibly the greyhoundlike dog of the
Guianas, but this seems highly improbable, and Latcham cited other
authors who derived this greyhound from European stock (1922,
p. 20).
The bush dog, "cachorro do matto," "perro de monte" {Icticyon
venaticus, or Speothos venaticus) is an aberrant, short-legged, short-
tailed fox-dog with reduced molar formula (M M instead of %). It
is found in the forests of Guiana-Brazilia and in southern Central
America (1. panamensis) , but is considered to be rare. It tames
easily, and may have been seen in a tamed or semidomesticated
condition in northern South America by the early Spaniards and,
with the tamed forest fox, may have been considered a "perro mudo,"
though it can emit a short rasping bark (see Bates, M., 1944), as can
the fox. (See p. 426.)
Family Otariidae, eared seals (fur seals) and sea lions; mostly
Patagonia-Chilea: The fur seal, "lobo marino de dos pelos" (Arcto-
cephalwi australis), is hunted for fur and meat with harpoons and nets,
especially from Peru south to Patagonia. The young can be captured
easily during the breeding season on outlying rocks, and they may
have been an important seasonal item of food for the Indians (Town-
send, 1910, p. 11). After the Spanish Conquest, hundreds of thousands
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 379
were killed for fur, until now it is almost extinct. Arctocephalus is a
circumantarctic genus, extending north only in the Western Hemi-
sphere, to Guadalupe Island, Baja California. (The famed northern
fur seal of the Bering Sea is a different genus, Callorhinus.)
The sea lion, "lobo marino de un pelo" (Otaria flavescens), also of
the southern coasts extending to Peru, is large, sexually dimorphic
(males much larger than females), and was hunted by the Yahgan
and Alacaluj in open water with harpoons and nets, and on breeding
rookeries with clubs and spears, for hide and meat. The injflated
hides were used as boats by the Chango of North Chile (Bird, Hand-
book, vol. 2, p. 597). It was important economically, was terrif-
ically persecuted for hide and oil after 1700, and is now much reduced
in numbers.
Family Phocidae, sea elephant and seals; mostly Patagonia-Chilea:
The sea elephant, "elephante marino" {Mirounga leonina), occurs
along the southern coasts and adjacent Antarctic islands. It is a
huge, clumsy animal, and probably is utilized for food and hide,
though usually it is obtained accidentally.
The leopard seal {Hydrurga leptonyx), Weddell seal (or shore seal,
Leptonychotes weddellii), and crab seal (or shrimp seal, Lobodon
carcinophagus) occur on the southern coasts, and they are hunted
with harpoons and nets for hide and meat by the Chono, Alacaluj,
and Yahgan. The monk seal {Monachus tropicalis) of Antillea, now
nearly extinct, probably was utilized by the aborigines, but apparently
no information on hunting techniques and uses have been recorded,
although the Spaniards used the seal for leather and oil.
Ordo'CETACEA: Whales and Porpoises (Dolphins)
Family Iniidae, river dolphins. The black river dolphin, "boto"
{Inia geqffroyi), of the Orinoco and Amazon Rivers, and the gray
beaked dolphin (Stenodelphis blainvillei) of the La Plata River, are
utilized for food and oil, and enter into aboriginal folklore and medicine.
Along the Amazon River, it is believed by some Indians that the
boto is transformable into a singing siren or a luring mermaid, and
is prone to wreck boats. The eye is said by some to have value
as a love charm ; the teeth are valued medicinally as a cure for tooth-
ache; and the meat and grease are taboo in places, but are utilized
in others. Bates (Clodd ed., 1892, p. 309) stated that, "No animal
in the Amazonas region is the subject of so many fables as the Bouto,
but it is probable that these did not originate with the Indians, but
with the Portuguese colonists." However, the mysterious hfe of the
cetacean, in which aU life processes take place in the water away
from the eye of man, plus the boundless exuberance of its activity
and obvious social traits, undoubtedly inspired as much awe and
380 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
friendly feelings among the aborigines as among more civilized groups.
Little or no hunting of the river dolphins takes place now, nor
probably ever did, but if so, it is probable that they were taken with
harpoon and wooden float, similar to those used for pirarucu fish and
river manatee.
Family Ziphiidae, marine porpoises and dolphins: These are
captured occasionally, or found stranded and then utilized, along the
southern coasts. The genera include Mesoplodon, Ziphius, Berardius,
and Hyperoodon.
Family Delphinidae, marine and river dolphins: This family in-
cludes the pink Amazon River dolphin {Sotalia pallida); and other
Sotalia which are marine, together with Delphinus, Stenella, Lisso-
delphis, Lagenorhynchus, Cephalorhynchus , Phocaena, Olobicephala,
Grampus, Tursiops, and Pseudorca. Dolphins generally are captured
or killed when stranded; occasionally they are taken by harpoon and
boat, or net. They are most important to the Chilean and Patagonian
Coastal natives.
Family Physeteridae, sperm whales; Balaenopteridae, rorquals
and finners; and Balaenidae, bowheads: All are marine and are com-
mon mostly in the extreme South and West. They are not captured
by any special techniques comparable to those used by the TM orthwest
Coast Indians and Eskimo of North America, but when found stranded
dead or alive they are eaten enthusiastically, often as a social cere-
mony by a great gathering of natives {Chono, Yahgan, Alacaluf).
The southern bowhead whale {Euhalaena australis) apparently was
the commonest victim.
Order PROBOSCIDEA: Elephants and Mastodons
All proboscideans are now extinct in Neotropica, but a number of
species were common in late Pleistocene and early Recent times, and
some were contemporaneous with early man.
Family Gomphotheriidae, mastodons: Three genera of this large
family occupied most of South America in late Pliocene, Pleistocene
and early Recent times. In Ecuador and Argentina, some species
were contemporaneous with early man and were utilized as food,
though probably only when accidentally available (crippled individual,
Ecuador). (See Cabrera, A., 1929; Simpson, G. G., 1945, p. 132;
Sellards, 1940, p. 405.)
Family Elephantidae, mammoths: This family, to which belong the
living elephants, probably penetrated into northern South America
from North America in post-Pliocene times, and perhaps survived
to be contemporaneous with early man. G. G. Simpson (1945, p.
134) stated, however, tbat the single record of this family in South
America (French Guiana) needed confirmation.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 381
Apparently absent from Neotropica are legends of "stiff-legged
bears," and proboscis creatiu-es, as well as proboscis figurines, all of
which vaguely imply a relatively recent knowledge of living or frozen
elephants. Such have been recorded reliably from North America
(Elliot Smith, 1915; Strong, 1934; Speck, 1935; Michaelson, 1936),
though some other claims, especially those of elephant figurines or
drawings, may be spurious.
OrderSIREMA: Manatees
Family Trichechidae, manatee, "peixe-boi" (Trichechus inunguis),
Amazon and Orinoco Rivers; and sea-cow, "manati" (T. manatus,
pi. 39), Caribbean and Antillean shores and rivers: Both species are
important for food, hide, and fat, and in mythology.
The river manatee, or fish-cow, was the third most important
animal of the Amazon-Orinoco River systems, being next in impor-
tance to the social river turtle and the giant-scaled fish ("pirarucii")
.
The manatee was taken by harpoon or net during the dry season or
when the water was falling or rising rapidly and creating channels
and currents. The hunter quietly made his way by canoe in the
pools and channels, careful not to betray his presence to the keen
"auditory" sense of the manatee. The harpoon had a detachable
head and a float of wood which was sometimes merely the shaft itself.
An individual manatee might be several meters long and weigh from
200 to 300 kgs., and would thus supply a large amount of meat, fat,
and good hide. The harpoon technique was highly developed in the
fluviatile regions of tropical Neotropica, and was used for the manatee,
turtle, and the large pirarucii, even on the same hunt in the same
pool during the dry season. (See these other species.) Nets were
used for manatee in mouths of pools, lakes, or channels, but that
these nets or those used to catch turtles (q. v., p. 404) were pre-
Columbian is uncertain. (See Morals Rego, 1944; Verissimo, 1895,
pp. 48-56.)
The sea-cow of the Caribbean coasts was very similar to the river-
cow, and like the sea turtle, was taken by the use of the suckerfish
(q.v.).
Order PERISSODACTYLA: Odd-toed Ungulates (Horses, Rhinos, Tapirs)
Family Tapiridae, tapirs, "antas," "dantas" of Guiana-Brazilia
{Tapirus americanus, syn. terrestris, pi. 39) and Central America
{Tapirus, or Tapirella, hairdi): The tapir is utilized extensively for
meat and hide, and, over much of its range where it commonly occurs,
it can be captured with special pit traps, or by boat and lance or har-
poon; it is large (200 to 250 kg., or 440 to 550 lbs.)
Family Equidae, horses: Paleontologically and archeologically,
horses are known from southern South America, Perii and Ecuador,
382 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
but these species (Eguus curwdens and Hippidium sp.) became extinct
shortly before the arrival of the White man, and were never domesti-
cated by the aborigines, though probably they were utilized for food
when and where obtainable (Bird, 1938 b). The European horse
(Equus caballus) quickly became feral after introduction by the
Spaniards, and soon was thoroughly utilized for riding, packing cargo,
and for food and hide, especially by the Tehuelche, Puelche, Diaguita,
Araucanians, and several Chaco tribes of Argentina in the early 18th
century, though probably only after the stimulus of observed Spanish
use. The Goajiro of Venezuela also became horsemen. (See Cabrera,
A, 1945, which was received too late for inclusion of its material here.)
Order ARTIODACTYLA: Even-toed Ungulates (Cattle. Deer, Sheep, Goats, etc.)
Economically this is the most important order, and is found over
entire Neotropica except the Antilles.
Family Tayassuidae (syn. Dicotylidae), peccaries (pi. 38): These
Neotropical wild pigs are common over most of Guiana-Brazilia and
Central America; they are secondary endemics. There are two dis-
tinct species (often treated as different genera), known collectively
as "porco do matto," or "puerco de monte," but they are not to be
confused with feral European pigs (Sus scrofa), from which they
differ by the presence of a lumbar scent gland and the absence of outer
dew claws behind (among other characters). Both species of peccaries
are utilized extensively for food and hide, and either species would
seem to be potentially domesticable because the young tame easily,
but unless castrated the males soon become vicious and unmanageable.
Darien Indians traded live peccaries with inland tribes (Cieza de Le6n,
Markham's ed., 1864, p. 37).
The collared peccary, "caetetii," "saino" (Tayassu tajacu), inhabits
the forests and brush from the Rio de la Plata to the southwestern
United States. This species is relatively small (15 to 20 kg., or 30
to 45 lbs.), with an indistinct whitish collar over the shoulders. It is
generally solitary, but is also found in small bands of six or eight;
it is highly palatable and is prized for food and hide. CoUared pec-
caries are hunted generally by ambush shooting, pits, nets, or by chase
with dogs, which drive their prey into hollow logs or the burrows of
the giant armadillo.
The second species, the white-lipped peccary, "quexado," "cafuche,"
"puerco de tropa" (T. pecari), is found also in the forests, from south-
em Guiana-Brazilia to southern Mexico. It is larger (25 to 35 kg.,
or 50 to 75 lbs.), with a conspicuous white lower jaw; it is sporadically
common in large herds, some numbering 200. The species is trucu-
lent, noisy, gregarious with communal defense, and is a formidable
opponent. As its cruising radius is large, it is not as dependable a
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOQY—GILMORE 383
source of food as is the collared peccary. It can be captured by pit
traps, nets, or by careful stalking from the rear; it is easily detected
from a distance as great as a half kilometer because of its noisy prog-
ress through the jungle, grunting and squealing, and perhaps some-
times by the claimed perceptible aroma from the lumbar gland.
"When alarmed it indulges in loud and effectively intimidating tooth
chattering and much glandular secretion ; its charge is swift but short
and often ineffective—though a fallen single enemy, puma, jaguar,
or man, is generally doomed.
Remains of Platygonus, an extinct genus, have been found in early
pre-Columbian graves and middens of Santiago de Estero and the
Chaco of Northwest Argentina (Kusconi, 1930).
FamUy Camelidae Uama, alpaca, guanaco, and vicuna (pis. 43, 44);
Patagonia-Chilea ; secondary endemics: This group is extremely im-
portant, and is discussed in detail later (pp. 429-454). The llama
and alpaca are found now in a domesticated state only, the guanaco
and vicuna in a wild state only; but both the latter were utilized much
by the Indians of the Patagonia-Chilea pampas and of the Highlands
of Bolivia and Peril.
Family Cervidae, deer, "veado," "venado"; entire Neotropica
except Antillea; secondary endemics: This family is very important
to the aborigines for food, hide, and implements (bone and horn).
The large swamp deer, "cervo," "ciervo" (Blastoceros dichotomus), is
found on the plains and swamps of southwestern Brazil, eastern
Bolivia, and the Chaco. Its range roughly coincides with that of the
giant maned fox {Chrysocyon brachyurus). The Pampa deer (Ozoto-
ceros bezoarcticus) is a smaller deer with a conspicuous white tail-and-
rump patch, and it has a wider range over southern Guiana-Brazilia
and northern Patagonia-Chilea. The short-legged, single fork-
antlered, medium-sized Andean deer {Hippocamelus bisulcus) is
found on the high puna, pdramo, and altiplano of the Andes from
Colombia to Tierra del Fuego. The small brocket deer (Mazama,
several species, pi. 36) is widely distributed throughout the forests
of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America. The males have small
spike antlers. Finally, the pygmy deer, "corzuelo enano" (Pudv pudu),
is a rare inhabitant of the High East Andean forests from Colombia
to Bolivia. Eaton (1916) found remains of this species in Machu
Picchu graves. Deer are hunted everywhere by stalk or ambush.
BIRDS (aVES)
There are 22 orders with 86 families of birds in Neotropica; it is
the richest bird fauna in the world and an ornithologist's paradise.
Thirty-six percent of the families are primary endemics (Australia
has 9.7 percent; Ethiopia, 8.9; others, each under 2; see Barden, 1941
;
384 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Wetmore, 1929, p. 548). There are many food, pet, and "feather
ornament" birds, and one domesticated species, the Muscovy duck,
though several other species have been semidomesticated—the steamer
duck, curassow, guan (chachalaca), parrot, trumpeter, etc. (See p.
388.) Only the most important groups and species are discussed
here. The turkey is not of Neotropical origin. (See p. 393.)
Food birds are not numerous but some are very important, especi-
ally the rheas, tinamous, ducks and geese, curassows, and guans.
Pet birds are commoner, however, and include mainly the rheas,
screamers, trumpeters, curassows, guans, parrots, parakeets, ma-
caws, toucans, and such songbirds as orioles and thrushes. The use
of bird feathers for ornamental body bands, cloaks, or weapon decora-
tions was as highly developed in Neotropica as anywhere else in the
world. Feather cloaks of the Brazilian Tupinamha Indians and of
Central Andean tribes (Coastal as well as Highland) were works of
high art, and were greatly prized. Principal "feather ornament"
birds are rheas, parrots, macaws, and toucans. (See Yacovleef, 1933 b.)
Modification of feather color by the process of "tapirage" was an
indigenously developed art and was practiced exclusively (?) on
parrots. (See p. 408.)
Order RHEIFORMES: Rheas
These animals are found in southern Guiana-Brazilia and entire
Patagonia-Chilea. They are primary endemics, and form a mono-
typic order with the family Rheidae.
Rheas are entirely flightless, are cursorial, have three toes (ostriches
have two), and are typical plains animals. They were important,
especially to the Pampa tribes, for food, feather ornaments, and pets;
prepared eggshells served as containers. There are two species: the
"ema," "fiandu," "avestruz" (Rhea americana, pi. 45), of southern
Guiana-Brazilia and northern Patagonia-Chilea, which is large (25 to
50 kg., or 50 to 100 lbs.); and the "avestruz" (Pterocnemia pennata),
of southern Patagonia Chilea, which is smaller (15 to 30 kg., or 30 to
60 lbs.).
Order TINAMIFORMES: Tinamous, "Inhamblis," "Jaos," "Perdizes"
This order is found throughout Neotropica except Antillea. (See
pi. 42.) It represents an old endemic but successful and widespread
stock in the region.
These birds parallel in external form the true quails and partridges
(order Galliformes) ; all are palatable and highly desired for food, and
many (aU ?) species are sohtary. They are hunted by snare or by
decoying to ambush by calling, and they can often be called or ap-
proached close enough to be killed with a stick or stone. There are
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 385
indications that the domestication of one or several species was
attempted in the Central Andean region (personal interpretation of
Latcham, 1922, pp. 176-179; see p. 394).
Order SPHENISCIFORMES: Penguins
These birds are found on the coasts of Patagonia-Chilea; most of
them are primary endemics.
There are six Neotropical species of these flightless sea birds. All
except one undoubtedly were used for food, especially dm-ing the
breeding season, when adult birds can be clubbed and the young and
eggs gathered by the hundreds. In the winter the birds are so fat
that the skins with "blubber" can be burned as fuel. The five species
utilized are: King penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus) , medium size,
Fuegian coast; johnny penguin {Pygoscelis papua), smaller, Staten
Island; rock-hopper, or tufted penguin (Eudyptes crestatus), small,
common on Fuegian coasts; Magellanic jackass penguin {Spheniscus
magellanicus) , common on southern coasts; and Peruvian jackass
penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), common Valparaiso to Lobo de
Tierras, Perii. (See Murphy, 1936, 1: 329-371.) The sixth species,
the Gal§,pagos penguin (Spheniscus pendiculus), was unknown to
aboriginal man, who never gained access' to these islands, which lie far
offshore from Ecuador.
Order PKLECANIFORMES: Tropic-birds. Pelicans, Ck>rniorants, etc.
Three members of this order are important as guano birds on the
Peruvian Coast in the following sequence of importance: Cormorant,
"guanay" (Phalacrocorax hougainvillii) ; booby, "piquero" (Sula varie-
gata); and the brown pelican, "alcatraz" (Pelecanus occidentalis)
.
These birds nest by the millions on certain small Peruvian islands,
where over countless centuries or millennia they have formed huge
deposits of guano, composed of excrement and the remains of dead
birds. This guano was utilized by the Coastal Peruvian aborigines
for fertilizer, and the Inca enacted laws and exercised royal control
for conservation purposes. It is presumed that this natural fertilizer
had a large role in Peruvian aboriginal agriculture which was highly
developed and which Cieza de Le6n said probably would not have
been possible without guano (Markham's ed., 1864, p. 266). The
exploitation of guano and the birds themselves for food in pre-Colum-
bian times involved marine transportation (by balsa according to
Cieza de Le6n, idem, p. 265), and semipermanent camps were located
on the guano islands. In the 19th century guano was the principal
source of national wealth for the Republic of Peril, and until recently
was exploited disastrously without conservation.
Garcilaso de la Vega recounted that,
386 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
On the sea coast from below Arequipa [south] to Tarapaca, a distance of more
than two hundred leagues, they use no other manure than the droppings of sea
birds,
. . . [which] fly in such enormous flocks that it would be incredible to
any one who had not seen them. They breed on certain desert islands on the
coast, and the quantity of manure they make is also incredible. From a distance
these heaps of manure look like peaks of snowy mountains. In the time of the
Kings Yncas, such care was taken to preserve these birds, that it was unlawful
for any one to land on the islands during the breeding season on pain of death;
that the birds might not be disturbed or driven from their nests. Nor was it
lawful to kill the birds at any time, either on the islands or elsewhere, also on
pain of death.
Each island was, by order of the Ynca, set apart for the use of a particular
province, or if the island was large it served for two or three provinces; and
marks were set up to let the people of one province know their limits, and to
prevent them from encroaching on those of another. More minute divisions
were also made, to show the portions set apart for each village, which were
again subdivided into portions for each individual, according to the quantity
of manure that he would require. The inhabitant of one village was punished
with death if he took manure from parts set apart for another; nor was he allowed
to take more from within his own limits, than had been settled in accordance
with the requirements of his lands. [Garcilaso de la Vega, Markham's ed.,
1869, vol. 2, pp. 11-12.]
Strangely, Garcilaso especially mentioned fertilization with guano
in the region from Arequipa south to Tarapaca (which is now the
most northern province of Chile) while the guano islands of today
Ue far north, from Chincha north almost to Tumbez. In fact there
are no coastal islands south of Vieja Island, Bay of Independencia,
near Chincha, until one gets south of Valparaiso. Hence, guano
must have been imported in aboriginal times into these southern
provinces, and Garcilaso was impressed with this fact, whereas guano
was probably more extensively used from Chincha northward. How-
ever, in the middle 1800 's, the guanay bird appeared to be a minor
inhabitant and small contributor of guano on the northern islands
and was found in larger numbers soutli as far as Tarapaca. (See
Coker, 1919, pp. 505-510). This condition may have been existent
in Inca times, and deposits of guano, now exhausted, may have been
built up on the rocky headlands and utiHzed by the local inhabitants.
The accumulation of guano depends upon the presence of millions
of the above-mentioned three species of birds, principally the guanay,
crowded on small coastal islands, and their large numbers depend
upon the nearby presence of millions of small fish, "anchoveta"
(Engraulis ringens), which in turn depend upon the presence of
swarming plankton and other very small marine organisms; and,
these in their turn depend upon favorable ocean currents and tem-
perature. Should the currents shift and temperature rise so that
the plankton is carried far out to sea, the anchovies go with them,
and the guano birds starve by the millions or emigrate; their carcasses
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORB 387
cover the Peruvian beaches in windrows for miles. Normal ocean
conditions bring plankton and anchovies close enough to shore to
be utilized as food by the birds, whose numbers, after such a catas-
trophic decrease, return to normal. The decreases are believed to
be periodic, recurring about every seven years. (See Murphy, 1936,
2: 899-909; Vogt, 1942). Similar conditions with cyclic abundance
and decrease, probably existed in aboriginal times and periodically
may have affected severely the local economy.
A Pachacamac textile (from near Lima, Peril) suggested to E.
Nordenskiold (1931, p. 4) the possibility of a pre-Columbian trait
of fishing with trained cormorants, as is done in the Orient; but this
textile has not been similarly interpreted subsequently, nor the trait
verified by other evidence.
The king shag or white-breasted cormorant {Phalacrocorax albi-
venter) nests in large colonies on the Fuegian coast, and young birds
and eggs formerly were collected by the natives in great numbers
for food (Townsend, 1910, pp. 9-10).
The pelican was stated by Markham (his translation of Cieza de
Le6n, 1864, p. 24, footnote) to have been a sacred bird on the Island
of Puna, Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador. Wetmore and Swales (1931,
p. 67) remarked that the throat pouch of the pelican was used as a
tobacco pouch in Hispaniola
—
perhaps also a primitive trait.
Order CICONnFORMES: Herons, Storks, Flamingos
Birds of this order are conspicuous in any fauna, and several main
groups are found in South America. The "jabiru" stork (Mycteria
americana) occurs throughout the Guiana-Brazilia and Central America
subregions, and is conspicuous by its huge size (to 1.5 m.), enormous
javelinlike bill, striking coloration of white body and jet-black naked
neck and head with scarlet lappets, and flocking habits.
Herons ("garcias") are common in places and are noted for their
showy white plumage with conspicuous plumes in the breeding
season, their long legs, and their slow stalking hunts for small fish
and frogs in shallow water.
The flamingo (family Phoenicopteridae, Phoenicopterus ruber) is a
conspicuous long-necked, long-legged, heronlike bird, of reddish color
especially on the wings, and with a peculiarly bent, short bill. It is
gregarious in large flocks and is found from the Antilles throughout
most of South America, where it generally is known as "ganso do
norte." Ignacio de Armas (1888, p. 131) noted that early authors
recorded the retention and breeding of flamingos in the houses of
Cuban aborigines, and Wetmore and Swales (1931, p. 96) stated that
the leg bones of the flamingo were used in Hispaniola for flutes and
pipe stems. Great numbers of flamingos gather seasonally in May on
794711—60 26
388 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
the shallow salty lakes of the highlands of Peril and Bolivia, where
they present a striking and pleasing spectacle which could not have
failed to impress the high aboriginal inhabitants, but no reference to
any special ethnozoology connected with the bird has been found for
this region.
Order ANSERIFORMES: Ducka, Geese, Screamers
These birds are very important ethnozoologically ; one is domesti-
cated, another semidomesticated, and many others are used for food.
About 30 species are found in Neotropica; some are annual migrants
north from Patagonia-Chilea or south from North America; others
are year-round residents. Hunting is by bolas, net, snare, bow and
arrow, and firearms. The Huarpe, in northwestern Argentina, and
several other tribes (Bolivia, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama) leave gourds
on the water to accustom the ducks to their presence, and later place
similar gourds over the heads of adroit swimmers, who enter the flocks
underwater and pull their victims below the surface by the legs
(Nordenskiold, 1931, p. 43). All ducks and geese molt their flight
feathers simultaneously soon after the breeding season. During this
short period, they are totally incapable of flight and are easily captured.
The domesticated Muscovy duck (pi. 45) is discussed on pages
460-462.
The flightless steamer duck"pato vapor" {Tachyeres pteneres, pi. 46),
is semidomesticated for food by the Alacaluf of South Chile and kept
in pens (Bird, Handbook, vol. 1, p. 64), but it does not breed in cap-
tivity. It is a large duck (3 to 4 kg., or 6 to 8 lbs.) with a mottled
body, whitish head, blackish belly, and yellow bill, and it is entirely
flightless although the wings are not greatly reduced. Progression on
the surface is by rapid, powerful, "side-wheel-steamer" strokes of the
wings. This flightless species is confused easily with the flying steamer
duck (T. patachonicus) of the same range along the South Chilean
Coast and western Tierra del Fuego. However, the latter species flies
as well as "steams," and has a sHghtly smaller bill and slightly longer
wings; also, the downy young are much lighter brown and have a
supraoccular white stripe and horn-colored bill (instead of black as in
the flightless species). Another flightless species (T. brachypterus) is
confined to the Falkland Islands, which was uninhabited by primitive
man. (See Murphy, 1936, 2: 957-972.)
The kelp duck or goose (Chloephaga hybrida) of South Chile and
western Tierra del Fuego is an important food species, and it is hunted
much, especially during the breeding season. It is large, and the
males are pure white with black bill and yellow feet and the females
are brownish black with flesh-colored bill. It prefers offshore kelp
beds for feeding, but breeds on rocky islands.
The Andean goose (Chloephaga melanoptera) of the High Andes of
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 389
Peril, Bolivia, and Chile, is often tamed as a barnyard fowl today, and
probably was utilized similarly in aboriginal times. It appears to be
domesticable, but it was never domesticated by any High Andean
culture. The situation of this goose and the Muscovy duck parallels
that of the Galea cavy and the wild ancestor of the domesticated cavy
;
their ranges do not overlap, and both are apparently domesticable,
but only one was so favored. (See pp. 454-460.) The Andean goose
is small (3 kg., or 6 lbs.), and its color is pure white except for conspic-
uous black wing tips.
The barred Magellan goose {Chloephaga magellanica) is an extremely
common resident bird of Fuegia and is an upland inhabitant like the
Andean goose. It contributed considerably to the food supply of the
early white settlers and presumably was also an important food species
to the aborigines, at least seasonally when molting and unable to fly.
(See Townsend, 1910, p. 7.)
The large tree duck, "irere," "marreca do Para," "apai," {Dendro-
cygna viduata) of entire Guiana-Brazilia, is often tamed today and kept
as a semidomesticated barnyard fowl; and similar aboriginal usage is
presumed. Flocks of the irere may remain around the farm or village
even with complete liberty and powers to fly—which they may do
during the dry season, perhaps to return again with the rains—thus
indicating a strong natural commensalistic tendency which is satisfied
by the presence of man. This "duck" is the size of a small goose (to
50 cm. in length), with white face and throat contrasting with black
head and body and mottled belly. It nests very obscurely on the
ground in grass or in trees. Another species, the fulvous tree duck
(D. hicolor), with cinnamon-colored underparts, is found in northern
and southern Guiana-Brazilia, but not in the intervening Amazon
region. Both species have closely related populations in Africa,
where they are tamed and kept in a highly semidomesticated condition
by the natives, especially on the east coast and on Madagascar and
the Mauritius Islands. Physical resemblance between the South
American and South African populations of these two species is, in
fact, so strong, it has been suggested that the South American popu-
lations were introduced from Africa as pets with the Negroes in Colo-
nial times; but this explanation does not seem tenable today.
The tree ducks are not truly domesticated because they do not
breed in captivity and do not seem to be more than an accidental part
of any Neotropical culture. They must be raised from ducklings or
from eggs set under hens, practices commonly followed over much of
their range. The nests with eggs are usually difficult to find. The
Cubans today raise the black-billed tree duck {D. arborea), a species
exclusively AjitiUean, in this foster-parent fashion. Schomburgk
noted in the last century that the fulvous tree duck was one of the
390 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
commonest of "domesticated" animals among the Indians of Britisli
Guiana. (See Ihering, R., 1940, pp. 405-406; Phillips, 1922, 1:
125-127.)
The screamers are aberrant Anseriformes belonging to the family
Anhimidae. The crested screamer {Chauna torquata) of Patagonia-
Chilea is kept often in a semidomesticated state as a fighting "cock"
or sentinal (Hudson, 1920, vol. 2, p. 132). The bird is large (5 kg., or
10 lbs.) with a chickenlike bill, and 1-inch long spurs on the "wrist"
or second bend of the wing. These spurs are very effective in combat.
Order FALCONIFORMES: Condors, Buzzards, Hawka. Falcons
This order is found throughout Neotropica.
Although falconry, or the controlled use of any member of the family
Falconidae, was unknown in Neotropica, several members of the
vulture family Cathartidae were important ethnozoologically.
The huge Andean condor (Vultur gryphus, pi. 46) was commonly
represented on pre-Columbian pottery in Peru, and was important
in mythology and ceremony. Though the bird is a scavenger, it often
is also believed to be predatory, and one design on a pot at Chiclin,
Perti, shows the bird eating a child. There are tales of the bird's
ability to frighten human beings or animals off cliffs to their deaths
below. It is large (length, 1 to 1.2 m., or 36 to 44 in. ; wingspread, 3 m,
or 10 ft.) and is pure black except for conspicuous white wing patches
above, and a white fluffy down-feather neck-ruff. The head is black
and naked, and the bill has a prominent excrescence. The young is
completely black and acquires the white feathers and neck ruff after
the second year. The species ranges tliroughout the entire Andean
chain from Colombia to Tierra del Fuego ; north of Peril it is rarely or
never seen at low altitudes, but in Peril and southward, it often gathers
along the beach to scavenge.
The condor is captured by concealment beneath the skin of an
animal, by hiding near a dead animal, or by toxics placed in meat
bait. A gorged condor scarcely can take wing. The bird, young or
adult, is easily tamed and often remains near its captor's residence
despite complete freedom to escape. The Qiiechua and Aymara con-
sidered it a special messenger from the sun god on account of its flight
and soaring at incredibly high altitude. An ancient Inca dance is
said to have required the dancers to affix condor wings to their arms.
Recently, therapeutic qualities are attributed to many parts of the
condor's anatomy (heart for cardiac trouble, eye for visual defects,
etc.). The Indians today sometimes sew or tie the feet of live condors
to incisions in the neck of a refractory bull at a bullfight. (See
Housse, 1940.)
The king vulture, "urubu rei," "zamuro rey" (Sarcoramphus papa),
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 391
found throughout Central America and Guiana-Braziha,was commonly
used as a motif on pots of some pre-Columbian Panamanian cultures,
but the significance is not known. This vulture was exceedingly-
common in the Mayan codices and evidently was considered as a
minor deity with Rabelaisian traits (Tozzer and Allen, 1910, 4: 329-
331 and figs.), and this ethnologic trait probably diffused southward
to Panama. Coloration renders this bird very conspicuous. The
body is black with sharply demarked white belly and breast and under-
wing coverts; the head is naked except for some sparse black plumelike
feathers on top ; the neck is brilliantly red on the sides and yellow on
the front; and the nostrils and the top of the conspicuous caruncle
at the base of the upper bill are also yellow. The iris is pure white.
The weight of the vulture is from 3.3 to 5 kgs., and its wingspread
from 1.7 to 1.9 m.
Notable for its magnificient size, plumage, bearing, and strength
is the famous monkey eagle, harpy eagle, "harpia," "pega macaco"
(Harpia harpyja), which is found sparsely distributed throughout the
forests of the Guiana-Brazilia and Central America subregions. The
length from head to tail is about a meter, and the prodigious strength
of the great talons is well shown by the huge tarsi, which are the size
of a child's wrist or larger. A conspicuous frill and crest of feathers
appears around the nape of the neck and on the crown of the head.
The prey of this huge eagle is large, namely, sloths, monkeys, and
even wild pigs and small deer and calves, and perhaps a human infant
occasionally, if credence is to be given stories current in the interior
of Brazil. The flight is by rapid wing beats without soaring, carrying
the bird deep among the trees and foliage, and the short "stoop"
to quarry is as swift and lethal as a bolt of lightning. The imposing
size and strength of this king of predators and the terrifying appear-
ance of its erected crest, large narrow beak, and glaring eye when,
caged, it confronts live prey, would inevitably give it a special place
in the culture of any native group. The young were eagerly sought
and were raised in captivity; the feathers, plucked or molted from
wings and tail, gave special value to arrows or head bands, and were
items of wealth for display or trade. The meat, fat, and even the
excrement had special medical value to some tribes of the Xingii and
Araguaya Rivers. (See Ihering, R., 1940, pp. 385-386.)
Related and similar in appearance, though slightly smaller, are
the crested harpy (Harpyhaliaetus coronatus) and the long-tailed
harpy (Morphnus guianensis) . The former is found in extreme south-
west Guiana-Brazilia and adjacent Patagonia-Chilea, and the latter
is distributed over most of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America.
Conspicuous by its abundance on the campos and llanos of all the
Patagonia-Chilea and southern Guiana-Brazilia subregions is the
392 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
medium-sized, crested "car^car^" {Polyhorus plancus) ,^\n.ch. scavenges
as fearlessly near man as does a vulture and is as predatory as a
small hawk.
The small black vulture, "urubu da cidade," "zamuro," "gallinazo"
{Coragyps atratus) of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America is a con-
spicuous village and camp scavenger. It seems to have developed
semidomestic (commensal, or even symbiotic, but not domesticated)
relations with man, which probably date far back into aboriginal times.
It is entirely black, with naked head, and is of the size of a raven.
Order GALUFORMES: Pheasants. Quails
This ethnozoologically important order, which includes the grouse,
ptarmigan, true quail, pheasants, peacocks, guinea fowl, and the
chicken in other parts of the world, has four Neotropical groups (in
three families): the guans and curassows of the endemic family Cra-
cidae, the North American domesticated turkey of the family Melea-
grididae (culturally diffused into South America), and the quails (CoZ-i-
nus, Rhynchortyx, and Odontophorus) of the family Phasianidae.
Colinus, the "bob-white" of North America, is a relatively recent in-
vader (geologically spealdng) of South America as far south as Colom-
bia and Venezuela, and has been introduced by Whites into Hispaniola.
Rhynchortyx is also a recent invader, and is distributed from southern
Mexico to northwestern Colombia. Odontophorus is found throughout
all of the Guiana-Brazilia subregion as well as Central America, and is
a well-established Neotropical grouselike species. The phasianid pea-
cock (presumably the Indian bird, Pavo cristatus), and the domesti-
cated numidid African guinea fowl (Numidea meleagris galeata) have
been introduced into Hispaniola in post-Columbian times and sub-
sequently gone wild (Wetmore and Swales, 1931, p. 45). All galli-
naceous birds are important to man because of flocking habits and
delicious flesh. The entire order in Neotropica is clearly secondary
endemic, stemming originally from Nearctica.
Family Cracidae, guans (chachalacas) and curassows: This family
is endemic to Guiana-Brazilia and Central America.
The guans, "jacus," "pajuiles," "chachalacas" (genera Penelope,
Ortalis, etc., pi. 46), are flocking grouselike birds of the jungle which
are highly prized for food, and are often kept tamed around the house,
though they do not breed under these conditions. They are short-
winged and long-tailed, and have a bare colored throat, bluish in some
species, reddish in others.
The curassows, "mutums," "pavos" (Crax, Mitu, pi. 46) are large,
almost turkey-sized, flocking jungle birds, which are even more highly
prized for food than the guans. They also are kept in captivity in a
tame state. Both these types of Neotropical gallinaceous birds would
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 393
seem to be domesticable, but this was never accomplished. Neither
breeds easily, if at all, in captivity. Lotsy and Kuiper (1924, p. 277)
suggested that some Cracidae might have interbred with chickens to
produce a breed of the latter which lays blue eggs. (See below.)
However, such fertile hybridism between two families (Cracidae X
Phasianidae) seems impossible. The chicken and the peacock (both
Phasianidae) and the guinea fowl (Numididae) can be interbred
successfully, but the offspring of any possible interfamily cross is
sterile (Jull, 1930, p. 327).
Curassows, probably of the Central American species, Crax globicera,
were introduced into Hispaniola in historic times, but subsequently
appear to have become extinct (Wimpffen, Ritter; quoted by Wetmore
and Swales, 1931, p. 46).
The turkey {Meleagris gallopavo) is not a Neotropical endemic. Its
distribution in the wild state is in southern Nearctica (range now
greatly reduced), and it was domesticated in or around the Mexican
Highlands. However, it was introduced in pre-Columbian times by
cultural diffusion into Central America and northern South America
to Colombia and Venezuela (Latcham, 1922, p. 175), or as far as
Cumana, Venezuela, and Tumbez, northern Peril (Ignacio de Armas,
1888, p. 119). After the Conquest, it was taken to other parts of
South America as well as to Em-ope. The early Spanish term for
turkey was "guanajo," presumably derived from Guanajo Island,
eastern member of the Ruatan group north of Honduras, where
Columbus first saw the domesticated bu'd in 1502 (Ignacio de Ai*mas,
idem). Later, the turkey was called "pavo," but this word also
applies to the native wild curassow, and perhaps to the guan, and
much care should be exercised to avoid confusion in interpreting
"pavo," even with a knowledge of the local avifauna. The Jesuits
apparently introduced the turkey into Hispaniola where it became
feral, but these wild birds now are thought to be extinct (Wetmore
and Swales, 1931, p. 46).
The oceUated turkey (Agriocharis ocellata) of Guatemala and Hon-
duras is slightly smaller than Meleagris, and it is beautifully spotted
and has erect knobs on the naked head. That it was used for food is
certain, but there is no indication of aboriginal domestication or special
usage except by the adjacent Maya (not covered in this account), who
considered it important in symbolic writing and mythology. (See
Tozzer and Allen, 1910, pp. 326-329.)
The chicken {Gallus gallus domesticus) is not a Neotropical endemic;
its home is in southeastern Asia. However, it was introduced very
early into South America and quickly spread and became established
in aboriginal economy, Latcham (1922, pp. 176-179) discussed the
occurrence of "gaUinas" and "polios" in Peril before the conquest by
394 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Pizarro in 1532. Nordenskiold (1922, pp. 9-30) attempted to show by
philology that the Inca knew of the chicken before Pizarro 's arrival
in 1532, and called it "hualpa," which name was cm-rent throughout
most of the eastern Andean area under Incan influence.
The first authentic landing of Europeans on the coast of Brazil was
near Bahia on April 22, 1500, by Cabral, who brought chickens.
Pinzon and Lepe had landed a few months earlier somewhere north
of the Amazon River. Unless one accepts the rumored earlier land-
ings by the Portuguese (said to have been as early as 1448), 31 years
is the maximum time for this remarkable diffusion of the chicken, but
Nordenskiold clearly showed that extensive trade routes were well
estabhshed and that the chicken was treated as a special pet. How-
ever, if this explanation is unacceptable, the origin of a true chicken in
pre-Conquest Peru must be sought in Polynesian transoceanic voyages.
Latcham (idem) described this early chicken as tailless and laying
blue eggs. This suggests a species of tinamou (p. 384), which has a
short tail and lays blue (or green) eggs of a characteristic porcellaneous
texture. However, there actually is a South American chicken, whose
breeding origin is unknown, but which is small, rimipless (without
tail vertebrae and pygostyle), lays blue eggs, and has a small single
comb and lateral tufts of feathers on the neck (JuU, 1927, p. 452,
pi. 13). The breed was "discovered" by poultry husbandrists in 1914,
and was called Araucana. The only other known rumpless breeds are
some bantams from Japan. Lotsy and Kuiper (1924, p. 277) evidently
had in mind the Araucana breed of blue-egged chicken when they
suggested what still seems an impossible fertile cross between a normal
chicken and a curassow (species not named) to account for the blue
eggs.
The entire matter needs clarification. The cultural spread of
chickens from Brazil to Perd in less than 32 years seems extremely
rapid. The occurrence of the Araucana chicken in pre-Conquest
Perd means that the breed originated in less than 32 years during its
diffusion, because undoubtedly the originally introduced stock was
normal. This, and even the presence of chickens in Peril prior to
1532, may be doubted.
An aberrant galliform is the hoatzin, stinking turkey or pheasant,
"cigano," "pavo hediondo" (Opisthocomus hoatzin)—one of the most
conspicuous birds of the flooded jungles of the Amazon and Orinoco
drainages. Its size and appearance of a pheasant (length to 30 cm.)
;
its long tail, crested head, and russet speckled color; its flocking
habits with heavy flopping in the dense undergrowth and sibilant
hiss or raucous croak when disturbed ; its peculiar gizzardlike crop, and
the fascinating structure in the young of clawed wings with which
they cUmb hand over foot through the trees; an escape mechanism
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 395
of the young of plunging suddenly from a height headforemost into
the water; and its general abundance— all make this species one
which should have ethnozoologic importance. However, the meat is
strongly musky and unpalatable, which may have prevented the
species from becoming integrated firmly into human culture. The
hoatzin represents a unique primary endemic stock, found nowhere
else in the world, and such are its startling features of structure and
behavior that it has been placed at different times in different avian
orders.
Order GRUIFORMES: Cranes. Limpkins. Trumpeters, Rails, Seriemas
This composite order of many diverse types of birds, of which the
best known are the cranes and rails, is represented in South America
by a number of species including the ethnozoologically important
trumpeters of the Guiana-Brazilia rain forests and the characteristic
seriema of the plains and dry forests of southern Guiana-Braziha.
The trumpeter, "jacamin" (Psophia, pi. 45), of Guiana-Brazilia, is
often tamed and "wing-clipped," and kept around the house as a
sentinel against prowling predatory animals or man, but apparently
the species does not breed in captivity. The bird is of medium size
(length about 50 cm., or 20 in.) with long legs and neck and a short
but sharp bill, and is a gregarious terrestrial jungle inhabitant. Its
color is black except for a conspicuous white or brown back and upper
wing coverts. The voice is a loud, ringing cry, as well as a short,
penetrating "boom" of a ventiiloquous character, and the bird is
not inclined toward reticence when disturbed. Its gregarious nature
is apparently completely satisfied by the company of barnyard
chickens and turkeys.
The "seriema" (Cariama crisiata) is one of the most characteristic
birds of the vast interior plains of Brazil, Paraguay, and adjacent
Argentina (the chapadas, campos, cerrados, and llanos). It is a large
bird of about the size of a turkey (length to 75 cm.), with rather
long legs and neck, finely mottled coloration of gray white, and a
small tuft of plumelike feathers around the nostrils. It is often heard
or seen as it perches conspicuously on a bush in open country and
calls with an extraordinarily ringing and far-reaching voice in the
early morning, or as it walks with stately stride through the grass.
It, and a near relative, the forest seriema, or "chuna" (Chunga
burmeisteri) , of the forests of northwestern Argentina, are primary
endemics derived from an ancient stock. Chunga can be easily tamed.
Order CHARADRnFORMES: Shorebirds, Plovers
These birds are the common shore and marsh species which usually
assemble and migrate in the winter in immense flocks. Some of the
Neotropical members are migrants from North America; others are
396 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
resident birds, or migrants within the South American Continent.
The stone curlew, "bucaro" {Oedicnemus dominicensis) was noted
by Wetmore and Swales (1931, p. 172) as almost exclusively a semi-
domesticated bird on Hispaniola, where it was kept in patios and
walled corrals to rid the premises of insect vermin. Though the
birds never became tame enough to handle easily, they did not escape
often (rarely being seen in the free wild state), and were said to breed
at times in their state of loose captivity. Superstition claimed that
the birds called at the change of each hour. A related species is found
in northern South America, but seems not to have been semidomesti-
cated there.
The seed snipes (Attagis, Thinocorus) are partridgelike aberrant
plovers which inhabit the uplands of southern South America and
the nearby Andes. In winter they gather in large flocks and prob-
ably were an important food species, Darwin looked upon the group
as the counterpart of the ptarmigan of the boreal zone of the northern
hemisphere. (See Townsend, 1910, p. 9; Crawshay, 1907, p. 130 ff.)
They crouch rather than run or fly when disturbed at feed, and
apparently are then easy to kill.
Order COLUMBIFORMES: Pigeons and Dorea
There are many species of this order in Neotropica, but most are
small and few seem to have been of more than minor importance as
food species. A quaillike ground dove (the blue-headed quail-dove,
Starnoenus cyanocephala) in Cuba was seen by Columbus, who found
it common and noted its capture alive in numbers by the natives,
who tamed the captives in a few days and kept them around the house
to fatten for food (Ignacio de Armas, 1888, p. 117). The extinct
quail-dove {Oreopeleia larva) of Puerto Kico (Wetmore and Swales,
1931, p. 209) perhaps disappeared in aboriginal times and partially
through the agency of man.
Order CUCULIFORMES: Cuckoos
Several of the commonest birds of South America are the black
cuckoo, "anu preto" {Crotophaga ani), and the white cuckoo, "anu
branco" {Guira guira). The latter was recorded by Wetmore (1926,
p. 188) in the Chaco of Paraguay as ". . . considered excellent for
domestication smce . . . [captive birds ?] are said to rid houses of all
the creeping and running insects . . .
,
and . . . probably without
basis in fact, that they might learn to imitate words of human speech."
Rarely, however, is the anu branco seen tamed and loose around
houses in other parts of South America, nor is it generally commen-
salistic on man to the extent that the black vulture is.
Vol.ei FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 397
Order PSITTACIFORMES: Parrots. Parakeets. Macaws
These well-known birds are common and conspicuous over all of
Neotropica, including the Antilles. Parrots and parakeets are found
even on the Argentine Pampas and treeless High Southern Andes,
where they nest in burrows in banks and rock crevices. All are con-
spicuous because of beautiful green coloration, flocking habits, raucous
voice, and mimicking (talking) ability, acrobatic behavior at perch,
or depredations on agriculture, particularly corn. Some species,
especially parrots of the genus Amazonia, and some parakeets and
macaws, are semidomesticated as colorful talking pets, but none breed
readily in captivity. The supply is replenished by raiding nests for
fledglings; the young birds are also considered highly palatable.
Although these birds in captivity mimic the human voice and speech,
in the wild they do not imitate the calls of other birds or animals
(Wetmore, 1931, pp. 107-108). This may be a consequence of insuf-
ficient repetition in the wild as compared to the endless reiteration
necessary to teach a parrot to speak human sounds in captivity.
Their longevity is not much more than 20 to 30 years (contrary to
general belief), but this enables a pet taken as a fledgling to become
practically one of the family.
An ingenious endemic custom, practiced over a large part of South
America, is to modify the color of parrots' feathers by rubbing a dye
into plucked areas. The new feathers then take on the desired color,
which generally is yellow. This process, known as "tapirage," was
summarized by Metraux (1944 c). A mixture of frog- or toad-skin
secretion and a plant dye (usually the orange or red Bixa orellana) is
rubbed on freshly plucked areas of parrots by the Tupinamba of coastal
Brazil, the Achagua of eastern Colombia, the Carih of Galibis (French
Guiana), and the Mojo of eastern Bolivia. The plant dye alone is
used by the Bororo of southwest Brazil, Mbayd and Mocovi of the Gran
Chaco, and the Macushi Indians. The fat of fish is rubbed on or
fed to parrots by Indians of the Negro, Uaupes, and Aiari Rivers, by
Cocoma and Cambena of the Solimoes River (both groups used pirarara
fish), and by the Puinave of southeastern Colombia (caraj6 fish). Id
all cases the new feathers are yeUow, orange, or red. Some sources
claimed that the new color persists through several molts, but this
is doubtful. The Brazilians call these modified parrots " contrafeitos,"
or counterfeits, indicating impermanence in the new color.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the accounts of tapirage.
It is not absolutely certain that a skin trauma with the application of a
dye would change the color of new-growing feathers, though this may
be possible. It is doubtful that the skin secretion of a frog or toad
or the fat of a fish would have the same effect (the frog's skin secretion
is not poisonous to the blood stream when fresh but some are when
398 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
dried; p. 408). The color of canary bird feathers can be changed to
gray by feeding hemp seed, or to red by feeding the seeds of Cayenne
pepper. That feeding may be the true procedm*e of modifying par-
rots' feathers has been mentioned by other authors also. (See Wass6n,
1934 d, p. 622.) Changes from feeding affect all the feathers at
molt, but the localized tapiraged feathers may grow between molts.
Order STRIGIFORMES: Owls
Such a striking bird as the owl would seem to have some related
ethnozoology, but references are virtually absent. Several genera
inhabit Neotropica. The small burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia)
,
which is common to most of North and South America, was eaten
in Uruguay to stimulate the appetite of convalescents (Wetmore, 1926,
p. 202). The custom may be of aboriginal origin.
A giant, cave-inhabiting barn owl {Tyto osteologa) on Hispaniola
became extinct in relatively recent times (Wetmore and Swales, 1931,
p. 43), perhaps after the advent of primitive man with his possible
disturbance of the owl's cave habitat.
Order CAPRIMULGIFORMES: Oilbirda. NighUars, "Curiangus"
The oilbird {Steatornis steatornis, family Steatornithidae) of north-
ern Guiana-Brazilia is large (40 to 80 cm., or 16 to 18 in., body and
tail), reddish-brown with scattered white spots, with a strong hawk-
like bill, and is an important source of food and oil. The birds nest
in large colonies in caves where the young, which are excessively fat,
can be gathered in large quantities. (See Humboldt, Ross ed., 1852,
vol. 1, pp. 254-262.)
A bird sacred to the Incas (as the quetzal was to the Maya, p. 400)
was described by Garcilaso,
. . .
besides the red fringe, the sovereign wore another device peculiar to himself,
consisting of two wing feathers of a bird called coraquenque. . . . The feathers are
white with a black patch, and of the size of those of a sparrow-hawk. They
were taken one from . . . [each] wing . . . so as to match. I myself saw them
worn by the Ynca Sayri Tupac. The birds . . . inhabit the wild region of Vil-
canota, thirty-two leagues from . . . Cuzco, in a small lake at the foot of those
inaccessible snowy mountains. . . . more than a couple, male and female, are
never seen at a time. It is not known whence they come, nor where they breed.
The Ynca wore their feathers because no others, save these two [birds], had
ever been seen or heard of in the world, and all other persons, even the prince
who was heir to the throne, were forbidden to use them on any account. For it
was said that these birds, being alone, resembled the first Yncas who were no
more than two, man and wife, come down from heaven. And to preserve the
memory of their first parents, they wore, as a principal device, the feathers of
these birds, which were looked upon as sacred. . . .
The Ynca wore the feathers above the red fringe. The tips pointed upward,
somewhat apart one from the other, while they touched below. To obtain the
feathers, the birds were hunted with as much gentleness as possible, and as soon
as the feathers were obtained, they were released. On the accession of each Ynca
Vol.61 FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 399
a new pair of feathers was obtained; for the heir never used the same insignia, as
his father . . . [upon death and embalmment] was adorned with the same
imperial insignia. [Garcilaso de la Vega, Markham's ed., 1869, pp. 178-180.]
Ignacio de Armas stated that the feathers were long and barred black
and white, and came from the wings of the common nightjar or
nighthawk Hydropsalis torquatus(=H. climacocerca, family Capri-
mulgidae; 1888, pp. 111-112). However, this species is lowland and
tropical in distribution and has not two long wing feathers, but two
long tail feathers, barred dark and light on the basal third, and dark
with white internal margin on the remaining distal portion. A
nighthawk of the High Andes is Uropsalis (two species, lyra and
segmentata), but this genus also has two long tail feathers (instead of
long wing feathers) and these are not barred nor white with a black
patch, but are dark with white tips, of 75 cm. length (30 in.), and
found in males only. No strikingly long-winged nighthawks exist
in South America like the showy standard-winged and pennant-
winged species of Africa, though a species (Eleothreptus anomalus) of
southern Brazil, northern Argentina, and Paraguay has certain wing
feathers slightly longer than the others.
The original Garcilaso has not been seen, and so the discrepancy
between the two translations of Markham and Ignacio de Armas
cannot be judged. Nor is it known to what bird the term sparrow-
hawk refers in respect to size. Hence, the exact identity of the Incan
sacred bird, coraquenque, is in doubt, though provisionally it can be
considered as Uropsalis lyra and/or U. segmentata, the Andean fork-
tailed nighthawks.
Both Garcilaso and Ignacio de Armas naturally doubted the rarity of
the bird. Markham (in his edition of Cieza de Ledn, 1864, pp.
332-333, footnote) stated that Vilcanota was a river which flowed
from high mountains through the valley of Yucay or Vilca-mayna,
near Cuzco, where the Incas built a favorite vacation residence.
Order MICROPODIFORMES: Hummingbirds (suborder Trochili), Swifts (suborder Micropodi)
The hummingbirds are conspicuous and important only through
their esthetic appeal as unusually colored midgets of striking form
and flying (hovering) ability. Some are relatively large, up to 15 to
20 cm. (6 to 8 in.) long including body and tail; others are smaller
than the largest insects. The colors, of many shades and hues,
are often iridescent.
The swifts in Neotropica are unimportant; there is none with an
edible nest made of saliva as in Malaysia.
Order PICIFORMES: Toucans, Woodpeckers, etc.
Family Ramphastidae, toucans: These birds are found in Guiana-
Brazilia and Central America; they are primary endemics.
400 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Toucans are important in ethnozoology because of their brightly
colored plumage. The feathers, particularly yellow ones, are highly
prized for feather bands and ornaments. The birds are characterized
by an enormous, falcate, cancellous bill.
Order PASSERIFORMES: "Perching" Birds. "Song" Birds
Birds of this, the largest avian order, are utilized mainly as song
pets and for their feathers. They include in Neotropica such con-
spicuous species as the cock-of-the-rock (Rupicola rupicola) of north-
west Guiana-Brazilia; oropendolas and orioles of Guiana-Brazilia
and Central America (some with prized yellow feathers); ovenbirds
(Furnarius rujus) with conspicuous mud nests, of southern Guiana-
Brazilia and northern Patagonia-Chilea; and trogons, including the
famous quetzal (Pharomacrus mocino), of Central America and of
Mayan culture. Many others are inconspicuous, and are unimportant
here.
REPTILES (REPTILIA)
This class has many representatives in Neotropica, and some are
important sources of food. The fossil record shows that some groups
have had a Tertiary geologic history similar to that of the mammals,
as either primary endemics or as secondary endemics and unmodified
intrusives from Nearctica since Pliocene times. The nonfossil groups
may be presumed to have had a similar history. (See Dunn, 1931;
Simpson, G. G., 1943.)
The class includes: (1) Turtles and tortoises, (2) Caiman crocodilians
and true crocodiles, (3) lizards, and (4) snakes. (See Ditmars, 1928;
Santos, E., 1942.)
Order CHELONIA: Tortoises and Turtles
Tortoises and turtles are important as food, both flesh and eggs
being edible; and the carapace is useful as a container or percussion
instrument.
The commonest land tortoise is the "jaboti," or "galapago"
{Testudo tabulata, pi. 47), of Guiana-Brazilia. It is found on the
forest floor in nonfloodable jungles, is easily captured, and the flesh
is eaten. The size is small to medium (25 to 45 cm., or 10 to 18
inches, 3 to 15 kg., or 6 to 30 lbs.). Exceptional individuals attain a
length of 70 cm. (27 m.; Ihering, R. v., 1934, p. 112).
Perhaps no ethnozoologic activity on the Amazon-Orinoco drain-
ages was more important than that directed toward the harvest of
the socially spawning river turtle {Podocnemis expansa), known as
"cattle of the Amazon" (as is also the river manatee to a lesser extent).
The wide range, the former incredible multitudes assembled for spawn-
ing at certain sand beaches, and the consequently wide and easy
Vol.8] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 401
availability of the eggs, newly hatched young, and adult females,
made this species literally a staff of life and a key organism in the
fluviatile aspects of the tropical forest biota. Not only man relied
heartily on this turtle for food, but also other predators, such as the
many aquatic and rapacious birds, predaceous fish, carnivorous
mammals, and caymans. No other animal of the Tropics of South
America has elicited such lengthy and extravagant prose as this
species, and with good reason. (See Bates, H. W., H. Clodd ed.,
1892, pp. 300-315; Verissimo, 1895, pp. 56-88; Silva Coutinho, in
Goeldi, 1906, pp. 733-745; and Humboldt, Ross ed., 1852,2: 185-193.)
In the season when the water is lowest (September on the upper
Amazon to November on the lower, and March on the Orinoco), the
adult females come to the channels and rivers of this vast inland water
system from the flooded forest and marginal pools where they have
fattened on vegetable food in the rainy season, and begin their ascent
(arribacao) to favored sand bars or beaches to oviposit. The smaller
males and the young stay behind. A few females become many,
and the many become multitudes by the time of arrival at the spawn-
ing area. There this army of reptiles, in a low and constant roaring
undertone of colliding, scraping, and moving shells and feet, mills
about, satisfying itself individually and collectively that no danger is
present on the sand. At least once in the next two weeks or so each
turtle emerges at night, goes to the highest parts of the sandy area,
digs a hole about K to 1 meter in depth and in the bottom deposits
100 to 150 eggs before filling in and tamping down the sand and crawl-
ing back to the water in the early dawn.
The factors in the selection of a suitable spawning sand bar or
beach ("praia," "playa") are not known for certain, but those favor-
able include a fine texture of the sand, good elevation of the highest
point of the sandy area above annual high-water mark, large extent of
the sand bar, and the absence of enemies. The turtles are very wary,
as anyone knows who has hunted them. Their vision is extremely
acute and perhaps their hearing is not much less so. If predators
continually disturb the reconnoitering or laying turtles, the great
shoal is said to move to a quieter place. The tropistic behavior of
moving upstream against the current on the lower Amazon seems to
be reversed on the upper waters where, on the Ucayali River in Perd
at least, the annual movement is downstream.
The eggs hatch in about a month of warm sunshine and some rain,
and the tiny baby turtles, with umbilicus attached, chew and scratch
their way out of the sand and unerringly hasten for the river bank
over the sand, sometimes a mile away. The postnatal exodus gen-
erally starts at night, but the next day many may be exposed on the
sand to predators when still short of their goal. By the advent of
402 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
the rainy season in earnest several months later, most of the large
and small turtles have dispersed to the small rivers, and channels
and pools in the forest.
Predation on the turtles is constant throughout the year and in all
places of occurrence, but is concentrated on the adults when they
spawn, on the eggs in the nest, and on the newborn young just as they
hatch and leave the nest to emigrate to water. Despite nocturnal
oviposition, hatching, and dispersal of young, the toll is enormous.
Jaguars and man are the principal enemies of the adult females during
oviposition; man perhaps is the only enemies, though a severe one, of
the eggs; but a multitude of predaceous mammals, birds, and reptiles
prey on the young during their dispersal on land and shortly after-
ward in the water when they are still concentrated. At other times
of the year, in the forest pools and channels of the main currents of
water, the young and old are the occasional victims of fish, bird,
cayman, snake, and man.
Human activities centering around the river turtles were many,
but were most intense during the short spawning season when a con-
centration of turtles made for a concentration of humans. While
spawning, the adult turtles were harvested by turning them on the
back ("viracao"), and later sewing the flippers of one side together
to immobilize the victims; they could then be transported for long
distances or kept fresh for a period, while others were rendered into
dried meat and oil. Hundreds of thousands of eggs were dug up and
piled on the ground in front of the individual tents. They were eaten
fresh or were rendered into oil by crushing them with the bare feet
in a canoe, allowing them to stand in the hot sun for some hours, and
then skimming the supernatant into clay or copper kettles for further
refinement. In Colonial days, good oil was used for cooking, bad oil
for mixing with tar (asphalt) in calking ships.
It is obvious that such harvest methods were very wasteful. Such
was the toll taken of adult "pregnant" female turtles during spawning,
and such was the disturbance of oviposition to the point of abandon-
ment of the beaches by the turtles in the more heavily settled districts
of the lower Amazon in early Colonial times, that turtles rapidly de-
creased and today no large-scale spawning occurs there, but is con-
fined to the more remote headwaters of both the Amazon and Orinoco
Rivers.
However, the possibilities for conservation were so obvious with
this socially spawning turtle that certain measures were adopted by
some 19th-century Colonial villages on the upper Amazon, and simi-
larly might have been practiced by some aboriginal groups, though
Humboldt indicated that such measures were the result of missionary
organization of Indian activities. A village appointed a "comman-
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 403
dante" to oversee the spawning; and harvest activities. He in turn
appointed sentinels to furtively watch the turtles in order to determine
when oviposition was completed, and to prevent intruders, both human
and animal, from frightening the turtles to another locality. During
the several weeks of actual spawning, the turtles were completely
unmolested, though some wandering individuals were captured by
the sentinels for use as fresh food or to make dried meat. After the
turtles had layed their eggs and disappeared, the village assembled
at the beach, where each family was assigned its own particular
space to dig and collect eggs, and all went to work on the harvest in
the spirit of a festival.
It is doubtful that the allocation of sections of beach to individual
families was as highly organized in aboriginal times as after the white
man arrived. The latter had an economic interest in selling the oil
and a stronger concept of private property, which might have over-
come pure communal participation and harvest. However, the
aborigines may have practiced nonmolestation of the turtles, and later
segregation on the beach for egg gathering between groups larger than
the family, e. g., villages and tribes.
In Colonial times and where conservation was practiced, commu-
nity ownership of turtle beaches was an important part of the ethno-
zoology of this species, as was the care taken to allow the turtles to
breed continually on the same island without disturbance. In abo-
riginal times, while the ownership of beaches might have been as
important, unconcern or inability to organize the protection of the
beach from human or animal intruders might have caused the con-
stant shifting of egg beaches from one place to another, with the
result that the spawning locality was never inflexibly associated with
a settled mode of existence for a human social group. The sharp
and short seasonal concentration of the turtles at spawning might
even have caused some tolerance of antagonistic social groups for
each other. It certainly caused regular migrations among some
aboriginal tribes, who traveled a hundred kilometers or more to par-
take of the harvest and then returned. Humboldt related how many
Indians of the Orinoco, above the falls at Maipures, journeyed to the
three famous turtle beaches many miles downstream between the
falls and the Apure River. Survival values thus may have brought
together from afar human groups and made for special social inter-
course between otherwise antagonistic or noncontacting social groups.
Concentrated on the ascent up river (arribacao) to spawn, turtles
were hunted by a special technique with a special bow and arrow.
The bow was stronger and the arrow longer and heavier than usual,
with a sharp iron point which in pre-Columbian times might have
been of stone. It was secured to a detachable head by a line wound
794711—50 27
404 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
around the shaft which acted as a float. The arrow was fired with
great trajectory to arch and fall almost vertically on the back of a
turtle thereby piercing the shell. Close range shooting at an angle
was said to result in deflection of the arrow off the dorsal carapace.
A turtle was hauled in with the floating shaft and cord and harpooned
with a short gaffing harpoon before it was lifted into the boat; other-
wise the weight and struggles of the turtle might disengage the arrow
head, and the prey be lost. This unusual method of arrow shooting
was undoubtedly used when the turtles were massed on the surface
toward the end of their arribacao, or perhaps in front of their spawning
beach, as the figure by Marcoy shows (see Handbook, vol. 3, p. 634).
Under these conditions a failure to hit in the packed group of turtles
wou'd be difficult, but it would hardly seem necessary to shoot many
at this time because shortly afterward the turtles would expose them-
selves to capture by hand on the spawning beach, unless the hunters
belonged to a group excluded from the beach. The same bow and
arrow technique was claimed also for more scattered turtles during
the arribacao, when it should be more logical to hunt them thus, but
when it also seems incredible that the method would have the requisite
accuracy because the target was a single turtle which might not remain
on the surface very long.
During the rest of the year, mostly the rainy season, the socially
spawning turtles are scattered throughout the flooded pools and
channels of the forest and the side courses and swamps of the rivers.
Other and smaller species are present also, and these, with the males
and young of the socially spawning species, inhabit the permanent
pools and water courses in the dry season. In all these places and at
all seasons, but particularly in the dry season when water and turtles
are concentrated, all species are hunted by man with special harpoon,
net, or barbless hook. That the net may be post-Columbian is indi-
cated by the positive preference of the Indians of the SolimSes to
shoot turtles with bow and arrow rather than use an European net
which was brought to the same pool on the same fishing trip and was
more productive (Bates, H. W., 1892).
The harpoon used to take turtles in the pools and channels during
the dry season was the same as that used to take manatee and pirarucii
fish at the same place and time. This harpoon was a long-handled
spear with detachable head, and the head was tied to a float of wood
or to the shaft for the purpose of recovery. The barbless hook tech-
nique of taking turtles involved careful paddling in a canoe in clear
water in forest pools where bubbles emitted from the nostrils of a
submerged turtle guided the fisherman so he could drop the baited
hook directly in front of the victim. Steady traction on the line
prevented a hooked turtle from falling off while being hauled into the
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 405
canoe, and release of traction then allowed it to fall off the hook
without any effort of the fisherman. Diving for turtles was also
practiced; it doubtless took a good deal of skill and could be prac-
ticed only in pools of very clear water.
Nets were firmly set in narrow entrances to pools and channels ; but
in shallow and muddy pools where no snagging on submerged trunks
and branches would take place, the nets were partially dragged and
held by wading men while other waders drove the victims toward the
net. With the turtles also were taken occasionally snakes, caymans,
and fish. The dangerous species were usually treated with contempt,
though sometimes with respect, depending on the circumstances.
Many of the turtles taken by net were males, and in some places a
taboo prevented sick people with inflammation from eating of the
flesh (Bates, H. W., 1892).
Attempts to domesticate the socially spawning turtle never got
beyond the stage of enclosing captive turtles (probably of several
species) in a pool and feeding them with mandioca and leguminous
plants, and in certain cases, enclosing the turtles in a small pool
surrounded with palisades (Martin, in Goeldi, 1906, p. 744; Latch-
am, 1922, p. 159, 161).
The turtle with the socially spawning habit is apparently the single
species, "tartaruga," "yurara-assu" (Podocnemis expansa), with range
throughout the Amazon and Orinoco drainages. Its size is ji to 1
m. for adult females with weight from 10 to 50 kgs. Males are
smaller, as also are several other common species of which the two
principal are the "tracaja" and the "aiyussa." These latter spawn
individuaUy or in small groups. AU the fresh-water species are col-
lectively and properly known in Brazil as "cagados"; the term "tar-
taruga" more properly applies to the large marine turtles, but is used
commonly also for P. extensa.
Order CROCODILIA: Crocodiles. Caymans. Alligators, Gavials
The common crocodilians of Guiana-Brazilia are technically known
as caymans ("jacare," "caiman," Caiman), and they are represented
by five species. Most are small (1.5 to 2 m., or 4 to 7 feet), but one
species (C. niger) is huge (4 to 6 m., or 12 to 20 feet) and is a formi-
dable antagonist and dangerous predator. The tail, cheek muscles,
and eggs are eaten, but are not important sources of food. Garcilaso
(Markman's ed., 1869, 2: 23) stated that the Incas received
from the Curacas of the coast, gifts of alligators which were 25 to 30
feet long. No alligators are known from this region, and caymans
of such length do not occur on the coast of Peru, nor do salt water
crocodiles exist in Neotropica as in the Indian-Malaysian region.
But large caymans are found in the lowlands east of Perii and may
406 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
have been captured there and brought to the Highlands. Individuals
can be taken when traversing land between bodies of water, especially
in the dry season, or when they become concentrated in numbers in
drying pools of the llanos. The capture and transportation of a 25-
foot monster would require a high degree of skill and perseverence
;
capture probably was done by lasso.
Four species of true crocodiles, three of moderate size, exist along
the Caribbean coast of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America. One
species {Crocodylus intermedius) is said to attain a length of 6 or 8 m.
(19 or 25 ft.), and to constitute a serious menace to human hfe on the
Orinoco River and its tributaries. True crocodiles seem to be more
aggressive and vicious than caymans. No alligator is found in Neo-
tropica (the single New World species, Alligator mississipiensis
,
ranges from Texas to North Carolina)
.
Order LACERTILIA: Lizards
Lizards are represented in Neotropica by many species, of which
most are small. Two genera, however, are large and important as
food.
The "tejiis," or "carlpiaris" (Tupinambis, pi. 42), of Guiana-
Brazilia, are large (length, 1 m., or 39 in., of which the tail is 60 cm.,
or 24 in.; weight 1 to 1.5 kg., or 2 to 4 lbs.), and generally are common
in woods and brush. They are captured by snare or bow and arrow,
and eaten.
The "cameloes," "sinumbus," or "iguanas" {Iguana), of northern
Guiana-Brazilia, Central America, and Antillea, are large (length,
1-1.3 m., or 3 to 4 ft., of which the tail is 80 to 90 cm., or 30 to 36 in.;
weight, 1 to 2 kg., or 2 to 4 lbs.), and are common but are also arboreal
and hence more difficult than the tejii to capture. They are prized
for food (the eggs also are eaten) , and are himted with snare or bow
and arrow. Individuals are said to be captured alive by certain
Guiana-Brazilia Indians and tethered to a stake by a line tied to the
neck or passed through the neck plates (Latcham, 1922, pp. 161-162),
A similar trait existed on the Antilles when visited by Oviedo in the
early 1500's (Oviedo y Valdes, 1851, 1: 392-396).
Order OPHIDIA: Snakes
Snakes are important only in the terrifying aspect and lethal venom
of the poisonous varieties, and in the size and the crushing ability of
the water boas (anacondas). None is eaten habitually.
The poisonous snakes are found mostly in Guiana-Brazilia and
Central America, The "fer-de-lances," and "jararacas" (Bothrops,
many species) are highly poisonous and common in some places in
the jungle and extend out on the Pampas of Argentina, The rattle-
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 407
snake, or "cascavel" {Crotalus durissus), is also highly poisonous,
and inhabits brush, dry woods, and plains, but it is rarely common.
The bushmaster, "surucucd," or "rieka," etc. (Lachesis muta), is
large (about 3 m., 10 ft.; and 5 kg., 11 lbs.), and is the most dangerous
of all because of its size, force of strike, length of fang, and quantity
of venom. It is not abundant over most of its range. The coral
snakes, "corales" (Micrurus, several species) are small and of less
danger or importance than the others mentioned.
There are many species of nonpoisonous snakes, but only the boas
and water boas (anacondas) are important.
The boas (principally Constrictor), "giboias," of Neotropica except
Patagonia-Chilea, are large (to 4 or 5 m., and 20 kg. or more), but
are not dangerous. The skin of some species is beautifully colored
and patterned and makes a desired trophy and adornment.
The water boa, anaconda, "sucuri" {Eunectes, pi. 12), of Guiana-
BrazHia is tremendous in size (about 5 to 11.5 m., 11 to 37 ft. (Dunn,
1944, p. 183); and 25 to 150 kg., 55 to 330 lbs.). It is a powerful
constrictor and an impressive animal, but probably is of little danger
to man. It feeds principally on caymans. Perhaps the serpent
motif in the art of the High Andean region stems from the anaconda,
which is relatively common in adjacent northeastern Bolivian and
eastern Peruvian lowlands, especially in the vast swamps of the
Llanos de los Mojos. (See Garcilaso de la Vega, Markhams ed.,
1869, 1: 330.) These large serpents were called Amaru, and, without
exaggeration, were stated to be 25 or 30 feet in length. Some were
presented to the Inca each year, and were kept in a zoo (ibid., 2: 23).
Capture of large anacondas can be accomplished in areas where winter
cold temperatures render the animal torpid.
AMPHIBIANS (AMPHIBIA)
This class includes burrowing caecilians, newts and salamanders,
and frogs and toads. The latter are of importance in Neotropical
ethnozoology, and are a common element of art, mythology, magic,
poison, and ceremony. (See Wass^n, 1934, c and d.)
Order SALIENTIA: Frogs and Toads (Anurans)
The giant toad, "sapao," or "sapo" (Bufo marinus), of Guiana-
Brazilia, is large (to 2 kg., or 5 lbs.), with huge external parotoid
glands on the rear sides of the head and neck. These glands contain
a mUky secretion, which is expelled in droplets when the toad is
frightened or in streams when pressure is applied, and which is toxic
to the digestive tract. This secretion, as well as that from the skin
of this and other species (particularly Dendrobates) , is said to be used
408 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
as an ingredient in "tapirage" to change the color of growing feathers
of parrots. (See p. 397.)
The small and brilliantly colored poisonous frogs, "ranas de veneno"
(Dendrobates and Phyllobates) , of northwestern Colombia, have a
skin secretion which appears to be highly toxic to the digestive tract
though harmless to the blood stream when fresh, and to have the
opposite effects when dried. In the dried condition, it is used as a
poison for blowgun darts. (See Wassen, 1934 c; many authors have
written on this subject, and a summary with critical herpetological
notes is being prepared for publication by E. R. Dunn, who has
kindly supplied some of the data given above.)
FISHES (PISCES)
Neotropica is rich in fish life, both fresh-water and marine, and
many species are important food items. Of the many fresh-water
species, the most important as food are the unarmored (leather)
catfishes, the huge, scaly "pirarucii," the "dourado," the sdbalo, and
the smaU "ispe" of Lake Titicaca. Important for other reasons are
the electric eel, the sting ray, the cannibal fishes, and the candirii.
(See Eigenmann and AUen, 1942; Couto de Magalhaes, A., 1931.)
Order HYPOTREMATA
The fresh-water sting rays, "araias," or "rayas" (Potamotrygon,
Paratrygon), of the Amazon and Orinoco Rivers, are roundish and
about 1 m. (3 ft.) long, of which half is a whip tail with a spine near
the center on the dorsal surface. The spine is grooved for secreting
poison into a wound after the victim has been struck. The rays often
lie concealed in sand and mud at the edges of shallow water, and from
this position are capable of infiicting a severe wound on the foot of a
wading person, sometimes producing dangerous necrosis of tissue.
They are greatly feared by wading boatmen and fishermen, as well as
bathers. The spines are utilized for weapon points.
Order NEMATOGNATHI
The unarmored catfishes (family Pimelodidae) , especiajly the "lau-
lau" of the Orinoco, or "pirahyba" of the Amazon (both, Brachyplaty-
stomaJilamentosa) , are large (length, 1 to 4 m., or 3 to 13 ft; weight,
50-400 kg. or so), with huge mouths where the eggs are incubated
and where the young take refuge (oral gestation, buccal incubation).
These fish are said to swallow swimmers and are much feared. This
is possible with large fish and small persons, but its occurrence is
certainly rare. The flesh of this fish is delicious. Capture is with
baited hook on the bottom, or more rarely with harpoon on the surface.
The "sorubim," or "pintado" (Platystoma) , of eastern Brazil, is similar
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 409
to the pirahyba. The "jahu," or "mangurd" {Paulicea lutkeni), of
the Rio de la Plata and the Parand River to the Madeira River, is
perhaps larger than the pirahyba. (See Gudger, 1943.)
The "candirus" (family Pygidiidae, genera Vandellia, Stegophilus,
Acanthopoma) , of the Amazon and Paraguay drainages (and Parana?)
,
are very small fish (3 to 5 cm., or 1 to 2 in.), slim, transparent, and
with hooks on mouth and gill covers (but no dorsal fin with spines).
These midgets are scavengers and ectoparasites on fish, and also
endoparasites in the gills and body cavity or cloaca of larger species,
especially catfishes. Sometimes they swarm around bathers and
inflict scratches deep enough to draw blood. Rarely a candiru
enters, as an accidental endoparasite, the vagina or urethra of an
unprotected bather, but such rare cases have been responsible for
widespread fear of the fish, and belief in associated urinophilism.
(See Gudger, 1930.)
Order PERCESOCES (PERCOMORPHI)
The famous mullet "tainha," "lisa" (Mugil) is a delicious oily fish
with extraordinary habits and attributes. The striped or gray mullet
(M. cephalus) is the commonest species, and is almost cosmopolitan
over the tropical and temperate parts of the world. It grows to about
a meter but averages half this or less. The meat can be cooked in its
own oil; but more important to man is the character of the fish of
schooling in immense numbers along the coast, or in estuaries, bays,
and even rivers—from salt through brackish to fresh waters. These
schools may number millions, and they generally include one size of
fish because schooling starts early in life. The fish is generally difiicult
to catch: it is a vegetarian and will not readily take a hook, it is a
great jumper and tends to leap over nets, and it will not lead easily
into weir traps. However, by special techniques with nets and weir
fences, aided by torches, percussion instruments, and the tide, large
numbers can be taken, especially in the annual autumn runs for feeding
or spawning along the coast or in brakish water. The species has been
found as far south as southern Brazil on the east coast, or to Chile in
the west, but perhaps was most sought in the Caribbean and off
Brazil. (See Verissimo, 1895, pp. 96-99; R. Ihering, 1940, pp. 752-
775.)
Ignacio de Armas (1888, p. 154) recorded Sebastian de Campo as
noting in 1508 in Cuba the presence of many weirs of cane in which
were kept and bred millions of mullet for human consumption. This
cultivation or semidomestication of the mullet has apparently not
been recorded elsewhere in Neotropica, but is possible, as such fish
farms for gray mullet existed in Italy at a later date.
The rainy season in Neotropica may be so heavy that many closed
410 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
coastal lagoons are opened annually to the sea by fresh-water action
and then become tidal or seasonal pools where mullets enter in great
numbers. This peculiar tropical marine ecology attracts shrimps also
and thereby supplies much seasonal food of great richness and variety
to the inhabitants of the region (R. O. Smith, in verbis).
A mulletlike fish and a smelt exist in large numbers along the coast
of Tierra del Fuego (Townsend, 1910, p. 13), and may have been
netted by the natives, who utilized dogs to help in driving the fish into
nets (Gudger, 1923, p. 566-567, quoting Byron and Fitzroy).
Order GYMNOTI
The electric eel, "puraque," or "temblador" {Electrophorus elec-
tricus), of the Amazon and Orinoco drainages, is large (to 2.3 m., or
9 ft.; average 1 to 1.5 m., or 3 to 5 ft.), and is capable of emitting
rapidly pulsating electric shocks up to 500 volts (average 300) lasting
only 2/1000 second, at frequencies of 400 per second, and with an
average wattage of 40, This discharge can upset a horse or render
unconscious a man in the water, and the eel is greatly feared by
swimmers, bathers, and wading fishermen, Palatability of the flesh
is claimed by some to be good, but by others bad. Electrotherapy
with the electric eel was practiced by the Indians of Surinam, probably
with individual eels weakened by exposure, starvation, or continual
stimulation (which can be done). The flesh is said to be eaten in
Brazil as a cure for rheumatism. The eel apparently breeds in
shallow clear water on inundated lands in the rainy season. The
electric organs lie in the posterior three-fifths of the body, and are
analogous to a storage battery. The current passes from head to
tail. The eyes are apparently useless because of cataracts, which may
be the result of a fish's own electric discharges or of those of its neigh-
bors. The eel hunts by underwater "radar," which is effected by
short impulses of about 50 volts at frequencies of 50 per second; these
rebound from the prey and are received by a series of specialized pits
on the head. Coates (1947, p. 79, from which most of this data is
taken) doubted strongly the famous story of Humboldt that the In-
dians of the Orinoco drove horses into concentrations of electric eels
to exhaust their electricity before catching them with impunity.
Coates found captive eels able to emit electricity all day, and they
needed only 5 minutes to completely recover from 20 minutes of
heavy discharge. The eels of Humboldt's story, however, may have
been injured or exhausted by the horses. The Indians caught them
also with dry-handled spears, or arrows attached to dry lines, when
the eels came to the surface, as they do occasionally, to gulp air.
(See also Coates, 1939; Coates, Cox, and Granath, 1937; and Cox,
1938, p. 59 ; Humboldt, Ross ed., 1852, 2: 1 12-128.)
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 411
Order ISOSPONDYU
The "pirarucii" (Arapaima gigas, pi. 47) is found in the Amazon and
Orinoco Rivers (and Rio de la Plata ?). It is a large fish (lengths to
3 m., or 10 ft; weight, 100 kg., or 225 lbs.), large-scaled, with a small
head and caudal fin, and of pinkish color. The flesh is tasty and
often is dried (sometimes salted like codfish of the northern hemi-
sphere). The bony tongue (hyoid bone) is covered with denticles
and is used as a rasp or file.
The most important fishery of the Amazon has been that of the
pirarucu, which, with the turtle, furnished the greater part of the meat
supply of this region to the early inhabitants. The harpoon technique
was almost universal and was practiced in the following manners:
(1) From a boat in the clear and shallow water of pools or channels
in the dry season when depths were not excessive and muddiness was
at a minimum, and the fish could be seen and harpooned under water;
(2) from a boat in clear or muddy water when the fish arose to the
surface to gulp air as it generally did every 10 minutes or so; (3) from
a boat when the fish were spawning and less conscious of danger,
as well as surfacing more often in the same place, so that harpooning
was easy; and (4) from foot when wading in shallow pools beating the
water with a club in one hand and harpooning from the other.
The huge fish was also taken with hook and line, sometimes on
many hooks set and baited at night on a trotline stretched across a
stream or river, or with a single hook, secured solidly to the bank or to
a flexible pole. Nets were rarely used because the fish were too
destructive.
Wading the shallow pools entailed a certain amount of annoyance,
from caymans, electric eels, and large water boas (anaconda snakes),
as well as piranha fish, but all these dangers have usually been vastly
overrated by narrators, though they were always a possible source of
accident. The native of the flooded forests and vast inland water-
ways adjusted himself well to the dangers and realized their potenti-
alities, most of which he held in contempt as well as respect, like a man
working constantly with explosives. Familiarity bred contempt,
but the contempt was bred of the knowledge derived from familiarity.
The harpoon was a heavy, strong weapon with an iron point of about
10 cm. on the head, which was detachable from the handle, though
secured to the handle or a special wooden float by a cord. The same
harpoon was used for the manatee and the turtle.
The peculiarities of the fish of coming to the surface quite regularly
to gulp air lent itself admirably to the fishing technique with harpoon.
Some of these surfacings ("boiares") of the pirarucu might be violent
breachings of the whole body as if in fright from the shadow of the
boat, or from a predator, or even in play; or they might be a gentle
412 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
breaking of the surface, marked only by a concentric circle of ripples;
but the descent and plunge to depths was marked by a trail of bubbles,
some the size of a lime, and in clear water the fisherman could trace
the course of the fish and harpoon it under water. The ease of capture
when spawning was a feature which lent itself to reckless exploita-
tion; wise conservation by restraint at this time was not known among
the aboriginal or civilized groups. The time of fishing was usually
during the dry season, when the fiesh could be easily dried and the
water was low enough to concentrate the fish in surviving pools and
decrease the depth and facilitate harpooning. The flesh of the pira-
rucii in large quantities was a commercial protein staple of the region.
Today the supply has declined as a result of overfishing. (See
Verissimo, 1895, pp. 28-48; Higbee, 1945, p. 415; Couto de Magalhaes,
1931, pp. 172-176).
At least four species of Holarctic salmons and trouts (family
Salmonidae) have been introduced recently into the mountains of
southern Chile and Argentina (lake region), Bolivia (Cochabamba,
and Lake Titicaca), Peril (Junin), and Venezuela (Merida). They
are the salmon {Salmo solar), the rambow trout {S. gairdnerii, syn.
S. irideus) , the brook trout (Salvelinus jontinalis) , and the lake trout
(Cristivomer namaycush) . These species have thriven so well that
they now afford food to native populations and sport to sportsmen.
Probably they will assume a greater role in each respect as their
introductions are extended further in high-altitude or high-latitude
streams and lakes, where other common, cheap sources of protein food
are scarce, and where they easily establish themselves in the absence
of effective competition from native species.
Order CYPRINODONTES (MICROCYPRINI)
The most important of the cosmopolitan tropical and temperate
killifishes (family Cyprinodontidae), from the viewpoint of native
utilization in South America, are the orestines (Orestias, many
species, "ispe," "killuncho," "earache") in Lake Titicaca and adjacent
waters. These small fish rarely grow larger than about 30 cm. (10
in.), but some species are so plentiful, especially in the immature stage,
that great numbers of tiny fish are netted, dried, and eaten entire,
raw or roasted. They are also placed in wine, to which they contrib-
ute a distinctive flavor and perhaps some proteins and vitamins
producing a tonic effect. This group of fishes, with a' small catfish,
supplies the only native piscine food of the heavily populated alti-
plano of Peril and Bolivia, and their presence and availability may
have favored the early human settlement of this region, which later
became famous as the seat of the High Aymara and Quechua cultures
and great populations. Kecently other fishes have been introduced
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORB 413
into Lake Titicaca. The Orestiinae also inhabit the lakes, rivers, and
streams of nearby highland Bolivia and Peru (Lago Junin, Upper
Rimac, Ramis, and Urubamba Rivers, Lago Poop6, etc.). (See Gar-
man, 1875, and Tchernavin, 1944.) Coker (1923) discussed the
ingenious weirs and nets in use by the Aymara of Lake Titicaca.
Order HETEROGNATHI
The "dourados" or "piraj^s" (Salmmus sp., pi. 41) superficially
resemble the salmons of the Northern Hemisphere in their golden color
and in form, but belong to a different family (Characinidae), and occur
in the upper drainages of the Orinoco, Amazon, and La Plata. They
are large fish (length, to 1 m., or 1 yd.; weight, 50 kg., or 110 lbs.), with
tasty flesh and large roe, which are prized as food. This fish is not to
be confused with the "dourado" of the main Amazon, a large, edible
catfish. (See Ihering, R. v., 1940.)
The "sdbalo" (Prochilodus, a characin), of the same range given
above for the "dourados," is of medium size, with large scales, and is
notable for breeding in immense numbers upstream in foothills
during high water. At this time, and later at lower water, hun-
dreds are caught, often in rock weirs (gorge of the Pilcomayo), and
dried for future consumption. In Venezuela, "sabalo" applies to the
famous marine tarpon, a large fish with large scales.
The canuibal fishes, "piranhas," "caribes," or "palometas" (Ser-
rasalmus, Pygocentrus, pi. 47), occur in the Orinoco, Amazon, and La
Plata drainages. They are from 20 to 40 cm. (8 to 16 in.) long, with
a high, narrow body and a large terminal mouth armed with alternat-
ing sharp blade-teeth, which occlude with a distinct underbite and are
capable of inflicting a severe wound, characteristically in the form of a
gouged hole or of subequal, opposing crescent scars. Apparently these
fishes live in schools, are attracted to blood and raw meat (chemo-
tropic), and when hungry can reduce a helpless man or animal to a
skeleton in a few hours. In some places, especially in the clear-water
foothill streams, they are greatly feared by bathers, fishermen, and
boatmen; but are almost ignored in large muddy rivers. The teeth
are useful as cutting instruments; and the palatable flesh is eaten.
Many stories of their ferocity, some apocryphal, are current.
Order DISCOCEPHALI
The suckerfishes, "remoras," "pilot-fishes," "reversos," "pegadors"
{Echeneis and Remora), are tropical marine fish. Echeneis naucrates
(to 75 cm., or 30 in.) and Remora brachyptera (to 40 cm., or 17 in.)
are slim and fusiform, with a laminated "sucker" on top of the head
and "neck" with which they normally attach themselves to sharks or
turtles for transportation and participation in feeding on the prey
414 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
caught by the temporary host. These fishes are utilized by the Carih
of the Caribbean (north coast of Venezuela and Colombia, and islands
of the AntUles) as semidomesticated animals, for the capture of sea
turtles and manatees, as well as other fish.
Fishing with the suckerfish is one of the most ingenious ethno-
zoologic traits of Neotropica. The suckerfish, "pegador" (catcher),
principally the larger Echeneis, is secured by a liana line at the "small"
(base of taU), and is transported to turtle or fishing "grounds," where
it is released when the prey is sighted by the fisherman. The sucker-
fish then swims rapidly in the direction of release, finds (by random
activity?) and attaches to the plastron of the turtle or the side of the
manatee, and remains fastened while both are drawn to the canoe (or
vice versa) by steady traction on the line. When the prey is raised
above the water, and deposited either in the canoe or on the beach, the
suckerfish releases its hold and reattaches to the side of the boat.
Columbus saw this use of the suckerfish on his second voyage in
1494, at the Garden of the Queen Islands, south Cuba; the account in
his journal, edited by his son Ferdinand, was published by Peter
Martyr and later by Oviedo y Valdes. (See Gudger, 1919.) There
seems to be no doubt of the reliability of this record and of the con-
sequent autochthonous nature of the trait. However, there were few
if any other subsequent first-hand records until Lady Ann Brassey in
1885 saw the fishing use of the suckerfish at La Guaira, northern
Venezuela; and De Sola in 1932 recorded observations at Matanzas,
Cuba, and noted reports from other localities in the Caribbean. The
trait seems to have persisted among the Carib only. Gudger doubted
its existence at the time he wrote (1919), and the famous ichthyologist
David Starr Jordan discredited the existence of the trait at any time
on the ground that the suckerfish was too small for its disk to have
sufl&cient vacuum power to be effective. However, Gudger, from
whom most of these details are taken, brought incontestable literary
proof to show that the trait not only existed in the Caribbean (before
De Sola confirmed its present existence), but also in Madagascar,
southeastern Africa (Zanzibar and Natal), and in the Torres Straits
and nearby northeastern Australia. The trait apparently is unknown
in Venezuela today (R. Smith in verbis).
Apparently the suckerfish was caught when young while free swim-
ming among rock and coral reefs and was trained to "hunt." It was
probably kept tethered in shallow water and fed by hand. However,
details are lacking on these points. It is certain that the natives
generally prized their "captives" (semidomesticates) , spoke to them in
endearing terms, and rewarded them with meat after each successful
hunt.
There are many methods of fishing in Neotropica: Hook (shell, bone,
Vol.61 FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGT—GILMORE 415
thorn) and line (fiber, hide), harpoon (spear), arrow, net, and plant
narcotics or poisons. A special arrow, and aimiag technique acquired
by much practice, are necessary for bow-and-arrow fishing; but more
interesting and ingenious is fresh-water fishing with plant narcotics, or
fish poisons (this vol., p. 483). (See Killip and Smith, 1931.) Many
species of small fish, too numerous to mention here, are taken by this
method.
ARTHROPODS (ARTHROPODA): CRUSTACEANS, INSECTS, ARACHNIDS
Three classes of Arthropoda are important ethnozoologically: Crusta-
cea as food, Insecta as a means of disease transmission and annoyance
(the direct result of haemotophagous habits), as well as for food and
ornament; and Arachnida as pests.
Crustaceans (Crustacea)
The spiny, clawless lobster, "langosta" (Panulirus) of tropical and
subtropical mariue waters, especially in the Antilles, the east coast of
South America, and the west coast to northern Peru, is an important
food animal. It is large and tasty, and is quite easily taken with spear
or by hand. In Ecuador, Indian fishermen dive among the rocks when
the surf breaks and visibility for the lobster is poor, after locating the
position of the lobsters from the canoes (Schmitt, 1931, p. 232).
The fresh-water shrimp, ''langosta" (Macrobrachium jamaicensis)
,
is common in permanent streams of the Antilles and the west coast of
South America to arid southwestern Peru. This species is large for a
shrimp (15 to 20 cm., or 6 to 8 in.) and is highly prized as food. It is
captured easily by hand.
Crabs of many species exist in all marine waters of Neotropica and
where and when available are taken by hand, line, or spearing stick.
The Indians of southern Chile {Chono ?) catch the long-legged lithodid
crab (Lithodes antarctica) in the summer breeding season (when the
crabs come from deep to shallow water to breed) by noosing a female
and returning her to the water, whereupon as many as five or six males
become firmly attached to her in nuptial embrace and all are hauled to
the surface. The same female is used many times (op. cit.). The
fiddler crab (Uca), in the Antilles, is crushed and the fresh juice is
poured into the ear to alleviate earache or deafness (op. cit.). Other
crabs in the Antilles are (or were) considered to have considerable
curative powers for chest ailments when eaten, but often caused
gastrointestinal pains instead (Ignacio de Armas, 1888, p. 170).
Giant barnacles {Balinus psittacns) exist in southern Peru and in
Chile in shallow water, and are utilized as food (Schmitt, 1931).
416 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. M. Bull. 143
IHSECTS (INSECTA)
This is the largest class of animals, and the amazing abundance and
variety of form in the South American Tropics give special character
to this fauna. Some few species are important for use as food, or
ornament, for ceremonial use, and as noxious pests or as carriers of
disease.
Order ORTHOPTERA: Grasshoppers, Locusts, "Gafanhotas," or "Saltos"
Many species occur over most of Neotropica, and some are large (to
15 cm., or 6 in.). These are utilized for food where obtainable in
numbers and when necessary. The migratory locust "gafanhota de
praga" {Schistocerca paranensis, or S. cancellata) invades southern
Guiana-Brazilia from the Southwest from time to time, and causes
great agricultural damage (Ihering, R. v., 1934, p. 206). This situa-
tion probably existed also in aboriginal times, and perhaps then the
grasshoppers were eaten. Similar invasions by a similar migratory
locust with accompanying damage to vegetation have taken place in
Colombia and Central America (Ignacio de Armas, 1888, p. 165),
Order ISOPTERA: Termites. "Capim," "Comejen"
There are many genera, all stingless, some living in ground-surface
nests of earth cemented with saliva, some in arboreal nests of fecal
cellulose, perhaps cemented with some anal-gland secretion. The
arboreal nests are important as fuel in the jungle during rains, because
they are always dry within and combustible. Individuals of the
worker caste are small, and soft, and are eaten roasted. Tbey are
caught by breaking the nest, or by inserting a straw to which many
immediately cling (C. B. Brown, quoted by Cutright, 1940, p. 313).
The winged drones and females are captured around lights, where they
swarm on nuptial flight (op. cit.).
Order ANOPLEURA: Sucking lice, "Piolho," "Piojo"
The human body and head louse (Pediculus) is an aboriginal
parasite on the American Indian, undoubtedly having been brought by
the latter to the New World from Asia. The American Indian louse
was described as Pediculus humanus americanus on the basis of indi-
viduals taken from a Peruvian mummy (Ewing, 1927, pp. 20-22).
This variety (subspecies) is easily transferable to a few Neotropical
monkeys, especially the spider monkey (Ateles), and ancient transfer-
ence is said to have resulted today in a different subgenus and several
species of monkey lice (Ewing, 1927 and 1934). The alleged human
habit of eating lice is perhaps apocryphal in many cases; killing the lice
may be the object. In monkeys, in terindividual "picking," which
sometimes yields lice, is more an act of social grooming than
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 417
a search for food (most monkeys are surprisingly free from lice).
Human lice are of interest also in the transmission of typhus fever in
high altitudes of the middle Andean region, though the aboriginal
presence of this disease is doubtful.
OrderSIPHONAPTERA: Fleas
This order contains one member which is known to have been
aboriginally parasitic upon Neotropical man since pre-Columbian
times. It is the foot-flea, "chigger," "bicho de pe," or "nigua"
(Tunga penetrans). The impregnated female penetrates the skin,
generally of the foot, where it lives on blood while the eggs grow until
tlie flea swells to the size of a pea. Pre-Columbian Peruvian pottery
shows aborigines examining their feet, which have many small holes
that undoubtedly represent the sites of extracted niguas (Moodie,
1923, pi. 112). Columbus noted niguas on Hispaniola on his second
voyage (Ignacio de Armas, 1888, p. 163). The human flea (Pulex
irritans) was introduced with the Spanish Conquest, and now it is a
widespread pest.
Order HOMOPTERA: "Bugs" of an inflnite variety
The lantemfly, "jequitiranaboia," "vipora volanda" (Lanternaria, or
Fulgora), of Guiana-Brazilia is large with eye-spotted wings and a
ssvollen rostrum which uncannily resembles a cayman's head even to
eye protuberances and tooth markings. In addition, a long "beak,"
normally carried between the forelegs and extended forward when
sucking plant juices, gives the lanternfly a fearsome aspect, which is
responsible for legends that the insect is highly poisonous and spears
its victims in full flight, and that it can similarly kill a tree! Perhaps
it actually can inflict a painful bite. •
The reduviids, cone-noses, kissing-bugs, "barbeiros" ("barbers,"
because they often attack the face), or "vinchucas" {Triatoma, Rhod-
nius), are carriers of Chagas' disease (trypanosomiasis), which may
have been present in aboriginal times. Reduviid bugs infest houses,
where they take a blood meal from both the human and the domes-
ticated animal occupants. The bite is sometimes painless, sometimes
painful; it is evidently a matter of species and degree of consciousness
of the victim.
The cochineal insect, or cactus scale (Dactylopius coccus, syn.
Coccus cacti), so famous in Mexican ethnozoology as the source of red
cochineal dye, has been unrecognized generaUy as an inhabitant of
Central America and Peru, though the proper cactus-food, and other
related Dactylopius species exist in these places. However, Cook
(1925, p. 104) stated that red cochineal dye was used aboriginally in
Peru and even today is sold under the same "macnu," thus implying
418 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
the natural occurrence there of D. coccus (or a closely related form),
or its cultural diffusion in aboriginal times from Mexico. There is a
possibility that "macnu" is a lac secretion of dark color, even red, of a
species of Dactylopius, and similar.to the "shellac" and "stick-lac"
of India. Pre-Columbian lacquer work on wood has been recorded
from Perd by E. Nordenskiold (1931, pp. 95-100), but analysis of the
kit-bags of the lacquer artisans showed that this decorative medium
was formed from minerals (red cinnabar, yellow orpiment, green
malachite) and from special plant exudations (like those making
Japanese and Chinese lacquer, though undoubtedly from different
trees)
.
Order COLEOPTERA: Beetles
There are countless species of beetles, some large, of which a few
are utilized by the aborigines. Ornaments are made from brilliantly
colored wing covers (or elytra), especially of chafers (Scarabaeidae) and
wood borers (Buprestidae). Food is obtained from large larvae,
especially those of the rhino-beetle, which infest palms, and those of
the large wood-boring longicorn beetles. The elaterid genus Pyroph-
orus is strongly luminescent and on Hispaniola was caged for lighting
houses, tied to the big toe to aid in night hunting, fastened to body
ornaments, and even eaten (Ignacio de Armas, 1888, p. 164). Its
efficiency in lighting is high but power is low by modern standards.
Order LEPIDOPTERA: Butterflies and Moths, "borboletas," "mariposaa"
Many species of this order are widely distributed; the largest and
showiest occur in Guiana-BrazHia and Central America. The larvae
of some species are large and are used as food, though the skin is
leathery; some other larvae have toxic stinging hairs and are avoided.
Order DIPTERA: Two-winged Flies, Moeqnitoes, etc.
This is the most important order from the viewpoint of annoying
haematophagous habits and the transmission of disease.
The mosquitoes, "zancudos" (Culicidae), are found over all Neo-
tropica except extreme southern Patagonia-Chilea. Most species are
diurnal and commonest in the rainy season, when they are extremely
annoying. However, they probably are never numerous or voracious
enough to cause human or animal emigrations, as can the North
American tundra, north woods or snow Aedes. Of many Anopheles
species, the few which carry malaria, together with the disease, are
widely distributed, but the pre-Columbian presence of malaria is
highly doubtful; today it can be seen penetrating farther into the
hinterland into areas newly opened for settlement.
The small sand-flies (Psychodidae) are common in Guiana-Brazilia,
Vol.61 FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 419
but are inconspicuous. They are important along the western slope
of the Peruvian Andes (and southwestern Colombia) in a belt between
1,000 and 3,000 m. (3,000 to 9,000 ft.) elevation where the nocturnal
species Phlebotomus verrucarum carries Carrion's disease (Oroya fever
is the preliminary, often fatal, anemic stage; Verruga fever is the
occasional subsequent, nonfatal, nodular stage). This disease may
have been severe in aboriginal times, as is shown by representations
of verrugalike skin eruptions on one pre-Columbian pot (Moodie,
1923, pp. 489-490, pi. 112). If so, it probably had an inhibiting
effect at times on travel and communication between Highland and
Lowland Coastal regions. R. P. Strong (1942, 2 : 997) stated that
"... during the reign of [the Inca] Huayna Capac, thousands of lives
were swept away, supposedly from this malady." Moodie (1923, p.
489) recorded that "Zarate, in his history of the conquest of Peru, says
that verruga was more destructive than smallpox. Garcilaso de la
Vega says that ... a quarter of the invading army of Francisco
Pizarro perished from this disease." However, Hertig (1942, p. 3)
stated that the "Epidemic of Coaque" which decimated Pizarro's
army was in Ecuador (not Peru) and may not have been verruga,
and that, "It is noteworthy that in Peril the Conquistadores did not
suffer from the disease, which could well have been of military impor-
tance." This, however, as Hertig also explained, may have been
because the early trips of the Spaniards, and their later travels, were
through areas which even today are unaccountably free of verruga
fever, or which were too high or too far south (through lea) for the
disease. However, that verruga fever was pre-Columbian in Perii is
hardly contestable; it is not found elsewhere in the world.
Another Phlebotomus carries the dreaded and common cutaneous
leishmaniasis ("uta," "espundia"), which has a high incidence in the
Central Andean region from eastern jungle to the west coast, extending
to Honduras. This disfiguring disease certainly was pre-Columbian,
as is shown by the typical nasal and labial lesions on early pottery
figurines. (See Moodie, 1923, p. 489, pis. 102, 110, 111.)
Gnats, "borachudas," "merihuis," "piums" (Chironomidae, Cera-
topogonidae, Simulidae, with genera Culicoides, Simulium, and
others): These small and exceedingly pestiferous flies are most
common along flowing clear streams in the foothills of Guiana-
Brazilia and Central America, and are seasonal, existing in greatest
numbers in the dry season. Some are minute in size but savage
blood-suckers, and the bite is highly toxic. They can render human
and other mammalian life well-nigh unendurable, sometimes causing
actual emigration of man.
The horseflies, "mutucas," "tabanos" (Tabanidae) occur over entire
Neotropica. Their size is medium to large (for flies), and they are
794711—50 28
420 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BulH43
viciously haematophagous. In summer on the Patagonia-Chilea
Pampas, they sometimes occur in great numbers, and drive the
guanaco herds to windy prominences, thus affecting hunting activities
(Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 258).
An unusual dipterous parasite on man (and some other mammals)
in northern and central South America and all of Central America is
the "berne," or "Duche," a larva of the human botfly (Dermatobia
hominis). The botfly deposits a number of eggs on the abdomen of
female mosquitoes when it captures them in flight; the eggs de-
velop in a few days to the larval stage and must await the warmth of
the mammalian host, at the time the mosquito feeds, in order to open
and allow the larva to emerge and drop onto the skin of the new host.
The larva immediately penetrates a hair foUicle and begins develop-
ment as a subcutaneous endoparasite. In several weeks, sharp pains
notify the host that something is wrong—the larva is turning over,
though never emigrating from the skin through which it must breathe
by means of an anal siphon. Multiple infections in susceptible people
cause unbearable pain with much swelling and some disability. The
role of the mosquito in this obscure but spectacular cycle of biological
transmission was known to some natives and Colonial Whites, and
some of these called the larva "mosquito worm," but it is doubtful
whether they associated the adult fly with the "berne" or "nuche,"
or even knew it at all.
Order HYMENOPTERA: Wasps, Bees, True Ants
This order is exceedingly common over Neotropica, and includes
many species of which the best known are endowed with a poisonous
anal "stinger," and these are important as pests, and as agents in
ceremonial torture. The larvae of some species are used as food.
Wasps, "marimbondos," "vespideos," "avispas" (several families),
include some large species which are vicious stingers, extremely annoy-
ing, and actually dangerous to hypersensitive persons. Were some
of these species larger or more numerous, the woods would be uninhabi-
table; they can make a man roar and stink with fear. The larvae of
some species are used as food, and are obtained after the adults are
driven away by smoke and fire.
The bees, "abelhas," "abejas" (several familes), include stingless
as well as stinging species, but both kinds store honey that is highly
desired for food. The Paressi of eastern Bolivia keep the stingless bee
(Trigona jati) in calabashes for their honey (Metraux, 1942 a, p. 162),
and the trait is also existent in Venezuela and Colombia (Oviedo y
Valdes and Cieza de Le6n, quoted by Ignacio de Armas, 1888, pp.
157-158). Columbus thought he saw honeycombs of bees in the
Antilles, but later failed to find the bee colonies, and probably originally
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 421
observed sponges instead (idem). The European honey bee (Aptis
mellifera) has been introduced into Neotropica, and now is feral in
many places, where its nests in trees are exploited as are those of
native species. Its light honey sharply contrasts with the dark,
"strong" product of the stingless species.
Ants in Neotropica number scores of species, and often the colonies
are numerous and each contains thousands of individuals. A few
species can sting with a violently poisonous effect, and can be veritable
scourges and cause the abandonment of human habitations. Human
use is as food, or as torture agents in the "ant ordeal," a culture trait
of the Tropical Forest.
The "tucandeiros," or "hormiga congas" {Paraponera, Grandi-
ponera), are conspicuous by their huge size (2 cm., or % in.), black color,
and highly virulent poison. They are greatly respected and feared,
and probably are used as agents in endurance tests at initiation rites.
Fortunately, the individuals are semisolitary, and the colonies are
small.
Fire ants, "formigas do fogo," "hormigas de fuego" {Wasmannia,
Pseudomyrma, etc.), are small, reddish ants with a terrific sting. Sojne
species form colonies in trees, some in the ground, and one species
actually caused the abandonment of the village of Alveiros on the
Tapaj6z River, near the Amazon, Brazil (Bates, H. W., 1892, p. 227).
Probably native villages suffer in a similar way. Fire ants are also
utilized as torture agents in initiation ceremonies. The toxicity of
the venom from the abdominal sting is so great that even the minute
quantity injected by a single individual can produce powerful ill
effects.
Army ants (Eciton) of Guiana-Brazilia and Central America are
small, colonial, nomadic, and of similar poisonous potentiality and
use as fire ants, but are more impressive in their social organization.
Their nomadism causes hordes to move through the jungle in military
fashion, and every living organism, including man, must flee.
The famous leaf-cutter ants, "sauva" (Atta), are found throughout
Guiana-Brazilia, Central America, and the Antilles, where they dam-
age and sometimes devastate plantations. There is probably no
cultivated plant, except some wiiti milky sap, as mandioc, papaia,
Lonchocarpus, etc., that they will not attack. The vegetation that
is cut and carried to the nest is not eaten, but is used as a culture
medium for a fungus which forms the food of the ant. The Atta
ants are stingless, large, colonial, and their huge underground nests
in the woods are easily identified by the freshly excavated earth and
elevated profile, surrounding defoliation, and the great numbers of
convergent, small, clean trails. The soldier caste is large with huge,
opposing, sickle-shaped mandibles, which are used by certain Guiana
422 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Ball. 143
Indians to close wounds; as the ant tenaciously hangs on after biting
through both sides of an appressed incision, the head is severed, leaving
it and the closed mandibles attached as a suture. Individuals of the
worker caste are eaten occasionally by man. The large Formica
cephalotes in Brazil is also used to close wounds. (See Gudger, 1925,
quoting W. Beebe and E. Mocquerys.)
Arachnids (Arachnida)
Most striking of the spiders are the huge bird spiders (Avicularia)
,
often erroneously called tarantulas. They are large (span of 20 cm.,
or 8 in.), with a thick fuzz of toxic spiny hairs on the abdomen. The
bite is fairly poisonous. They are found from the low jungles to
altitudes of at least 3,500 m. (11,500 ft.) near the punas of the Andes.
Another spider of possible ethnozoologic importance is the black-
widow, "aranha" (Latrodectus) , of the warmer parts of Neotropica,
often found in human habitations. This is a small spider with a
shiny black globular abdomen which is marked by a reddish or whitish
spot below. The bite is dangerous.
Ticks, "carrapatos," "garrapatos"j''(Ixodidae and] Argasidae) , are
common in Neotropica, often in unbelievable numbers, but such
extreme abundance is probably a result of the post-Columbian cattle
industry. Ticks are a severe pest, especially in the larval form, and
occur literally by the million in some places in the dry season. Am-
blyomma cayennensis transmits spotted fever in southeastern Brazil
and Colombia today, but the pre-Columbian presence of the disease
.
is questionable.
Mites, "miquims" (Trombiculidae) , are a veritable plague in the
dry season in grassy areas. Only the larval stages of this family are
haemotophagous.
MOLLUSKS (MOLLUSCA)
The Neotropical moUuscan fauna, marine, fresh water, and land, is
rich and possesses many large and brilliantly colored species. They
exhibit the typically remarkable endemicity of the Neotropical fauna.
The shell mounds of the southern half of South America are built
principally of the shells of this phylum, the shellfish having been used
for food. The principal marine and fresh-water forms are the oysters
(Ostrea), clams (Unio), mussels (Mytilus), conchs (Strombus), and the
limpetlike Concholepas. Mention of the many species involved is
omitted here, though this does not mean that the group is unimportant.
The fighting conch (Strombus pugilis) was found to have been the
"staff of life" for the Antillean aborigines inhabiting Samana Bay,
Hispaniola, but peculiarly enough the beds were not known to the
present natives (Miller and Krieger, 1929, p. 47). This may be the
result of actual shifting of the conch, or the obliteration of its bed by
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 423
sand and hurricane action, thus perhaps causing human emigration.
However, just as plausible is the explanation that the conch is un-
available to the natives for the greater part of the year because it
moves into shallow from deep water only to spawn. Thus the shell
mounds referred to may be seasonal sites only.
Land snails, especially the huge Guiana-Brazilia Strophocheilus
(syn. Bulimus), are also used for food.
There are but few special techniques for capture; most species are
taken at low tide, with the hands or ,with the aid of a stick or any
other implement.
MoUusk shell fragments are used as cutting implements, containers
and ornaments. The shell of the razor-mussel is particularly adapt-
able as a knife, that of the giant conch as a container, horn or trumpet,
that of Concholepas as a boat-bailer (Townsend, 1910, p. 13), and
those of the more brilliantly colored shells of both land and water
species as ornaments.
The "sambaquis" of the Brazilian coast are not invariably human-
deposited shell mounds, but most are natm-al coccinos of unopened
shells of oyster, mussel, and Azara prisca (Serrano, Handbook, vol. 1,
pp. 401-407).
Pearls are derived from moUusks, principally Pinctada (syn.
Avicula; not the edible oyster) and the Pearl Islands of the Caribbean
were famous for their pearls long before the arrival of Columbus. The
giant conch {Strombus) sometimes yields pink pearls (Cooke, 1895,
pp. 100-101).
ECHINODERMS (eCHINODERMATA)
The large class includes sea urchins, sand-dollars, starfish, and sea-
cucumbers. Sea urchins are utilized as food, especially in the Pata-
gonia-Chilea region. Here the globular spiny animals are collected in
numbers and broken to extract the large ovaries, which are eaten.
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
In Neotropica there are fom- indigenous domesticated animals:
llama, alpaca, cavy (guinea pig), and Muscovy duck. The dog has
been present also, and from very early times, but it is not a Neotropi-
cal endemic. The Em-opean horse (Equus caballus) was unknown
in pre-Columbian times, but was redomesticated from feral Spanish
herds in the early 17th century by certain southern Indians (Tehuelche,
Diaguita, etc.; see Handbook, vol. 1, pp. 14-15, 202-203). Extinct
horses of other species were known to the early aborigines, and were
hunted and eaten by them, but were not domesticated to our knowl-
edge. The turkey is a Mexican domesticated bird, though it pene-
trated by cultural diffusion to Colombia, Venezuela, and northern
Peril in pre-Columbian times. AU members of the family Bovidae
424 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BulL 143
were absent from pre-Columbian Neotropica at any time; the Span-
iards introduced domesticated cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs, and in
many places cattle and pigs are now feral. The Asiatic water buffalo
"biifalo" {Buhalus bubalis) was introduced from Italy to the lower
Amazon region, especially the Isla de Maraj6, for agricultural pur-
poses (plowing, transport, meat, milk), but the cultural response was
largely negative, and the surviving buffalo are now raised for meat
in a casual way or have become feral in the vast swamps on the north-
ern edge of Maraj6 Island where they constitute a menace to humans
on account of their truculent and wily disposition and great size.
True camels (undoubtedly the Arabian, or one-humped species,
Camelus dromedarius) were introduced at an early date into the desert
areas of coastal Peril, but were not integrated culturally and became
entirely extinct. Eaton's identification of the bison in a Cuzco grave
(1912) was later withdrawn (1913) in favor of a post-Columbian
cattle specimen. Chickens also were introduced (but see p. 394).
The dog poses a special problem. It was found in the form of at
least nine breeds throughout Neotropica (and additional breeds were
widely distributed throughout Nearctica). Owing to the fertility
between dogs and wolves (with fertile offspring), it may be difficult
to believe, as C. O. Sauer says (personal communication), "that the
dog [in the New World] can be passed off as a series of mutations
derived from an original Asiatic stock." The situation is complex and
confusing, but may be summarized here by the following statements:
(1) Man brought a breed, or breeds, of dog with him from Asia, at least
in his later immigrations; (2) all American aboriginal Indian dogs seem
to be morphologically "dogs," and not domesticated coyotes or foxes
(most dogs seem to be sufficiently distinguishable from any other canid
to justify the belief of most specialists that they form the distinct
species, Canis familiaris)
; (3) dogs will mate easily, and have mated
often, under favorable conditions in nature, with wolves, dingos, and
perhaps coyotes and jackals (though crosses in nature with either of
the latter two are probably rare), and the offspring are fertile;
(4) dogs and foxes will not mate normally in nature, and rarely under
control; (5) all the Recent canids of Neotropica are "foxes" of the
genera Chrysocyon, Urocyon, and Dusicyon (including here Cerdocyon,
Lycalopex, and Pseudoalopex, p. 377), and the aberrant bush-dog,
Icticyon venaticus; (6) no wild member of the genus Canis (sensu
stricto, e. g., wolf, coyote) has been known to occur very far south of
the tableland of Mexico in the last several thousand years and hence,
not in that time in Neotropica
; (7) however, in the late Pleistocene and
perhaps^ early Recent, a true Canis (wolf type) did occur in South
America, and perhaps was contemporaneous with early man, with or
without domestic dogs of Palearctic (or Nearctic) stock; and (8) dogs
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 425
of the world seem to have the same genetic constitution and hence
mutational and gene-combinational potentialities, witness the inde-
pendently derived breeds of "bulldog," "greyhound," or "foxhound,"
"setter," "terrier," and "hairless" in the Old and New Worlds. (See
Allen, G. M., 1920; Krieg, 1929, 1939; Cabrera, A., 1932, 1934; Young
and Goldman, 1944.)
Krieg (1925) recorded the breeding of a female " Pseudalopex
azarae" (Dusicyon gymnocercus) with a male fox terrier hybrid,
(terrier X fox ?). Dusicyon is more like Canis than the other genera
of South American "foxes," and this may be significant.
The oft-used distinct terms "dog" and "wolf" perhaps need con-
crete definition. The most common dog characters are: Wolf-type
skull with smaller dentition, rounder braincase, higher forehead,
shorter snout, larger orbital angle and smaller audital bullae, ability
to bark, and an erect and mobile tail. However, considering known
interbreeding with wolves, it is obvious that these characters (and
others alleged) are not absolutely constant in some individuals of some
breeds of dog. (See Miller, 1912, p. 313; Iljin, 1941.)
The Neotropical breeds which have been adequately described are:
Inca dog (medium size), long-haired Inca dog (medium), Peruvian
pug-nosed dog (small, bulldoglike), Fuegian dog (small, terrierlike),
Ona dog (medium, setterlike), Tehuelche dog (large, foxhound or
greyhoundlike), Techichi dog (small, terrierlike), and small hairless
dog. (See Allen, G. M., 1920; Cabrera, A., 1932, 1934.) The alleged
wUd indigenous "perro cimarron" of Argentina has been shown by
A. Cabrera (1932) to be derived from feral European stock. Latch-
am (1922) expressed the view that practically all the breeds of
Neotropical dogs were derived from native fox species; but this posi-
tion is extreme.
Two other breeds are questionable: the mute dog and the humped
dog. Mute dogs were recorded from the Antilles, adjacent coast of
northern South America, Peru, and Mexico (Ignacio de Armas, 1888,
pp. 32-34). Close examination of the quotations and text, however,
reveals that these dogs were not truly mute, but merely nonbarkers,
and that they represented several of the above-mentioned breeds.
Some modern breeds or local populations of dogs do not bark normally
(Eskimo dog, Basenji dog of Africa), and nonbarkers or their de-
scendants learn to bark in association with barkers. Hence, it seems
best to conclude now, in respect to these early Neotropical "mute"
dogs, that they were local populations of one or of several breeds
which, through severe conditioning (training) or through natural
inclination and isolation, were nonbarkers. They could vocalize in
whines and perhaps howls. Barking, and even howling, may have
been sternly suppressed by severe punishment as a precaution against
426 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
disclosing hidden villages to human marauders. Some of these non-
barking dogs may have been tame foxes or bush dogs. Humboldt
(Ross ed., 1852, 2:510, footnote) suggested that mute dogs might
have been individuals castrated and raised for food, as was done in
early Mexico.
The humped dog is perhaps even more of an enigma than the "mute"
dog. There are several early Spanish references to humped dogs
("el dorso arqueado, formando una especie de joroba," "pronunciada
joroba," "perros mal conformados," etc.; Ignacio de Armas, 1888,
pp. 37-40, quoting earlier authors), in the Antilles, Central America,
"New Grenada," and Perii. Like the "mute" dog, the humped dog
seems to have included several breeds or local populations, though
some might have been occasional deformed individuals.
In this study, no detailed examination of canid material was made.
Domestication is a phenomenon which is difficult to explain or
define accurately, and it is equally difficult to make a list of domesti-
cated animals. Rather than limit the definition to any single con-
dition, it seems best to consider several conditions and several classes
or degrees of domestication.
A distinction must be made between "domesticated" and "tamed
wild" animals. The latter generally are isolated individuals which
are caught wild (usually when young) and tamed as pets. However,
such a condition grades into that in which animals are caught purposely
in numbers in the wild state and kept for certain economic purposes,
e. g., the elephant. All tamed wild animals are utilized, at least as
pets in an esthetic sense, so the fact of utilization should not enter
into the definition of either a domesticated or a tamed animal—all
animals taken purposely by man into his company are utilized in
some way.
A distinction is necessary also between "domesticated" and some
"domestic" animals. Some of the latter, sensu stricto, are natural
commensals such as the house fly, cockroach, house mouse, house rat,
English sparrow, European stork, black vulture, etc., which have
attached themselves "voluntarily," and, in some cases, in spite of
opposition, to man and his domicile. "Domesticated" never should
be applied to the latter group of animals, though both "domestic"
and "domesticated" can be appHed to man's conscious purposeful
establishment of symbionts (domesticates). Both a domesticated
animal and man have necessary interdependent and mutually benefi-
cent relationships which arose from a commensahstic condition
(natural or otherwise), but which later developed into a symbiosis.
This symbiosis, however, is usually not obligatory—either partner
may exist without the other, though the animal under this condition
reverts to a wild state with usually a shght change of morphology;
Vol.61 FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 427
and man without his animal changes culturally. Some very highly
specialized breeds obviously could not exist alone, or even revert to
wild type before extinction; and vice versa, some human cultures could
not exist without their domesticates (Arab in some places without
camels and horses).
Domestication should apply to an animal species which meets the
following conditions: That it (1) is integrated into human culture;
(2) is kept forcibly under human control for a purpose; (3) is dependent
upon man, either voluntarily or involuntarily, for survival under this
prior condition; (4) generally breeds under the artificial conditions of
human control; and (5) generally is modified into breeds (or strains)
through selective breeding by man.
This definition gives several degrees of domestication: (1) Ordinary,
or highly domesticated animals—those which answer all conditions
(generally widespread geographically also); (2) semidomesticated
animals—those which answer at least the first three conditions.
Some semidomesticated animals, e. g., pearl oysters, silkworms,
honey bees, etc., have been called "cultivated."
The reasons that some animals have been domesticated to any
degi'ee whatsoever are also difficult to state. However, they certainly
involve cultural as well as zoological factors, and some of the following
may be important: (1) Cultural stimulus (either religious, economic,
or esthetic), which gives and sustains a purpose and value to the act
and the animal, and which in most cases probably originates in con-
centrated settled populations of peoples who have aheady had the
knowledge and background of cultivated plants; (2) calm and docile
disposition of the animal, which results in easy adaptation to confine-
ment and generally involves no difficulty in breeding; (3) play instinct
well developed (in mammals)
; (4) chance (meeting of the animal and
the culture); (5) perhaps a commensaUstic or symbiotic tendency of
behavior in the animal, which manifests itself (a) in some sort of
stratified social organization in nature and docile subjection to man
in captivity, and/or (b) in some degree of attraction to other organisms,
especially under stresses of nature (famine, drought, cold, flood,
extinction, etc.), because, generally, physically subnormal or ex-
hausted animals are more easily tamed than robust healthy ones,
and/or (c) in some "domestic" attachment to man which later turns
into a domesticated symbiotic relationship; and (6) sometimes (ad-
ventitiously) a plastic germ plasm, which provides many combinations
of genes in variations and mutations that can be utilized for selective
breeding into distinct strains (though it seems hkely that most selec-
tion is fortuitous, especially in the lower cultures). Young animals
fall in the fifth category.
It would seem that there exist many wild animals which are po-
428 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
tentially domesticable, and perhaps chance has so far prevented their
domestication; but, on the other hand, nearly all of om* truly domesti-
cated animals have an ancient history, and few new ones have been
added recently. Hence, there may exist very good zoological reasons,
or lack of certain factors, zoological as well as cultural, which have
prevented and will prevent domestication of such forms. A study of
seemingly domesticable animals, from the cultural and biological
viewpoint, may clarify the positive factors favorable or necessary for
domestication of others.
Fear is a strong factor in the behavior (and in the domesticability)
of an animal; some species are born without this emotion but acquire
it later in life (most higher forms, including man). Young animals
of these species are easier to tame than older members. However,
some animals can be tamed in the adult as well as in the immature
states (falcon, otter, etc.). There is obviously much to be learned
about domestication, but also enough variability to preclude facile
generalizations.
The establishment of special breeds of domesticated animals is an
interesting phenomenon. The general idea of the mechanics of repro-
duction, and of heredity, must have been known to aborigines, espe-
cially to those with cultivated plants and domesticated animals, but
it seems that the conscious establishment of a breed is generally a
function of a high culture which gives a special stimulus to the pro-
duction and preservation of the breed. Without some cultural stim-
ulus, the perpetuation of domesticated stock appears to proceed
haphazardly as far as selective breeding is concerned. However,
with a stimulus from religion (produciug breeds of black llamas,
white llamas, white alpacas, and perhaps 5-toed llamas), or from
economic pressure, or from war, hunting, or sheer amusement, special
breeds will be perpetuated and perhaps consciously developed by
merely isolating and breediag desired like with like and segregating
the results. Special craftmanship, secret or public, with special
hereditary groups of animal husbandrists, will subsequently develop,
and this wUl accelerate the process of breed development and im-
provement. In addition, breeds or strains can be developed naturally
and unconsciously by natural selection, when the domesticated ani-
mal in question is continually forced to live in more extreme conditions
of climate or to perform more arduous conditions of work. In these
cases, only those individuals with the inherent ability to survive and
breed can perpetuate the species, with a consequent fixation of the
naturally selected combinations of characters in the newly developing
breed.
However, there is a limit to the amount of diversity which can be
produced by selection—a limit fixed by the inherent gene-combination
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 429
and gene-mutational potentialities of the germ plasma, unless muta-
tion intervenes. It remains to be proved that the combinational
and mutational possibilities of llama germ-plasm could have pro-
duced the alpaca, though such may be possible.
Domestication is such a large and controversial subject that it can-
not be discussed further here.
A list of the Neotropical domesticates and semidomesticates and
other animals important in ethnozoology is given on pages 346-347.
LLAMA, ALPACA, GUANACO, VICUNA (SOUTH AMERICAN CAMELIDS
AND LAMOIDS)
These four forms are typical exclusive members of the Patagonia-
Chilea fauna, and all are (or were) important in the economy ot man
in that region of South America. The llama and alpaca are known
now in the domesticated state only; the guanaco and vicuna in the
wild state only (though some few herds of vicuna are in semiconfine-
ment for commercial wool exploitation).
As members of a distinct group of Camelidae, the South American
forms have:
Long necks and legs; long ears; medially split upper lip; two-toed feet (except
Chancay Peruvian pre-Columbian breed with five front toes—see below), with
terminal two phalanges placed flat on the ground (almost digitigrade instead of
unguligrade) , and though apparently cloven, not completely so, but united
posteriorly in a common pad; utter absence of metatarsal splints as remnants of
other side digits; a distally slightly bifurcate metapodial (cannon-bone, articu-
lating distally with the phalanges and proximally with the carpus and tarsus);
paired metatarsal glands (on shank of hind leg, below hock, heel, or calcaneum)
;
complex three-chambered stomach; dental formula of I 1/3, C 1/1, P 2/1, M 3/3
(with I 3/ caniniform; milk dentition DI 1/3, DC 1/1, DP 3/2); functional mam-
mae four, inguinal; no dorsal hump; red blood corpuscles elliptical instead of
circular (enucleated, however, like all other mammals) ; single precocious young
after gestation of 10-11 months; polygamous herd composition, with male domi-
nance and female and young male subjugation in a stratified social organization;
herbivorous and ruminant; spitting, biting, and kicking attack and defense;
common voiding places for feces and urine; playful disposition and affectionate
nature when young; calm and stolid, but easily alarmed and stampeded; copula-
tion "lying down" (Garman, in Allen, J. A., 1876, p. 352); and generally with
similar and restricted habitat and range. Sexual dimorphism is slight, but male
skulls are easily distinguished from those of females by larger canines and larger
caniniform I 3/. The rumen of the complex stomach has so-called "water-cells,"
but Pocock (1923, p. 542) claimed that these are filled generally with food to
later regurgitate and rechew (ruminate), and that in the camel these cells contain
water only when food is unobtainable. The mechanism of water "storage" in
true camels seems to be in the metabolism of hump and subcutaneous fat and
body carbohydrates, and there should be a parallel (even without hump) in the
lamoids, because body-water consumption is probably exercised on long, forced,
and dry marches which llamas, at least, can make and are known to have made.
E. C. Romero stated that the llama can go three or four days without water
(1927, p. 44). Physiologically, camels and lamoids probably are well adapted to
430 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
thrive on scanty vegetation, and to derive much carbohydrate from cellulose by
enzymic and/or bacterial action in the rumen of the complex stomach. Carbo-
hydrate yields more water than fat in metabolic energy transformations (Dill,
1938, pp. 4-7).
From the Old World camels, the South American forms differ by absence of:
dorsal hump, sternal, knee and hock callouses (normally), P 1/1 (caniniform)
,
and such large size (the dromedary and Bactrian camels may weigh 1,000 kg., or
2,200 lbs.). The Uamoids possess a shorter and more heavUy haired tail, feet
more deeply cloven, metatarsal glands, and are much smaller (never over 150 kg.,
or 330 lbs.).
All except one of the known species of camelids in the world appar-
ently are found in the domesticated state only. They are: Drome-
dary (one-humped, or Arabian) camel, Bactrian (two-humped) camel,
llama, and alpaca. Herds of "wild" members of both camel species
generally are believed to be feral domesticated individuals, though
Harper (1945, p. 421) stated that evidence exists to show that the
wild Bactrian camel of ''certain desert areas of Chinese Turkestan
and Mongolia ... is a genuinely wild animal, not contaminated
to any appreciable extent with the blood of the domestic animal,"
with anatomical differences to justify the subspecific name Camelus
bactrianus ferus. The guanaco and vicuna exist in the wild state
only, and the latter never has been domesticated despite many
attempts. The guanaco perhaps is the wild progenitor of the llama.
If there is any basis for believing that there are inherent qualities in
an animal or group of related species which favor domestication, such
qualities may be found in the camel family.
The South American camelids have been classified recently as
follows (Lopez Aranguren, 1930; Cabrera, 1931; Cabrera and Yepes,
1940, pp. 256-269)
:
Family Camelidae:
Genus Lama Cuvier, 1800. Llama, guanaco, alpaca.
Lama guanicoe MuUer, 1776. Guanaco.
Lama glama Linnaeus, 1758. Llama.
Lama pacos Linnaeus, 1758. Alpaca.
Genus Vicugna Lesson, 1842. Vicuna.
Vicugna vicugna (Molina, 1782). Vicuna
Or, the classification may be the following scheme, which is preferred
here:
Genus Lama. Guanaco, llama, alpaca, vicufia.
Subgenus Lama.
Lama glama glama. Llama.
Lama glama guanicoe. Guanaco.
Lama pacos. Alpaca.
Subgenus Vicugna.
Lama vicugna. Vicuna.
(The generic name Lama dates from Cuvier, 1800. Lama Frisch,
1775, is not considered binominal by most taxonomists. Auchenia
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 431
Illiger, 1811, is preoccupied by Lama Cuvier, and also is a homonym
of Auchenia Thmiberg, 1789, a genus of beetles. The oft-used name
huanacus (Molina, 1782) is antedated by guanicoe (Miiller, 1776)
for the guanaco.)
The latter classification intends to show what are considered here
to be the natural relationship between members: (1) All four kinds
are recognizable taxonomically, and three are distinct species; (2) the
llama and guanaco are most closely related, probably subspecifically
;
(3) the alpaca is the next most distinct member, perhaps a full-species;
and, (4) the vicuna is the most distinct. These relationships could be
brought out more clearly by setting up two subgenera, one to include
the llama, alpaca, and guanaco; the other to include the vicuna.
The classification of the lamoids is mdeterminate in that the llama
and the guanaco have been considered specifically distinct, or con-
specific but subspecifically separate; and the vicuna has been ranked
as a good species in a distinct genus, or merely as a species in the
genus Lama without (or possibly with) subgeneric rank. The alpaca
has been treated as a hybrid between the llama and the vicuna, or
as a derivative of the llama, or as a separate species. The latter
alternative in all the above cases is the one preferred here. Inde-
terminism in taxonomy is not always a fault of the students, but
rather of confusing zoology; in this case, perhaps, as a result of the
domestication of two of the four kinds involved. For a list of the
earlier authors and their many opinions, see Lopez Aranguren (1930)
and Le6n (1939).
The points of confusion are listed specifically as follows:
(1) Difficulty is experienced in confidently analyzing and evaluating
the morphologic characters of the four lamoids, because : (a) very close
similarity exists between the skulls of guanacos and llamas, without
sharply separating characters; (b) less similarity (more disparity)
prevails, however, between the skin characters (color, pelage, molt)
of guanacos and llamas, but a few llamas closely resemble the guanaco
;
(c) more marked distinction is present in the skins and skuUs of
alpacas, but some degree of apparent intergradation between Uamas
and alpacas exists in the general run of llama herds to be seen in
Bolivia and Peru; (d) enough wide variation exists in the skulls of
wild guanacos from the same herd to cover all the characters of llamas,
and some of those of alpacas also (see Peterson, 1904, pp. 442-445);
and (e) there is a peculiar vicunalike aspect to some of the characters
of the alpaca.
(2) AU four kinds apparently can interbreed or be crossed and
produce fertile offspring; but apparently, also, there is a segregation
of characters and reversion to parental types after continued inter-
432 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
breeding of the hybrids, and there is probably some degree of sterility
of the Fl hybrids when the vicuna is involved in the crosses.
(3) Modern methods of breeding technique have failed to domesti-
cate the vicuna, as have all other historic attempts.
(4) The normal range of the llama is much smaller than that of the
guanaco and apparently has been so in historic and aboriginal times.
This is paradoxical if the llama is held to have been derived from the
guanaco. The llama does not seem to be a specialized high-altitude
breed, but the coastal Peruvian aborigines are said to have had high
mountain breeding grounds for their llamas; from this it can be in-
ferred that llamas did not breed well on the Peruvian coasts, but this
itself may have been a secondary result caused by the absence of a
forage crop and pasture for any but the work llamas (castrated?) (p.
440). Attempts to introduce the llama into the United States, Eng-
land, Scotland, Ireland, and Australia have been without success
(Tappy, 1944, p. 48). However, there would seem to be cultural
grounds for some of these failures, just as the camel has failed to
become established in the southwestern United States and Peru
(though it was introduced successfully into Australia),
(5) The home range of the alpaca is even more restricted, and
efforts to establish it in various foreign countries to live in numbers
at low altitudes have been unsuccessful. However, there is good
reason for believiug that the alpaca is a highly specialized breed (or
species) which is best adapted to high altitudes.
(6) Lopez Aranguren (1930) and especially Cabrera (1931) claimed
to have identified fossil remains (skulls) of all four kinds of lamoids
from Pleistocene deposits in southern Neotropica.
(7) There has been a general lack of an accepted definition of a
species. The definition followed here is: A species is a group of
individuals whose populations normally exchange genes in nature.
An interchange of genes by forced interbreeding between two distinct
kinds of animals does not necessarily mean conspecificity.
It is difficult if not impossible to reconcile all these conflicting points
into one acceptable scheme of classification. Diametrically opposed
statements of "fact" are legion.
In the following, pages, the listed characters of the lamoids are to be
considered as average, and not, except in the case of the vicuna, or as
otherwise stated, implying sharp definition.
Genus Lama. Subgenus Lama.
The llama, alpaca, and guanaco, are characterized by: (1) Lower incisors
rooted, spatulate, imbricate, with enamel on both inner and outer sides; (2)
mandibular symphysis long (length to breadth as 2 : 1, to 7 : 4); C3) submental
foramina just anterior to menton (rear of mandibular symphysis); (4) facial pits
large; (5) choanae narrow V, open V, or narrow U; (6) vomer notched posteriorly
Vol.6] FAXJNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 433
(no spinous process); (7) incisive foramina generally opposite and extending
anteriorly to I 3/; (8) P 3-4/4 large; (9) heel of M /3 large; (10) large size and
relatively long snout; and (11) no patch of long brisket hairs on chest.
Genus Lama. Subgenus Vicugna.
The vicuna is ranked and characterized by: (1) Lower permanent incisors
open-rooted, peisistently growing, straight chisel-shaped (like rodent), with
enamel on outer (labial) side only; (2) symphysis of lower jaw short (length to
width as 4 : 3); (3) submental foramina just posterior to menton; (4) facial pits
absent or very small; (5) choanae (internal nares) generally in open U-foim; (6)
vomer ending posteriorly over presphenoid in long spinous process; (7) incisive
foramina (of premaxillaries) opposite and extending posteriorly to I 3/ ; (8) P 3-4/4
small; (9) heel of M3/ small; (10) general size of body and weight small, and
snout short; (11) heavy patch of long brisket hairs on chest (especially in winter).
Lama glama glama, or L. glama: Llama
Distribution.—At present the llama is found throughout the High
Andes from central Ecuador (Riobamba) south to northern Argentina,
except for some small gaps between southern Ecuador and Cerro
de Pasco, central Peru (map 12). In early historic and prehistoric
times up to the 18th century, it occurred in Coastal Peru and Coastal
southern Ecuador (Guayaquil, Pund Island), northern Ecuador, and
southern Colombia (Pasto ?), and as far south as Santiago, Chile,
and perhaps out on the Chaco of Paraguay. This distribution
roughly coincided with the greatest extent of the Inca Empire and
presumably was a direct result of the Inca conquests, but there is
evidence that the llama existed in Ecuador several thousand years
earlier (Murra, Handbook, vol. 2, p. 792). An Indian cacique is
said to have described a beast of burden to Balboa in Panama and
to have drawn a figure which was interpreted by the Spaniards
variously as a camel, an elk (female ?), and a tapir (Ignacio de Armas,
1888, p. 71). This may mean, if the story is true, that llamas were
diffused culturally from the Inca in Ecuador to the mountains of
northern or central Colombia shortly before the 16th century, or that
the cacique was a "traveling" man. However, the guanaco may have
ranged to Ecuador and southern Colombia ("Pdramo de Guanaco")
at that early time, and the midden bones which have been identified
as those of llamas actually may be those of guanacos. The Coastal
herds in Inca times probably never bred well or had no pastures and
were maintained from Highland stock; at least they were not inte-
grated well into the Coastal cultures, because they disappeared soon
after the fall of the Inca Empire. The occurrence of the llama in
Paraguay in the 16th century, as alleged by Schmidl, is held to be
questionable, but the Spaniards sometimes rode the Uama (as Schmidl
stated that he did; see Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 258) in emergen-
cies, or for sport, and early pre-Columbian tombs of Northwest
Argentina and the nearby Chaco have disclosed remains of llamas
434 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Map 12.—Distribution of the llama. {Horizontal hachure, present range; vertical
hachure, 15th-century extension; diagonal 'hachure, Pleistocene.) (According
to Lopez Ananguren, 1931, and Cabrera, 1932.)
Ji^
M
--\}
^x \
Plate 37.—Giant anteater and ocelot. Top: Giant anteater (Myrmecophaga
tridadyla)
,
Mato Grosso, Brazil. Bottom: Ocelot {Felis pardalis), Villavicencio,
eastern Colombia. (Courtesy R. M. Gilmore.)
J
Wn' a 9
f—
Plate 39.--Maiiatee tapir, and felids. Top, left: Manatee {Trichechns manatus), Gravtowii, Nicaragua.lop, right: Tapir (Taptrus terrestris), 250 to 300 kg. Bottom, left: Jaguar (Felis onca),'tO to 100 kg Bot-
tom, right: Puma (Felis concolor), 50 to 75 kg. (Top, left, courtesy O. W. Barrett; others, courtesy Smith-
sonian Institution.) J "
oeq
p:5
.2 >
S o
O
P..TE41-RodentsandflshTop^../. Bristle r^^^^^
Nattonal Zoological Park, Washington; others, courtesy Joao Moojen de Oliveira.)
^V^^ 42 .MuiiuuaK ifpuje aii.l \,wi. Top, l,f,: Ninr-banded armadillo (Dasupus nommcinctos) 2 to
ern'oolas^'Btairr^Sth f,^ ""^ .^^'^'P^^'l' Ylf 'f/^'^^ ( ^^P^^^mftL /.,.!&/«)^AnTS south"
southern CioiasBra^1f^ri/T/%Tiv-..^^- i*^-"'"'' ^'f^= ^^"^^f^ ^o^ (Cftrj/«ocj/o« 6raeAj/«r««), Anapolis,
Rn/M™ ;«/; o ' ^'^'iz"- <-«»^«^ "9A/- "Kmkajou," or jupara (Potos flavus), 3 to 5 kg , eastern BrazilBottom, left: Porcupine (Coendou prehensilis), 3 to 5 kg., Anapolis, southern Goias Braz Bottom Hnhi-Tinamou {Crypturellas undulatus), Anapolis, southern Goias, Brazil (Top °e/^and rL/ and 6oZ«
Jot'Mo^J^fde^'omeSa""''"^
'""'"' '^^'"'^"^ """'""• '^^'' ^''"^^^^^ Cla^k "«r;Te«i^?;/,^rcourS
Plate 43.—Llama and alpacas. Top, right: Llama {Lama glama); left: Alpaca
{Lama pacos). Bottom: Alpaca. (Courtesy New York Zoological Society.)
Plate 44.—Vicuna and guanaco. Tup: Female vicuna {Lama, or Vicugna
vicugna) in Zoological Park, Sucre, Bolivia. Bottom: Guanaco {Lama guanicoe)
.
{Top, courtesy R. M. Gilmore; bottom, courtesy New York Zoological Society.)
Plate 45.-Birds. Top, left: Trumix,., .;;„,,./.,. ,c„c„y.,.,„,. K.iaMaUa. ,„;nneast bomu, Ion nuhfYoung rhea (Rftea amencana), Yacuiba, southeast Bolivia. Cejiter: Adult rhea, tame, in Indian village'
Pera (Ciurtesril M. atmorej''""^
Domesticated Muscovy ducks (Cairina ^o.cAaia)' TmjX;
Plate 46.—Birds. Top: Flightless steamer duck (Tachyeres pteneres), Hermite Island, southern Chile.
Center, left: Condor (VilUut gryphus). Center, right: Razor-billed eurassow {Mitu viitu), Madidi River,
northern Bolivia. Bottom: Chachalaea, or guan {Penelope superciliaris), eastern Brazil. (Top, courtesy
RoUo H. Beck and American Museum of Natural History; center, left, courtesy National Zoological Park,W ashington; center, right, courtesy Sulo Sihvonen; bottom, courtesy Joao Moojen de Oliveira.)
Plate 47.—Turtle, fishes, and snake. Top, left: Common tortoise {Testudo tabu-
lata), 15 kg., Andpolis, southern Goias, Brazil. Top, right: Piranha (Senxisal-
mus sp.?) and piranha wound on man's foot, Ilha de Marajo, Brazil. Bottom,
left: Anaconda {Eunedes murinus), Amazonas, Brazil. Bottom, right: Pirarucii
{Arapaima gigan), Paraguay River (?), Brazil. {Top, left and right, courtesy
R. M. Gilmore.)
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 435
(Rusconi, 1930). In the early Recent and late Pleistocene, animals,
claimed to be indistinguishable on cranial characters from llamas,
ranged in the nonglaciated intermontane valleys of the Andes (Tarija
and UUoma, Bolivia) and the eastern lowlands of Argentina and
Patagonia (Lopez Aranguren, 1930; Cabrera, A., 1931).
Description (pi. 43).
—
Size: Averaging slightly larger than the guanaco; total
length, 175-225 cm.; height at shoulder, 90-125 cm.; weight, 75-125 kg., smaller
breeds along Peruvian Coast in Inca times, and at present in Ecuador. (See p.
437.) Color: Variable; generally black, brown, or white, or mixtures of these;
some of "guanaco" color (light reddish brown dorsally and laterally, white
ventrally and medially, and smoky gray brown on head) ; some spotted and
even "maltese." Pelage: Heavy and long on body, slightly shorter on neck,
very short on lower legs and head (abrupt change in length from body hair),
almost bare on groin and axillae (sometimes depilated on rump and withers,
because of cargo abrasion ?) ; composed of heavy, long, matty, slightly greasy
wool hairs, 10-20 cm. if sheared annually, as long as 50 cm. (or 20 in.) if not
sheared; wool hairs easily distinguished from overhairs (beard or guard hairs)
scattered through the wool, which sometimes, in case of young animals, are
longer than wool hairs and form a ridge on back of neck; no complete annual
molt, but hairs continually growing and shedding like mane and tail of horse,
though some individuals shed more hair in summer; at shearing time a tuft,
"hualiaui," is often left on throat as protection against exposure (Stroock, 1937 a).
Juvenile pelage, up to 4 or 6 months, of a fine, silky, short hair (3 to 10 cm., or
1 to 4 in.) without apparent dimorphism into wool and overhair. Feet: Large for
group; fore larger than hind; each hoof with a small ridge along top, giving it a
clawlike aspect. Metatarsal glands: Pair on each metatarsum (between hock and
toes, on hind shank) ; clearly visible (uncovered by hair) and variable in shape and
size, but generally oval and outer larger than inner. T'ail: About 25 cm. (10 in.),
heavily haired, and characteristically cairied in an arc up, out, and down. Ears:
About 15 cm. (6 in.), sparsely haired, and generally turned in at tips or slightly
scalloped subterminally on inner edge to give turned-in appearance. Callouses:
Absent except when produced on chest and legs by much kneeling in hard corrals.
Skull: "Normal," like guanaco, though probably even more variable, especially
in rostral length; large; facial portion in front of orbits usually longer by 10-15
mm. than cranial portion behind anteorbital border to rear of condyle; facial
pits large; teeth large, P 3-4/4 and heel of M/3 relatively large, but endostyle
of M/3 usually small; choanae variable, but usually narrow V, open V, or nar-
row U (rarely an open U); frontal profile slightly concave (greatly sunken in
an Inca breed) ; lower incisors spatulate, rooted, imbricate (overlapping laterally)
,
and with enamel on lingual and labial faces; symphysis of mandible long and
narrow (as 2 : 1) ; submental foramina slightly anterior to menton (rear of symphy-
sis). Reproduction and growth: Rut in summer; gestation 11 months (Mac-
cagno, 1932, p. 45) ; one or rarely two young born the following summer; precocious,
can rise and run in few hours; wean in 4 to 8 months; mature in 2 to 3 years; live
30 to 35 years (Romero, E. C, 1927), but in foreign zoos, 12 years normally, and
as long as 20 (Flower, 1931, p. 223). Rutting probably not so sharply defined as
in guanaco, and longevity probably longer as a usual result of domestication.
Hybridization: Can be crossed with guanaco, alpaca, and vicuna, but only com-
mon hybrid is llama X alpaca, producing a huarizo or mixti, which is fertile;
natural hybridization with guanaco probably rare, though producing fertile off-
spring (MacDonagh, 1940), and with vicuna more infrequent if at all, and off-
spring probably sterile. For discussion of huarizo and mixti, see page 445.
794711—50 29
436 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Intelligence: Low. Disposition: Generally calm, stolid, and "dignified" unless
annoyed, then characteristically spray-spitting ("cough spitting") ; often obstinate
and sometimes panicky; curiosity pronounced; playful and affectionate when
young. Habits: Greatly subordinated to man's activities and control; naturally
herbivorous, gregarious, polygamous, with male dominance and dependence of
female and young on male leadership; diurnal and nocturnal, and preferring high
altitude and treeless, arid country; voiding dung and urine in communal spots
(source of "taqufa" fuel), and apparently often stimulated by sight of prior
voider. Diseases: Liver flukes, and especially mange, which often sweeps through
herds in epidemics causing many deaths and more morbiditj^; probably due to
the llama itch mite {Sarcoptes scabiei aucheniae) and not to the llama mallophagan
louse (Trichodecles breviceps). The belief that llamas have syphilis and trans-
mitted it to the Inca herders through contact (zoophily ?), and hence to the
Spaniards, who then brought it to Europe, is without foundation; no llama has
been found to harbor Treponema (syn. Spirocheta) pallidum. Voice: Intermediate
between a bleat and a moan (Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 261); generally silent.
Special physiology: Haemoglobin with high affinity for oxygen, red blood cells
high (12.11 million per cu. mm.; Dill, 1938, pp. 127, 131), and probably a high
efiiciency in converting harsh and dry vegetation into carbohydrates for energy
and metabolic water. Breeds: Several with vague characters; more in pre-Colum-
bian times than today, one with five front toes (p. 437).
Remarks.—'The llama apparently intergrades in all its morphology
with the guanaco, though no one individual may show all intergrada-
tions, and they can be interbred freely, producing fertile offspring
(MacDonagh, 1940). This supports the conclusion that the llama
was derived from an ancient stock of wild guanaco. The much more
restricted range of the llama (than that of the guanaco) can be ex-
plained on cultural rather than biologic grounds, as can be explained the
failure of the llama to become estabhshed where it has been introduced
into foreign countries (United States, Australia, Argentina, etc.). It
breeds in North American zoologic parks. Even the evidence that
the Chimac and the Chincha of Coastal Peru had Higliland breeding
grounds for their llamas (Estruch, 1943, p. 118) can be explained by
the absence of artificial (and natural) pastures and cultivated forage
crops along the coast.
However, herds of llamas existed on the coast of Peril in pre-
Columbian times, as is shown by the many archeological remains
and the numerous representations on pottery. (See Breeds, p. 437.)
Maccagno (1932, p. 43) stated, without giving reasons for the custom,
that llamas were brought from the Highlands to the Coast carrying
human cadavers and were buried with their burdens; and that the
Coastal climate was (ultimately ?) fatal to llamas. Pocock (1923),
Lopez Aranguren (1930), and especially Cabrera (1931) contended
that the llama was a distinct species, and the latter two authors
identified fossils from Pleistocene deposits of southern South America
as those of the llama. If these contentions are true, the llama can
be considered a distinct species which became progressively a rehct
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 437
in the postglacial period, confined to the high mountains and weak in
competition, and was saved from extinction by the fortunate com-
bination of its zoologic status (?) and geographic range contiguous
in time and space with a human culture which was well developed
enough to domesticate the species. All the facts, however, do not
fit any theory.
Origin.—On known distributional and archeologic evidence, the orig-
inal domestication of the llama was made in or on the margins of
the Central Highland area of southern Peru, Bolivia, North Chile, or
Northwest Argentina. Latcham (1936 a, p. 611) localized domesti-
cation in the Highland around Lake Titicaca, and by the Atacameno
before this tribe was driven south to North Chile by the bearers of
Tiahuanaco culture.
Breeds.—^There seem to be several vague breeds of llamas today:
(1) Common llama; (2) large burden-bearing llama (?) of the Lake
Titicaca region, and (3) small llama (?) of Kiobamba, Ecuador.
Definite data on these breeds are absent. E. C. Romero (1927)
stated that there are two breeds in Northwest Argentina, "brachy-
morphics" and "dolichomorphics," but he intimated later in the same
paper that the latter are llama-alpaca hybrids (although one would
suppose that alpaca blood would give a brachy effect).
In pre-Columbian times, in the Highlands and on the Coast of
Peru, there also existed several breeds, some as indefinite as those
today: (1) Small llama on the Coast (definitely not an alpaca; speci-
mens seen from Pachacamac, south of Lima)
; (2) normal-sized llama
with sunken forehead from the Coast (specimens from Pachacamac)
;
(3) large burden-bearing llama (?) of the Highlands, utilized especially
by the Inca army; and (4) aberrant llama with five front toes from
Chancay, Central Coastal Perii.
One complete skeleton and two baked-clay figurines of the five-toed
llama were examined in the Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Lima,
Peru, through the courtesy of Dr. Tello, the director, who has kindly
given permission to describe the animal here.
The extra front toes were the 1st, 2d, and 3d; the 3d and 2d arose from pro-
gressively shorter additional articulation facets on the medial side of an otherwise
normal metacarpal (front metapodial, or cannon-bone) ; and the 1st toe was
represented by a short, closely appressed "dew-claw" situated above the 2d on
the inside of the leg, and seen on the figurines only. The color of the figurines
was black above and white below; the color of the skin fragments found with the
skeleton was, according to Dr. Tello, dark brown above and white below. This
breed was undoubtedly a rare mutation, possibly saved for religious purposes or
mere curiosity. Strangely, this mutation does not recapitulate phylogeny which
is clearly shown, by the long Nearctic Tertiary fossil record, to have involved a
loss of digits 1, 2, and 5, leaving 3 and 4 existing today in normal lamoids.
The "chilihueque" of North Chile was probably the common breed
438 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
of llama, and was employed as a water carrier (Cabrera and Yepes,
1940, p. 263). Such southern range indicates diffusion by the Inca.
Marelli (1931, p. 54) listed "chilihueque" under alpaca.
Aboriginal use.—In aboriginal times in the middle Andean region,
the llama was very important ethnozoologically. It was used as a
beast of burden, as food, sacrijfice in rehgious ceremonies, and as a
source of fuel (dung, or taquia), medicine (bezoar stones), wool, and
hide. The animal thereby constituted a prime source of wealth, both
for the individual and for the state {Inca). The success of the Inca
conquests undoubtedly was partially dependent upon the llama as a
burden-bearing and emergency food animal.
The llama was never ridden, milked, or used for wheeled drayage.
(The wheel was unknown in pre-Columbian America.) The llama can
be mounted, but it is probably too small for continued riding. No
animal was milked by American aborigines, and even after the Span-
iards introduced milking with cows, no extension of the custom was
made to llamas (nor to alpacas) . There are hints that the llama may
have been used for plowing or travois drayage, though such is doubtful.
Romero (1927, p. 63) denied an assertion of "Teodoro Bry" on plowing,
and Bennett's record (Handbook, vol. 2, p. 607) of "toggles for llama
harnesses" may indicate use for burden bearing rather than some kind
of draft.
Today, in high Peril and Bolivia, the llama is still very common,
and though it is generally inferior to, and has been replaced partially
by the burro and mule as a pack animal and the sheep and alpaca as
a wool producer, it has remained numerous and important, probably
because of (1) its combination as a burden-bearing, wool, meat, and
dung-fuel animal, (2) its tolerance to altitudes probably higher than
mules, burros, or horses can endure, and (3) the conservatism of the
Indian. Maccagno (1932, p. 50) stated that the llama will disappear
if not improved in quality and husbanded with care.
Cargo transportation.—Today llamas are used mostly for transpor-
tation of cargo, and probably were likewise used in pre-Columbian
times. They carry agricultural produce from Highland farms to cen-
ters of population and return with other goods, principally salt or
coca. Sometimes large caravans make long trips. In Colonial times,
350,000 llamas were used for transporting metals alone, mostly silver,
from remote mines (Maccagno, 1932, p. 49).
The cargo appears to weigh from 10 to 50 kg., or 22 to 130 lbs.
(45 to 80 kg., or 100 to 175 lbs., Maccagno, 1932, p. 28; but later he
stated, p. 48, 25 to 60 kg., or 55 to 132 lbs.), depending on the size
and strength of the individual Uama and the exigencies of the moment.
Overloading is said to cause the animal to lie down and refuse to rise
until relieved of some weight.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 439
The daily travel is from 10 to 30 km., or 6 to 18 miles; the pace is
slow, and the group is as often bunched as in file. An entire journey
may be several hundred km. Maccagno (1932, pp. 28, 48) said that
llamas travel 6 to 7 leagues (30 to 35 km. ?), can march 20 days
steadily, and go 5 days without food (and water ?). The degree of
thirst tolerance is not known, but it is believed to be high. Romero
(1927, p. 44) stated as a proved fact that llamas can pass (work ?)
3 or 4 days without drinking. Water probably is derived, during
forced abstinence, from carbohydrates and subcutaneous fat, not from
a supply in the so-called "water-cells" of the rumen.
There is usually one herder for every 15 to 20 animals. No frame
packsaddles are used, but only a blanket, and the load is tied with
plain rope without a cinch girth of canvas. The heavy wool on the
back is not sheared but allowed to grow long, presumably for easing
the burden.
Llamas can find food even in the most desolate-appearing country,
and grazing is done on the march; or at night when they are often
turned loose. Stabling is done in stone corrals, or by securing a group
in a circle with a neck rope, heads inward and kneeling. Also, it is
stated that a llama will not pass a single-strand rope fence (Maccagno,
1932, p. 49).
Wool and weaving.—The wool of a llama is strong, though greasy
and relatively coarse and with a considerable amount of stiff guard
hairs. It is usually plucked from the llamas by hand while on the
march, and spun on hand spindles by the walking women soon after-
ward. In some places, flocks seem to be sheared regularly every 2
years (to get a greater length of fiber than with annual shearing),
beginning at the second year (Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 263).
Yield from one animal is 1,800 to 3,500 gm. (4 to 8 lbs.) and at the
end of the second year the fibers reach a length of 30 cm., or 12 inches
(Maccagno, 1932, p. 28). Part of the required labor of indentured
Aymara and Quechua Indians on haciendas is the weaving of blankets
and rugs on large wooden looms from llama wool supplied by the
Indians. In Inca times llama wool was used extensively by the com-
mon people for fabrics; the better wool from alpaca and vicuna was
reserved for the upper classes (Maccagno, 1932, p. 47).
Meat.—Llama meat is said to be tasty, especially when from a
young animal, but apparently it is little utilized today; perhaps sheep
are too plentiful. In Inca times, probably the principal source of
meat was that of llama, and it was often dried to form "charqui."
Maccagno (1932, p. 47) stated that fresh entrails and blood were
relished, and that herds were driven to the Coast for slaughter and
were taken with the armies to supply meat; also that the Spaniards
440 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
relished the brain, and slaughtered thousands from special herds
which were kept for this purpose (op. cit., p. 45).
Hides.—The use of llama hides is not indicated except for sandals
in Inca times (op. cit., p. 48); but it seems that the hide may have
been used more extensively, even though there is no indication that
the tanning art was developed.
Dung fuel (taquia).—Llama dung is a common fuel on the treeless
altiplano of Bolivia and South Peru. The bolus is small, about 2
to 3 cm. (% to 1 in.) in diameter, like that of a sheep, but it is deposited
in communal voiding places and is thus gathered easily. When the
llamas are on the march or billeted for the night, the act of defecation
of one animal seems to be stimulated by that of another. The alpaca,
guanaco, and vicuna have the same habit.
This use of llama dung for fuel may be a relatively recent custom
and may be correlated with the deforestation and general vegetational
depletion of the Highland area in the past several millennia. Today
the resinous tola bush (Compositae) also is used in some places for
fuel, and has become scarce or extinct in easily accessible areas.
Husbandry.—Today llama husbandry is entirely in the hands of the
Indians, both Aymara and Quechua, and the technique is usually
simple. Many Indians have their own herds, which are kept in
corrals or allowed to gi-aze under the eye of a watchful child. Breeding
is indiscriminate, without selection, and many alpaca-llama hybrids
seem to be present. Males and females are used for burden bearing,
and castration is not practiced to any extent.
However, some herds are better managed (probably those of the
larger haciendas and the property of the haciendado), and Maccagno
stated (1932, pp. 49-50) that herds are divided into "extremas" (8
to 24 months) ," ancutas" (2 to 3 years), "puntas de anachos" (breeding
males over 3 years), "puntas" of burden-bearing llamas (males over
3 years), "puntas" of females with young, and "puntas" of females
without young. For each 100 females, 2 to 10 males are designated.
The females breed at 3 years of age. Castration is not generally
practiced, though it was commoner in Colonial times for burden-
bearing males. Tschudi (1844-46, p. 259) stated that castration was
practiced by the Indians to obtain a savory meat and long wool.
In Inca times llama husbandry was a complex and honored pro-
fession. Maccagno (1932, quoting earlier sources) stated that the
herds belonged to the Dynasty (the Inca Emperor or his family), the
Sun, the Temples, and the Huacas (burial grounds)
:
On certain occasions, particularly after a successful [militarj'] campaign, gifts
were made among the Kuracas who received 1,000, 500, 100, 50, 20, and 10
llamas each [according to rank], and some Indians were given a pair.
The mayordomos ("I'ama kamayox") of the Dynasty of Sun herds ("kapax
I'amakuna," or "kapax I'ama") were generally men of distinction, and sometimes
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 441
princes of royal blood. They had under their orders many shepherds ("I'ama
nitsix") who directly attended the herds. By means of quipus they counted
exactly the number of llamas in each herd, and each herd had its corresponding
color on the quipu. [Maccagno, 1932, p. 44.]
He also stated that the division of Inca herds was as follows: Young,
4 to 12 months ("uiiakuna"); young, 1 to 2 [3?] years ("malta una");
breeding males over 3 years, according to colors (" apukura") ; cargo
males, according to colors ("wacaywa"); breeding females, by color
("tsina"); and sterile adults (females only ?), by color ("komi");
also, that castration was not loiown.
Religious ceremony.—The llama was very important in Inca reli-
gious ceremony.
The animals for sacrifice were taken from the Sun or Huaca ("Waka") herds,
according to the object of the sacrifice. . . . [The kind] most appreciated by the
Peruvian Incas were the pure black llamas. . . . Contrary, the Kollas [Aymara-
speaking Indians of Lake Titicaca] appreciated more the white. ... At the prin-
cipal temple, Korikautsa, in Cuzco, every morning one white llama was sacrificed;
it was sheared to facilitate stabbing with a stone or copper knife in the heart.
Each month at least 100 were sacrificed, and at large festivals, 1,000 or more.
[Maccagno, 1932, pp. 44, 46, quoting earlier unnamed sources.]
Garcilaso de la Vega (Markham's ed., 1869, 2: 376-380) said that at
the Yntip Raymi festival in "June," piu-e black llamas were sacrificed
with other llamas, lizards, toads, serpents, foxes, tigers [jaguars],
lions [pumas], and many birds. He also stated that such use of
animals prevented widespread human sacrifice (ibid., p. 131).
Certain star constellations were sacred to llamas: Lira for the male,
and Cygnus for the female and its young (Cabrera and Yepes, 1940,
p. 262).
Remains of llamas, as well as clay figurines, are common in the
Inca burial mounds. Evidently the llamas were buried to supply
food for the deceased. Maccagno (1932, p. 47) stated that the small
llama figurines generally had a round hole in the back, some 5 to 10
mm. (0.15 to 0.30 in.) deep, that the wool was indicated by markings
and the tail shown in a vertical or a horizontal position, and that some
silver images have been found with a gummy matrix in the eye sockets,
which once must have contained precious stones.
IMedicine.—The bezoar (gastric calculus) of the llama was prized,
at least in Colonial times, as a specific remedy for certain ailments.
Lama pacos: Alpaca
Distribution.—^At present the alpaca is found in the domesticated
state only and is restricted to southern Peru, adjacent northern
Bolivia, and extreme North Argentina. Formerly, in historic times,
the alpaca ranged as far south as Catamarca, Argentina. In early
Recent and late Pleistocene times (?), it is alleged to have occurred
442 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
on the Humid Pampas of Argentina near Buenos Aires (map 13).
(See Lopez Aranguren, 1930; Cabrera, 1931.)
Description (pi. 43).
—
Size: Smaller than llama; total length 150 to 175 cm.
(58 to 68 in.); height at shoulder 80 to 90 cm. (31 to 35 in.). Color: Generally
pure brown or black, but in some pure white; rarely multicolored. Pelage:
Long and heavy over body, neck and top of head, chest, belly, and upper legs;
short but thick on face (often, however, obscured by the long forehead hairs)
and on lower legs (obscuring metatarsal glands) ; almost bare on axillae and groin;
length about 40 to 50 cm. on body (obscuring tail), and sometimes hanging to
ground (suri breed) ; composed mostly of long, fine wool hairs which are slightly
curly and greasy, and mat in heavy clumps. The wool hairs are not shed en
masse annually, but individually at different times (like human hair, horse's
mane and tail), and the fibers are said to reach a length of 75 cm. when allowed to
grow over many years (probably suri breed only). The wool of the common
huacaya breed has a density of 90 to 100 fibers per sq. mm., and the yield is 2 to
3 kg. per animal; in the suri breed, density is from 140 to 170 fibers per sq. mm.,
and the yield is 3 to 5 kg. per animal (Maccagno, 1932, p. 27). Wool of the
alpaca, strangely, is more closely allied to true hair (more medulla and scales)
than is true wool of sheep, and more so than llama and vicuna wool (Bowman,
1908, pp. 232-234) . Tail: Short 20 to 25 cm. (8 to 10 in.) and obscured by heavy
long body and tail hairs; said not to be carried out and then down in arc as in
llama (Romero, E. C, 1927). Feet: Small; fore larger than hind. Metatarsal
glands: Present on hind shank as on other three species, but completely concealed
by hair (as in vicuna); size about as in llama. Ears: Longish, 12 to 15 cm., and
broadly lanceolate (not scalloped). Eyes: Large. Mammae: 4 functional (1
nonfunctional). Skull: Medium; in size between Uama-guanaco and vicuiia;
and with features of both (appears to be a combination of small skull of vicuna
with large teeth of llama) ; facial portion short, about same length as crania]
portion; facial pits small or absent, teeth large, P 3-4/4 relatively large; lower
incisors with enamel on labial and lingual faces and rooted, though some become
very large, and these evidently have grown persistently from pulps which re-
mained open longer than usual, and have not been worn properly; choanae
generally open U; symphysis of mandible generally long and narrow; submental
foramen 5 to 15 mm. anterior to root of symphysis (menton). Reproduction:
Like llama. Longevity: To 15 or 17 years (av. 12; Flower, S. S., 1931, p. 223),
probably longer in native land and out of zoos, though individuals are considered
old at 7 years, and then usually killed for food (Maccagno, 1932, p. 35). Hybridi-
zation: Possible with any of other three species of lamoids, but common with
llama only, producing huarizo and mixti, and secondarily with vicuna, producing
paco-vicuna (or vicuna-pacos) which are doubtfully always fertile. Intelligence
and disposition: Like llama; and though some authors say that they are less
playful and tamable when young (Romero, 1927); others state the opposite.
Habits: At present (in domestication), like llama, except for alleged preference
for wet and marshy ground of higher altitudes (Romero, 1927; Maccagno, 1932,
p. 37), and for alleged greater dependence upon companionship (Tschudi, 1844-46,
p. 26). The preference for marshy ground is said to be a function of the "soft"
feet, and to result in small size of the animal because it eats the "poor and rachitic"
vegetation in these places. Both assumptions are applied to the vicuna also,
and both appear to be questionable. This close dependence upon water is said
to be responsible for great losses during prolonged dry spells, and may be an
ecologic barrier which has restricted the range of the animal. Tschudi (1844,
p. 261) stated that the alpaca will not suffer a lone existence and must have the
Vol. 6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 443
Map 13.—Distribution of the alpaca. {Horizontal hachure, present range;
diagonal hachure, Pleistocene.) (According to Lopez Ananguren, 1931, and
Cabrera, 1932.)
444 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
companionship of other alpacas or llamas. Diseases: Probably like llama; also
afflicted with a specific acute chronic fever of diplococcic or streptococcic origin,
which often is called "syphilis" (Preston, 1939, pp. 28-29), perhaps giving rise
to the story of the derivation of syphilis from llama and alpaca; however, no
spirochetes have been found in alpaca lesions. Breeds: Two; common, or
"huacaya," and "suri"; both breed true. Special physiology: See below.
Remarks.—The alpaca is the most restricted in range, and perhaps
the most speciaHzed of the four lamoids. It appears to be on the
decHne in numbers. In its physiology, it is probably the best adapted
to high altitude; the normal pulse is high, 54 to 100 per minute;
respiration rate high, 20 to 40 per miaute; blood count very high,
20 million red blood corpuscles per cu. mm. (6 to 8 million for other
domesticated animals and man at high altitudes, though sheep have
been recorded with 10,530,000 (Dill, 1938, p. 131)); blood coagu-
lates rapidly (Preston, 1939). These data indicate that most alpacas
may have difficulty in adapting themselves to lower elevations,
though they live long and breed in North American zoos. Their
apparent dependence upon water has been mentioned above.
The alpaca is considered here as a probable distinct species. It is
known in the domesticated state only, though some feral herds were
said to exist by Tschudi (1844-46, p. 261). As the usual alpaca
skull is distinctive enough to accept easily the identification by Lopez
Aranguren (1930) and A. Cabrera (1931) of the species in the Pleisto-
cene of Argentina, the alpaca may be considered a woolly Pleistocene
relict, which became progressively more restricted in range and weaker
in competition, losing its adaptive plasticity, until, shortly before
extinction, some were integrated into human culture, which for-
tuitously was at a proper high level in the same region. J. A. Le6n
(1939) believed that the alpaca was domesticated later than the
llama, when a higher civilization could use the wool; but he did not
commit himself definitely as to the biological origin of the alpaca.
Bowman (1908, p. 332) believed, after a study of hairs of llama,
alpaca, and vicuna, that the alpaca was probably a "mere variety of
the llama" (despite his assertion that the wool of the alpaca was
more hairlike than that of the other two tested).
The vicunalike characters (concealed metatarsal glands, short
snout, open-U choanae, and especially the long and continuously
growing incisors from incipiently open rooted incisors) suggest hybrid
origin for the alpaca from llama-vicuna crosses. But this is not
necessarily true. The alpaca cannot be crossed easily with the
vicuna, and the offsprmg are not unequivocally fertile, and when able
to breed inter se, the hybrids soon revert to either parent. The
vicufialike characters are quite constant, and may be validly specific.
Origin.—The history and present distribution of"the alpaca indicate
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 445
that the Highland altiplano area around Lake Titicaca was the hearth
of domestication.
Breeds.—Two breeds of alpaca are known today and both are of
pre-Columbian origin: (1) common or "huacaya," and (2) "suri."
Both breed true. The suri is distinguished by its longer and finer
wool.
The alpaca is involved in the two common hybrids among lamoids:
(1) Alpaca X llama = "huarizo" (female alpaca X male llama =
"mixti"); (2) vicuna (male) X alpaca (female) = paco-vicuna. The
huarizo is common but apparently does not breed true (Eomero,
E. C, 1927, pp. 25-26); in time, hybrid crosses inter se revert to
parent types. Many apparent hybrids between llamas and alpacas,
or at least llamas with alpacoid characters, are to be seen today in
Bolivia, and it would seem that the two forms interbreed readUy, or
that genetic variation in the llama often tends toward the alpaca.
Maccagno (1932, p. 57) stated that huarizos were common because
the llama and alpaca interbred freely without help from man. How-
ever, E. C. Eomero (1927, pp. 25, 27) indicated that the hybrids
showed no fixed characters, and had to be perpetuated by parental
crosses. The breed presents no advantage, except to combine a
cargo animal with one of good wool production.
The paco-vicuna has been well known since the Conquest, and
Maccagno (1932, p. 54) stated that they have been produced from
time immemorial without intervention of man, but the statement
would appear to require some proof. These hybrids today are
deliberate results of attempts to establish a breed with wool of high
vicuna quality and of high alpaca quantity. After the first shearing,
the wool of paco-vicuiia loses its fine quality, and the guard hairs
increase; also, herds of up to 300 have been produced in the last half
century, but the owners declared that they had no commercial value
because the suri alpaca breed was superior (ibid., p. 56).
Such attempts at hybridization are still in progress, though none
has been signally successful because of the alleged infertility of some
of the hybrids, or because of the return of the hybrid crosses to parent
types, together with the lack of desired wool production. Famous is
the first recorded attempt to establish a paco-vicuna breed. A
priest, Cabrera, in Macusani, Puno, South Highland Peru, labored
with patience and perseverance for 21 years (1821-42) and obtained
20 tame paco-vicunas. For this "new richness," Peru rewarded him;
but the hybrids became extinct, either because offspring crosses to
the third generation reverted to alpaca or vicuna types (Maccagno,
1932, p. 54) or because all or most of the hybrids were sterile (Alvina,
1872; and Arinibar, 1906; quoted by E. C. Romero, 1927, pp. 26-27).
Even earlier than Cabrera's attempt, was that of the Spanish at
446 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
San Liicar de Bairameda, Andalusia, Spain. Here M, Bouy de Saint
Vincent, a naturalist with the French invasion army under Marshall
Soult during Napoleon's campaign on the peninsula, saw three "alpa-
vigonias" with long heavy fleeces. These hybrids the Spanish
thought would replace their declining flocks of Merino sheep, but
unfortunately they left no descendants, being apparently sterile
(B[rownel, 1858, pp. 69-70).
Subsequent to Cabrera's hybridization of alpacas and vicunas was
the recorded attempt of Faustino Belon, Puno, Peru (Madueno, 1912,
p. 18). Belon obtained fertile hybrids which "degenerated" after
the third generation to one or the other of the parent stocks.
The method of alpaca-vicuna hybridization is interesting. A young
male vicuna is captured and given to a lactating female alpaca. The
skin of a baby alpaca is used to disguise the vicuna during acquaint-
ance. The vicuna, when 1 year old and sexually mature, is given a
harem of female alpacas (Maccagno, 1932, pp. 55-56).
Aboriginal uses.—Wool, meat, religious ceremony, dung fuel, hide,
and medicine. The alpaca is not used for transportation of cargo.
Wool and weaving.—The fine quality (luster, strength, and resist-
ance to fading and dyes) and length of alpaca wool give it superior
value. The Inca reserved its use for the higher classes and for the
royal family, and with it developed their magnificent textile art,
which is perhaps unequaled for fineness and design by that of any
other aboriginal group in the world. Even today, alpaca wool
amounts to about half of the total wool production of Perii (including
that of sheep), and about 65 percent of the total value (Tappy, 1944,
p. 50) ; it forms about 95 percent of the lamoid wool exports. There
are now five grades of wool besides the "alpaca primeira" and "alpaca
suri"; only 3 to 4 percent of all wool needs rejection, and the fleece is
much cleaner than sheep's wool (ibid., p. 49).
Each alpaca is sheared every 2 years, beginning when it is 2 years
of age. Growth amounts in 2 years to about 30 cm. (12 in.) in the
common breed and 60 cm. (24 in.) in the suri; the maximum yield
is obtained at 5 years of age. Shearing is done, generally, with broken
glass or a knife, rarely with clippers (Maccagno, 1932), in the rainy
season (January to March), when the day temperature is high and
sheared animals do not chill, and rain can wash the undipped wool
on the backs of the animals. Aboriginal shearing must have required
special implements, perhaps obsidian knives.
Meat.—Alpaca meat is eaten, especially in the form of dried
"charqui," or "cecina"; about 18 kg. (40 lbs.) is obtained from a
male, and 9.5 kg. (21 lbs.) from a female (Maccagno, 1932, p. 41).
Dung fuel.—Alpaca dung is extensively utilized as fuel (the entire
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 447
range of the alpaca is treeless). The bolus is like that of the llama
and is similarly deposited in communal spots.
Hides.—The uses of hides are similar to those of llama hides.
Husbandry.—'Alpaca husbandry today is more complex generally
than that of the llama. Herds are segregated according to age, sex,
and use: Young, 3 to 8 months, both sexes; "extrema" males, 8 to
18 months; "extrema" females; "ancuta" males, 18 to 24 months;
"ancuta" females; females with young to 3 or 4 months; pregnant
females; sterile and old females; reproductive males; and castrated
males ("capones," for wool and meat only). The best breeding males
are 3 to 7 years old; generally 50 percent of the males are used for
breeding; others are castrated. Old females, over 7 years, are often
kept with the capones which are destined to supply meat for annual
June "Beneficios." Breeding is aided often by man (through manip-
ulation, as with stallions). (See Maccagno, 1932, pp. 34-36.)
Religious ceremony.—The alpaca had religious significance almost
equal to that of the llama, and many were sacrificed to the Sun Gods.
The black ones were reserved for Viracocha, the son of the Sun, and the white
were reserved for the Sun God himself. The Collas tribe {Aymara, of Lake
Titicaca), before their conquest by Lloque Yopanque, third Inca [Emperor] of
Perd, about A. D. 1171, worshiped the white alpaca as their principal presiding
deity and offered up sacrifices to him. They believed that their divinity had
come among them in this form and, as a mark of favor to them, procreated more
abundantly in their territory than elsewhere. [Tappy, 1944, p. 47.]
Medicine.—Bezoar stones were utiUzed, especially in Colonial
times.
Pets.—Baby alpacas are kept often as pets by children, perhaps
more so than llamas.
Lama glatna Koanicoe, or L. guanicoe: Guanaco
Distribution.—The present range of the guanaco extends from
Central Peru south through the Andes and coastal ranges of southern
Peril and North Chile (where it reaches the Coast) to mid-Chile,
thence east and south through the Eastern Andes and Argentine
Pampas, from a rough line between Mendoza and Bahia Blanca, to
the Patagonian steppes, Tierra del Fuego, and across the waters of
Beagle Canal to Navarin Island (map 14). Formerly, in prehistoric,
early Recent, and late Pleistocene times, the guanaco ranged also
far northeast over parts of Paraguay and extreme northern Argentina,
and perhaps as far northwest as southern Colombia, where a Paramo
de Guanaco exists. The alleged llama bones from early archeological
sites in Ecuador may be those of guanaco. Cieza de Le6n (Mark-
ham's ed., 1864, p. 207) recorded it in early Colonial times from Loja,
southern Ecuador.
Description (pi. 44).
—
Size: Similar to llama, but slimmer; total length around
448 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Map 14.—Distribution of the guanaco. {Horizontal hachure, present range;
vertical hachure, prehistoric; diagonal, Pleistocene.)
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 449
2 m.; height 90 to 110 cm. (35 to 43 in.); weight about 75 to 100 kg. (165 to 220
lbs). Color: Rich tawny brown or faded brown dorsally and laterally; white
ventrally and medially (including neck) ; smoky gray brown on head, with whitish
orbital rings, chin, lips, and ear edges; albinism occurring, melanism absent.
Pelage: Soft, silky, wool underhair, 30 to 40 mm. (0.90 to 1.20 in.), over body,
neck, and chest, with varying amount of long but fine overhair (beard or guard
hair), 60 to 90 mm. (1.2 to 2.7 in.), which often is ridgelike along back of neck;
chest and upper belly with longer white hairs, 100 to 120 mm.; short hairs on
lower legs and head; almost bare on axillae and groin. Winter specimens from
Patagonia and Navarin Island have a profusion of long, rich brown overhairs
(to 150 mm., or 4J4 in.) on body and neck, which almost obscure the woolly under-
hair. Probably a complete annual molt is experienced in summer. The juvenile
pelage of "chulengos" up to 4 to 5 months is composed of soft, silky wool hairs
without dimorphism, and is highly prized. Tail: Short, about 25 cm., heavily
haired with wool and hair, and carried out and down in an arc, like llama. Feet:
Large, and like llama. Metatarsal glands: Pair on each hind shank; clearly
visible, ovoid, and large. No medial callosites on "knees" (wrists) or sternum.
Ears: About 15 cm.; rimmed with short white hairs; gently scalloped terminally
on anterior edge. Skull: Large; rostrum long (premaxillae to antorbital border
greater by 10 to 15 mm. than antorbital border to posterior face of condyle);
choanae narrow or open V-shaped, rarely U-shaped; facial pits large; molar
teeth large; P 3-4/4 large; heel and endostyle of M/3 usually large; mandibular
symphysis long (about twice width); lower incisors imbricate, rooted, spatulate,
with enamel labially and lingually; submental foramina just anterior to menton;
condyle relatively high above angular process of mandible. The skulls of guana-
cos are very difficult to distinguish from those of the llama; in the guanaco the
mandibular condyle is often higher above the angular process, and the endostyle
of M/3 more often larger; the frontals may be slightly less depressed also. A
combination of skin and skull, however, usually can be identified as of one or
the other species, and the two are always distinguished by natives. However,
overlap occurs frequently enough to justify considering the two as conspecific.
Reproduction: Rut in summer; gestation 11 months; one or rarely two young,
very precocious, weaning in 4 to 6 months, and maturing in several years; longev-
ity perhaps 30 years or so in wild state (Simpson, 1934, p. 191). Hybridization:
Fertile crossing possible with llama, alpaca, and vicuna, though such hybrids
doubtful in nature, especially those of guanaco-vicuna, and these probably not
always fertile. Intelligence: Low. Disposition: Curious, calm, and easily tame-
able when young, though adults probably less manageable, and captive males in rut
dangerous. Habits: Herbivorous, gregarious, polygamous with male dominance
and dependence of others on his leadership; found in arid, treeless country and
deserts from 17,000 to 18,000 feet (5,200 to 5,600 m.) down to sea level, and in
the forests of Navarin Island, and the southern Chaco (formerly). The natural
social organization consists of herds of 4 to 10 females and young with a male
leader, herds of bachelors up to 3 years or so, and often solitary males; some-
times there are large composite herds of hundreds of individuals after calving
season and before rutting. The male leader is also the sentinel; when he is shot
the females are as likely to remain as to flee, but on the death by shooting of a
female all immediately escape in a group. Severe fighting with teeth and hoofs
takes place between males in rutting season for conquest or retention of harems.
Deposition of dung is made in communal places which are conspicuous sights
in guanaco country; also, common wallowing and trampling grounds are used,
perhaps to take advantage of a dusty spot to remove parasites; common dying
places, however, are now discredited. Bezoar stones (gastric calculi) common
450 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
and once highly prized for medicinal purposes. Voice: A distinctive tremulous
neigh or querulous bray; a "yammer" (Simpson, G. G., 1934, p. 192).
Remarks.—The guanaco is the most widely ranging and most
adaptive of the four lamoid forms. It successfully meets environ-
mental conditions from sea level to 17,000 feet (5,200 m.) altitude,
and from barren hardpan deserts to forests, but all these have some
degree of aridity. It is a good swimmer.
Ethnozoology of the guanaco.—The guanaco is a wild form slightly
distinct from the llama and probably the progenitor. Many Pleisto-
cene and early Recent fossils have been identified as belonging to the
guanaco. For countless centuries, young individuals have been tamed
by aborigines for pets, perhaps to be killed later for food and perhaps
consciously tamed for this purpose. The conclusions are that the
guanaco may represent the wild representatives and ancestral stock
of the domesticated llama. Today there are a few semidomesticated
herds in Argentina, but they are somewhat refractory to domestication
and it is doubtful that the present members ever will be fully domesti-
cated so that they can be raised easily in semiconfinement and utilized
as is the llama, which already serves the purpose. Hybridization
with the llama confuses this situation.
Though man utilized the guanaco over its entire range, the dry
Pampas of Argentina and Patagonia were the areas of greatest num-
bers of individuals and of the most complete cultural utilization. The
guanaco was the most conspicuous and one of the most typical animals
of these plains, as was the bison on the Great Plains of North America.
With the rhea, perdiz, fox, mara, viscacha, cavy, tuco-tuco, and
armadillo, the guanaco constituted part of a plains fauna that was
relatively completely and easily utilized by man.
Today the guanaco has been extirpated over much of its northern
and southern Argentine range, and elsewhere it is much reduced in
numbers.
To the Tehuelche, Puelche, northeastern Araucanians , Huarpe, and
Querandi, the guanaco supplied meat for food ; fur and hide for clothes
and shelter; bezoar stones for medicine; sinew for sewing; pets for
pleasure (and food ?) ; a stimulus for myths and many verbalizations
to account for age, sex, color, etc.; and an object of time-consuming
hunting activity for the men and accessory duties for the women.
Like the bison-hunting Indians of North America, the guanaco-
hunting Pampa Indians were savage fighters, easily shifting their
himting techniques to warfare and fiercely resisting the inroads of the
Whites.
The Inca obtained many guanacos in their periodic hunting drives
for vicuna. (See p. 454.) The older females and many of the males
were killed for meat, wool, and hide ; the younger females were sheared
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 451
and released. The meat was given to the common people, as was the
wool, which was considered coarse and of poor quality (probably be-
cause of the quantity of guard hairs).
The aborigines hunted guanacos by drives and ambuscades with
bow and arrow, spear, and bolas, sometimes with the aid of dogs.
Later, when the European horse was acquired from the Spaniards, the
encircling "rodeo" with bolas prevailed. Finally, with the advent of
firearms and the disappearance of the Indian, the hunting degenerated
to a slaughter of the newborn to 3- or 4-months-old chulengos by
White hunters for the skin only.
Lama vicugna or Vicugna Ticugna: VicuHa
Distribution.—At present the vicuna is distributed from North or
Central Peril south through the High Andes and coast range moun-
tains through Bolivia to adjacent North Chile and Argentina (map 15).
In the late Pleistocene and early Recent, it ranged as far east as the
Humid Pampas of Buenos Aires (Lopez Aranguren, 1930; Cabrera
1931). Cieza de Le6n (Markham's ed., 1864, p. 207) recorded the
vicuna from Loja, southern Ecuador, in the 16th century.
Description (pi. 44).
—
Size: Smaller and more slender than the guanaco,
though neck equally as long (or longer ?) ; total length, around 175 cm. (70 in.);
height at shoulder, 70 to 90 cm. (28 to 35 in.) ; weight, approximately 35 to 60 kg.
(77 to 132 lbs.). Color: Rich "vicuna" brown dorsally and laterally and on entire
neck and head; white ventrally and medially and on chin and under eyes and on
flanks, showing conspicuously on brisket, underside, and especially tip of tail;
otherwise very uniform brown all over; small circle of black stiff hairs around eyes.
Pelage: In summer, short and curly wool underhair on body and neck (30 to 40
mm., or 1.9 to 1.5 in.), with rare scattered guard hairs almost concealed in the
wool; short but thick hair on legs and face, gradually shortening in length from
body hair (this change in hair length is abrupt in llama and alpaca); almost bare
on axillae and groin; long hair-fringe on brisket (100 to probably 300 mm., or
4 to 12 in.) on both males and females (perhaps longer in some males and certainly
longer on both sexes in winter) and linked between bare axillae to chest and belly
patch of long hairs (100 mm., or 4 in.). Single annual molt of entire pelage in
summer. Wool hairs very fine, silky, thou£;h short. (See below.) Tail: 25 to
27 cm.; woolly hair, brown dorsally and laterally with white ventrally and term-
inally (conspicuous white tip). Feet: Small; fore and hind subequal; ridge on nails
not pronounced. Metatarsal glands: Present on hind shanks, though completely
concealed by heavy, short hairs; more lanceolate-shaped than oval, and smallish.
Ears: Shortish (13 cm.), and lanceolate (without scallop). Skull: Very distinct in
rootless, parallel-sided, ever-growing lower incisors with enamel on labial side
only—characters which tend to support subgeneric (or generic rank)—otherwise,
skull small; facial portion (from premaxillae to antorbital border) always slightly
shorter than cranial portion (antorbital border to rear of occipital condyle)
;
facial pits absent or very small; teeth small, especially P 3-4/4 and posterior lobe
of M/3; choanae open and U-shaped; palate very narrow at diastema; vomer
ending in a long posterior spine; incisive foramina not extending anterior of
alveolus of I 3/; manibular symphysis short and broad with submental foramina
slightly posterior to menton. Reproduction: Rut in late summer, gestation
794711—50 30
452 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Map 15.—Distribution of the vicuna. {Horizontal hachure, present range;
diagonal hachure, Pleistocene.)
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 453
10 months, mature in a year (Cabrera and Yepes, 1940, p. 268). Hybridization:
Possible with guanaco, llama, or alpaca, but rarely (or never ?) in the wild with
any of these, and in captivity with alpaca only, to any extent; hybrids probably
not always fertile, and if so, always reverting to parent stock with continued
interbreeding. Intelligence: Low. Disposition: Curious, calm, and docile, affec-
tionate and playful, especially when young; but generally reverting to wildness
later in life; rutting males are vicious. Habits. Social in small herds; gregarious,
herbivorous, polygamous with male dominance, and when male leader is killed
the harem females remain; said to prefer marshy or other soft ground (like alj^aca),
but often seen in dry barren places. Diseases: Probably mange in captivity, but
in wild state conditions not known. Voice: Peculiar neigh ("chillido ou relincho
peculiar"; Ridoutt, 1942); perhaps more of a whistle than a neigh, because it
can be distinguished from the cry of any other animal (Tschudi, 1844-46, p. 218).
Special physiology: Like llama (p. 436); red blood cells 14.9 million per cu. mm.
(Dill, 1938, p. 131). Remarks: The vicuna is a species restricted to the arid high
altiplano, or hard pampas of the adjacent Coastal mountains.
Ethnozoology of the vicuna.—The vicuna is a good example of an
animal that has been subjected unsuccessfully to many and carefully
premeditated attempts at domestication, in this case because of the
high value of the wool. Attempts of the Inca and their predecessors
to domesticate the vicuna are not known, though it may be assumed
that they also tried and were unsuccessful and that they then adopted
the method of periodic round-ups (drives) and capture of wild stock
for shearing. A notable attempt at domestication was made by the
priest Cabrera in southern Peru in. 1821-42, who consciously or
unconsciously aimed eventually at alpaca-vicuiia hybridization; but
neither his domesticated vicuna nor paco-vicuna hybrids became
established. Other recorded attempts hav^e failed also. (See p. 445.)
Today several "criaderos" exist in Peru and Bolivia, but they have
amounted to little more than semiconfuied protection for the vicunas.
Simon Bolivar, in 1825 in Peru, issued a governmental decree offering
a monetary reward for domestication based on "experience [which]
shows every day the facility with which they are domesticated"
(Maccagno, 1932, p. 58)!
The vicuna is prized for its silky, fine, richly colored wool. The
Inca reserved the wool for the royal family and a few honored high
officials. The value of vicuna wool lies in its fineness (0.00043 in. in
diameter and 2,500 fibers to the inch; sheep, 0.0008 ui.), soft and silky
texture without predominating medulla, good surface cohesion of
overlapping cortical scales, tendency to curl, elasticity, fine and uni-
form pigmentation, beautiful rich natural color, resistance to dyes
and fading, and luster (Stroock, 1937 b). About 500 gm. can be
obtained from a single animal (Maccagno, 1932, p. 28); but 250
gm. seems to be the average individual yield; and of this, half is
made up of worthless stiff guard hairs (Stroock, 1937 b).
The Inca practiced true conservation of the vicuna; they prohibited
454 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
indiscriminate hunting, and harvested a crop of wool, meat, and hides
periodically from the wild herds, allowing sufficient stock to remain
for breeding and increase. The periodic vicuna hunts were called
"chacus," and were held every 3 to 5 years in certain provinces, some
of which were divided into special sections pertinent to this purpose.
On royal order, 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were assembled to build an
immense corral 2 to 3 km. in diameter, with the entrance on one side
about 120 m. wide, and posts of a man's height connected with ropes
for enclosing the animals and entangling them in attempted escape.
Colored rags were hung from the ropes, and these fluttered in the
wind and frightened the vicunas from trying to escape. Bolas were
also placed at certain intervals along the fence. Then the Indians
formed a semicircle and "beat" an area sometimes as much as 20 to
30 km. in diameter. AU the thousands of vicuna, guanacos, and deer,
and many other animals, such as bears, pumas, and foxes were driven
into the corral. The bears, pumas, and foxes were killed as predatory
vermin; but some were saved for pets or "torture animals." The
deer, guanaco, and vicuna were caught by hand or with bolas. All
the guanacos and vicunas were shorn of wool; the young and repro-
ducing females, together with enough young males for breeding pur-
poses, were released; the old females and other males were killed for
their meat and hides. Deer were treated similarly except that they
were not shorn. The wool of the vicuna went to the Vngins of the
Sun for weaving into garments for royal use; the guanaco wool went
to the Indians, as did the meat of all and was dried into "charqui"
for preservation. Counts of all species and their destiny were kept
on quipus (knotted counting strings). Garcilaso de la Vega (Mark-
ham's ed., 1869, 2: 115-119) gave a detailed account of this "chacu,"
and stated that the hunts were held every 3 years, because this
interval was sufficient to reestablish normal numbers of game (20,000
to 40,000 head per chacu) without allowing them to become a nuisance,
and also to allow the wool of the shorn vicunas to reach a maximum
length; he did not mention the corral. (See also Cabrera and Yepes,
1940, p. 268.) Bezoar stones from the ruminants were a byproduct
of the chacu and were greatly prized for medicinal purposes.
THE DOMESTICATED CAVY, "GUINEA PIG" (CAVIA PORCELLUS)
Cavies (sensu stricto), small, tailless, hystricomorph rodents of
Neotropica, constitute the supergeneric group Cavia, or subfamily
Caviinae, of the family Caviidae. The name "cavy" is often applied
also to the related but much larger Patagonian hare, or mara {Doli-
chotis).
Vol. 6 J FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 455
Classification
Supergeneric group Cavia, or subfamily Caviinae. Cavies (sensu stricto).
Genus Kerodon. "Mocu"; northeastern Brazil.
Genus Microcavia. "Cui" (syn. Caviella; includes Nanocavia and Montica-
via) ; Patagonia-Chilea cavies.
Genus Galea. "Cui," "pampahuanca" ; Highlands of Bolivia to Pampas of
Argentina; also northeastern Brazil (an isolated species).
Genus Cavia. "Cui," "pred,," "cori"(C. aperea, C. "tschvdii," etc.); Guiana-
Brazilia; includes the domesticated cavy {Cavia porcellus).
We are concerned here primarily with Cavia; secondarily with Galea.
The above classification of the cavies is modified slightly from that
of Kraglievich (1930 a), who kept Monticavia separate from Microcavia,
but included Nanocavia in Microcavia "because they are so much
alike." As the generic character of Microcavia rests primarily on the
postnatal replacement of DP 4/4, and as a specimen of ''Monticavia^'
niata (USNM-172942, from Mount Sajama, Bolivia) also shows post-
natal development of DP 4/4, these three groups are included in the
same genus, Caviella (Osgood, 1915) is a synonym of Microcavia
(sensu lato). All cavids except Microcavia have prenatal replace-
ment of DP 4/4 by P 4/4. (See also Osgood, 1915; Thomas, O., 1917;
and EUerman, 1940-41, 1: 240-247.) All of many specimens ex-
amined of wild Cavia appear to be conspecific, C. aperea.
Cavia porcellus (syn. C. cobaya): Domesticated cavy
Distribution.—In late pre-Columbian times the domesticated cavy
was found throughout the Andes from Central Chile north to Central
America (?) and probably to the Antilles, where they were recorded
by the Spaniards shortly after the Discovery (map 16).
Description.
—
Size: Total length, about 300 mm. (12 inches); tail absent
externally (but present under the skin and about 25 mm.); weight, 750 to 1,250
gm. (2 to 3 pounds). Color: Monochrome and polychrome; generally white,
brown, or black, or of mixtures or intermediate shades; original color probably
"agouti" (gray-brown-black grizzled or "ticked"). Pelage: Short and silky
generally; long, fine, and curly in one breed (Angora). Ears: Short, closely
appressed to head and slightly "scalloped" posteriori}'- in typical hystricoid form.
Legs: Short. Feet: Fore, short with 4 toes; hind, long with 3 toes. Skull and
skeleton: Relatively large, heavy, and rugose; large antorbital foramen (as in
all hystricomorphs) ; lacrymal not broadly interrupting zygomatic extension of
maxillary (also other Cavia) ; incisor teeth unpigmented (all Cavia and Micro-
cavia); rostrum relatively broad and flat; post-palatal margin smooth (rarely
with spine as in other Cavia) ; naso-frontal suture truncate (rather than W-
shaped) ; fronto-parietal suture convex posteriorly (rather than straight)
;
para-
occipital process relatively short and blunt; auditory bullae small with relatively
long anterior projection and meatus; pterygoids smallish; no transparent areas
in frontal region (Ubisch and Mello, 1940, p. 397) ; coronoid-condylar distance on
mandible short, and angular process short; inferior surface of atlas vertebra
singly perforated (like Kerodon; doubly perforated in Galea and Microcavia);
neural spine of axis vertebra large and massive; and acromion of scapula wide.
456 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Map 16.—Distribution of wild Cavia {horizontal hachure) and Galea (vertical
hachure)
.
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 457
(For illustrations of some of these characters, see Detlefsen, 1914, pis.) Repro-
duction: Breeds continually throughout the year, generally 4 times; gestation
60 to 65 days; young at birth 2, 3, or 4 (rarely 1, 5, or 6). Mammae: 2 (1 pair)
inguinal. Growth: Wean at 2 months; mature sexually in 2 to 3 months. Lon-
gevity: 5 to 8 years? Intelligence: Low. Hybridization with wild forms: (1)
With Cavia "aperea" (=C. aperea pamparumi) of northern or Northwest Argen-
tina, produced fertile oflFspring, both inter se and in backcross (Nehring, 1894);
(2) With Cavia "rufescens" (=C. aperea fulgida?) of Campinas, Sao Paulo,
southeastern Brazil, yielded fertile female hybrids, but male hybrids sterile down
to and including many of the % wild hybrids (Detlefsen, 1914; Ubisch and Mello,
1940); (3) With Cavia "cutleri" (—C. aperea pallidior?) from Arequipa, southern
Peru, produced fully fertile hybrids of both sexes, either inter se or in backcross
(Castle, 1916); and (4) with "wild Brazilian ancestor," no interbreeding (Haeckel,
quoted by Cumberland, 1886[?], p. 27). Habits: Sedentary; gregarious without
social organization aside from usual male dominance over several (up to a dozen)
females, accompanied by bitter fights between males; herbivorous and frugiv-
orous; poor burrower. Diseases: None aboriginally (?); but with the advent of
bubonic plague around 1900, the cavy has proved highly susceptible, and recently
thousands have been destroyed systematically in Ecuador and Peru by public
health officials amid scenes of grief, and antagonism from the Indian owners.
Economic value.—Primarily for meat; secondarily as agent in
medical mysticism, in religious ceremony, and also as pets (recently as
a laboratory animal).
Remarks.—The cavy, or "cui" (the names "guinea pig" and
"cobaya" are patent absurdities), the llama, and alpaca are the only
South American mammals that have been domesticated. Cavies
were encountered along the Andes from Ecuador (and Columbia ?)
to Central Chile by the early Spaniards, among the Arawak of His-
paniola and Cuba by Columbus (?), and in Yucatdn by Cortes (?).
Today cavies may be seen around most Indian dwellings throughout
this area, and from 5 to 15 usually may be encountered in a house,
where they remain voluntarily and scurry around the furniture and
dark corners, squeaking plaintively when disturbed (hence the name
"cui," "kwee"). The native seems greatly attached to his cuis,
but the animal apparently does not occupy a very important place
in bis economy save as an occasional source of meat prepared with
hot spices, and occasionally as an adjunct in medical diagnosis through
magical means and in medical treatment (the warm viscera and quiver-
ing body of a freshly killed cavy are laid over the abdomen of a patient
who is suffering intestinal pain). The cavies receive little care and
have no special cages; their only food is table scraps and some greens
and fruit.
The Inca are said to have sacrificed 1,000 cavies to Frost, Air,
Water, and Sun in ceremonies during the month of August (Rowe,
Handbook, vol. 2, p. 310).
The homeland of the domesticated cavy was thought at first to be
Brazil, probably because of the accurate description of the animal in
458 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Marcgrave's report (1648) of the animals of the Pernambuco region;
and the stem form was considered to be the BraziHan C. a'perea by the
French authors. (See Cumberland, 1886 [?], pp. 26-27.) Rengger
(1830, pp. 274-278) postulated Paraguay as the homeland, with the
local population of C. a'perea as the stem form, and this statement
persisted for many years. Darwin (1876, 2:135, footnote) noted
that the wild aperea of La Plata had a louse of a genus different from
that infesting the domesticated cavy, and concluded that the latter
had not been derived from the former, and that any alleged inability
to interbreed was not a result of domestication. Nehring, in a series
of papers (1888, 1889, 1891, 1893, and 1894), claimed that the home-
land of C. porcellus was Peril, and that the stem form was C. cutleri
Bennett (1835). However, O. Thomas (1917, p. 156) showed that
Bennett's C. cutleri was without exact locality on the coast of Peru,
and that it was a melanistic individual which was identical with
C. porcellus in morphology.
Tschudi (1844-46, p. 195) wrote about a large agouti-colored cavy
from lea, southwestern Peru, under the name of C. cuttleri (sic),
and Fitzinger (1867) redescribed this form as C. tschudii. Castle
(1916) obtained three individuals of a similar large wild cavy from
lea, interbred them freely with laboratory C. porcellus, and said that
they were probably feral C. porcellus. However, the bare possibility
exists that this lea "Cavia cuttleri-tschudii-porcellus" may be a true
wild cavy, and that it represents the wild stock of the domesticated
form. Castle (1916, pp. 5-6) found seven mendelizing unit-character
variations among the cavies in the Indian houses around Ai-equipa,
as follows: Agouti, black, yellow, albino, red, smooth, and rosette.
Aside from agouti-colored individuals, all were spotted; he found no
self-colored ones.
The Division of Mammals, United States National Museum,
Washington, D. C, recently received four cavy skulls from pre-
Columbian archeological sites in Peru (three from Anc6n, one from
Pachacamac near Lima), and some specimens of wild cavies from
Arequipa and from near lea, South Coastal Peril. The four archeo-
logical specimens are presumed to be of domesticated stock because
the three Anc6n skulls had quantities of adhering white and/or pure
brown hairs.
These specimens show some intergradation in the morphologic
characters which usually separate wild Cavia from the domesticated
stock. The frontoparietal suture of three of five wild skulls and of
three of four archeological skulls is convex posteriorly (the domesti-
cated character) ; in the others it is almost straight. The nasofrontal
suture of all is flat M -shaped (the wild character; in the domesticated
condition it is almost straight). A palatal spine (wild character) is
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 459
present in two skulls of the wild specimens (absent in two; one skull
broken and not observable) ; this spine is present on one of the archeo-
logical skulls. The broad rostrum of the domesticated stock seems
to be a heterogonic character of old age. The tail vertebrae number
six in all four skeletons of domesticated stock in which the tail is
present (with four sacral vertebrae), six in all three wild Coastal
Peruvian skeletons available (also with four sacral vertebrae); eight
tan vertebrae existed in two specimens of wild Brazilian stock exam-
ined in the field (Anapolis, Goias), counted without regard to sacral
number.
It is highly probable that the domesticated cavy can be linked to
wild South American stock through archeological specimens from
Peril, and through the Peruvian Coastal wild populations. It is
apparent that a profitable study could be made of the morphologic
changes concomitant upon domestication. Domestication here seems
to have been made from certain populations of a widely ranging wild
species, and to have resulted in increased size, selection of genetic
color strains, heterogonic skull differences, and genetic loss of wild-
ness (wild Cavia: C. aperea from Brazil and Colombia were incorri-
gibly wild and refractory to captivity). Unfortunately, to date there
is lack of knowledge of morphology of skull and skeletal characters of
all the several homogeneous domesticated strains of cavy. Some
characters which are attributed to the entire domesticated stock
may be characters only of a single or of several strains. Genetics
may be the science to elucidate the taxonomy and other problems of
this domestication.
The conflicting results in producing fertile offspring when crossing
porcellus with wild populations may be a consequence of the actual
specific difference of some of the wild stocks in question, though here
all are considered on morphologic evidence to be provisionally con-
specific (C. aperea). The various results may be caused by marked
physiological differentiation in geographic races. Cases are known
where subspecies on the opposite ends of an intergrading "Rassen-
kreis" are morphologically and physiologically as distinct as two
species.
The Central Andean region represents the locus of the highest
populations of the domesticated cavy, and this condition probably
has existed for several millenia. However, remains of domesticated
cavies are very scarce in Peruvian archeology. Of many hundreds of
pictorial pots seen in the museums of Chiclin and Lima, none unmis-
takably portrayed cavies; and only two undoubted mummies of
C. porcellus (from Nazca) and one pot of doubtful cavy form (origin
unknown) were seen. (See also Schmidt, M., 1929 b, pis. on pp. 216,
561.) None was at the Museo Chiclin in northern Peril. On the
460 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
other hand, remains of llamas are multitudinous, and many other
animals are represented on pottery drawings or in the shape of the
pots themselves. (See p. 357.) Hence, the rarity of the domesticated
cavy in Peruvian archeology is a mystery and a paradox, and may
be considered weighty evidence against the theory that the cavy was
domesticated in the Peruvian area. However, the morphologic and
genetic evidence points to the Andean Highland area, or its immediate
environs, as the home of the domesticated cavy. Negative evidence
for other areas supports this thesis.
Today the genus Cavia is found wild in the Highland area as far
south as Cuzco arid La Raya Pass (separating the basins of Cuzco
and Puno). From Puno southward, the wild cavy is another genus.
Galea, which is small, grayish, with four mammae, and is easily cap-
tured and kept alive in captivity (generally difficult for wild Cavia).
To any observer in this Highland region, it appears strange that
Galea has not been domesticated either prior to and instead of Cavia
porcellus, or subsequently, upon stimulation of such a cultural trait
involving a closely related animal.
THE MUSCOVY DUCK (CAIRINA MOSCHATA)
This duck is the only domesticated bird from South America and
it is found both wild and domesticated (the turkey is a southern
Mexican domesticate).
Distribution.—In the wild state the Muscovy duck ranges over
Guiana-Brazilia and Central America (map 17). As a domesticated
bird, it occurs over most of Neotropica, including the Antilles, where
it was present when Columbus landed, though it does not occur wild
on the islands. It is very numerous in Peru and Paraguay.
Description (pi. 45).
—
Size: Large; total length (tip bill to tip tail feathers),
males 70 to 80 cm. (28 to 32 in.) ; weight, 4 to 5 kg. (8 to 10 lbs.) ; females about
half this size. Color: Males and females alike (except for caruncles on bill in
males) ; wild populations dark brown or blackish all over, except for striking
white upper and lower wing-coverts and axillars, and pinkish caruncles in males;
greenish sheen on shoulders and on wings; domesticated individuals, as given
above, or with various amounts of white, to almost pure white. Caruncles:
Warty excrescences between bill and eye, present and pinkish on males, absent
on females. Habitat: In the wild, along jungle streams; apparently not common
on savannas. Habits: In wild state, generally solitary; sometimes flocking on
large bodies of water in dry winter season; in domestication, solitary or in small
family groups; shy, almost voiceless. Reproduction: In wild state, nests in trees;
in domestication, anywhere; polygamous, with much fighting between males in
breeding season. Musk: None. Hybridization: In domesticated state, breeds
with any other duck, but hybrids are sterile; probably wild and domesticated
populations interbreed at any opportunity. Sterility of hybrid Muscovies has
been questioned.
Remarks.—The domesticated Muscovy duck seems to be conspecific
with its wild populations; variation in morphology and color overlap.
Vol. 6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 461
Map 17.—Distribution of the wild Muscovy duclf. (After Pliillips, 1922, vol. 1,
map 2.)
462 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
It was introduced into Europe in the middle 16th century, and soon
afterward spread over Africa and Oceania, but it was never popular
in Europe or North America. It became feral in parts of Europe and
southeastern Asia, and Pallas in 1831 and Keyserling and Blasius
in 1840 claimed that it was a native wild species. The name
"Muscovy" probably comes from Pallas' account of the duck in his
treatise on Russian (Muscovite) animals; or it may come from the
erroneous claim of Buffon that the bird has a musk gland, or from the
alleged derivation of the species from the Mosquito coast of Central
America or from the Muisca Indians of Nicaragua. (See Phillips,
1922, 1: 57-67, from which the above account is taken.)
The Muscovy duck was and is used primarily, and generally
exclusively, for meat. However, Ignacio de Armas (1888, p. 132,
quoting Garcilaso de la Vega) noted that the pre-Columbian Incas
dried the meat and produced an aromatic powder (presumably from
the alleged natural musk of the animal), Pizarro is said to have
received duck powder to perfume himself. Such uses are not easily
explained as the bird is not considered to have musk.
The origin of domestication is not known, but evidence indicates
that it was in the area of high cultures in the Central Andean region,
probably Peru. Representations of the Muscovy duck are common
on pre-Columbian pottery in Perd,
SUMMARY
South America, Central America, and the Antilles, make up the
Neotropical zoogeographic region of the world. This region is noted
for its rich fauna, composed of a great number of unique or endemic
forms, and invaders (some now distinct) from North America since
Pliocene times. The fauna is divisible into primary endemics of
pre-Pliocene Neotropical origin (when South America was a conti-
nental island), secondary endemics from changed invader stock since
PHocene contact with North America, and unmodified invaders,
Man is one of the latter, and long has been an important faunal
element.
At present there are many diverse species, but the Pleistocene and
early Recent saw the extinction of many others, particularly large
forms. Man perhaps hastened the extinction of some. This late
Tertiary extinction, for one reason or another, reduced the plains
faunas particularly, though less so in the southern temperate parts
of Neotropica than in the central and northern tropical parts.
Neotropica is divisible into four subregions: (1) Guiana-Brazilia,
(2) Central America, (3) Antillea, and (4) Patagonia-Chilea. The
first three constitute at least 75 percent of the whole region, and are
tropical. The rich ethnozoology of these tropical subregions may be
Vol.6] FAUNA AND ETHNOZOOLOGY—GILMORE 463
separated into Continental Tropical, and Antillea Tropical on the
basis of the different faunas. Patagonia-Chilea is south temperate,
and is characterized by the very large number of its primary endemic
forms, which include the guanaco-llama-alpaca-vicuna-viscacha-mara-
rhea-perdiz fauna of the plains and mountains. This fauna, with
and without domestication, was thoroughly utiHzed in many special
ways by man.
The domesticated llama probably was derived from similar wild
guanacos. The alpaca probably was domesticated from a now
extinct wild ancestor. Domestication of the llama and alpaca un-
doubtedly was accomplished somewhere in the contiguous altiplanos
of Perii, Bolivia, Chile, or Argentina.
The other domesticated mammal of South America is the cavy
(guinea pig) ; it probably was domesticated in the Central Andean
region also, from the wild stock which exists there today.
The remaining domesticated animal, a bird, the Muscovy duck,
has conspecific wild populations, and probably was domesticated, as
were the others, in the Central Andean region.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND SOURCES
My first acknowledgment and greatest debt are to Dr. Julian
Steward, editor of this Handbook series, who served as the inspiration
for this paper. To the following members of the United States
National Museum, I owe thanks for reading sections of the finished
manuscript: Dr. Kemington KeUogg, mammals; Dr. Herbert Fried-
mann, birds; Dr. Doris Cochran, reptiles; Dr. Leonard Schultz,
fishes; and Dr. E. A. Chapin, insects. To Dr. H. E. Anthony,
Curator of Mammals of the American Museum of Natural History,
New York, I am grateful for permission to study the lamoid specimens
in that museum, in conjunction with those from the United States
National Museum. Much of the information presented here comes
from many authors, all of whom I hope have been credited, though
some statements may have been derived from the literature so long
ago that I have forgotten the source now. Apparently Latcham
(1922) was the only author to have dealt extensively with South
American ethnozoology. A great deal of the factual material and
inferences, however, are my own, and have been gained from 5 years'
observation and field work in South America (principally Brazil,
Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru), and primarily concerning mammals,
other vertebrates, and insects of medical importance, in the order of
importance as named.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, G. M. (see Tozzer and Allen, 1910), 1911, 1920, 1939, 1942, 1943; Allen,
J. A., 1876, 1904; Allen, W. R. (see Eigenmann and AUen, 1942); Anthony,
464 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
1925-26; Ashley-Montagu, 1929; Ballou, 1897; Barbour, 1914; Harden, 1941;
Bates, H. W., 1892; Bates, M., 1944; Beddard, 1902; Bennett, 1835; Bier, 1932;
Bird, 1938 b; Bowman, 1908; Bridges, 1846; B[rowne], 1858; Cabrera, A., 1929,
1930, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1945; Cabrera and Yepes, 1940; Castle, 1916; Cieza de
Le6n, 1864; Coates, 1939, 1947; Coates, Cox, and Granath, 1937; Coker, 1919,
1923; Cook, O. F., 1925; Cooke, 1895; Couto de Magalhaes, A., 1931; Cox (see
Coates, Cox, and Granath, 1937), 1938; Crawshay, 1907; Cumberland, 1886[?];
Cutright, 1940; Darlington, 1938; Darwin, 1876; De Sola, 1932; Detlefsen, 1914;
Dill, 1938; Ditmars, 1920, 1928; Ditmars and Greenhall, 1935; Dunn, 1931, 1944;
Eaton, 1912, 1913, 1916; Eigenmann and Allen, 1942; Ellerman with Hayman and
Holt, 1940-41; Elliot Smith, 1915; Estruch, 1943; Ewing, 1927, 1934; Fitzinger,
1867; Flower, S. S., 1931; Garcilaso de la Vega, 1869; Garman, 1875; Gilmore,
1947; Goeldi, 1906; Goldman (see Kellogg and Goldman, 1944; Young and Gold-
man, 1944) ; Granath (see Coates, Cox, and Granath, 1937) ; Greenhall (see Ditmars
and Greenhall, 1935); Gudger, 1919, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1930, 1943; Harper, 1945;
Hayman (see Ellerman with Hayman and Holt, 1940-41); Hertig, 1942; Holt (see
Ellerman with Hayman and Holt, 1940-41); Hooton, 1942; Housse, 1940; Howes,
1930; Hrdhckaet al., 1912; Hudson, 1892, 1920; Huysmans, 1945; Ihering, R. v.,
1934, 1940; Ilgin, 1941; Ignacio de Armas, 1888; Jull, 1927, 1930; Kellogg and
Goldman, 1944; Killip and Smith, 1931; Kraglievich, 1930 a, 1930 b; Krieg, 1925,
1929, 1939; Krieger, 1929; Lane, 1943; Latchara, 1922, 1936 a; Le6n, J. A., 1939;
Ley, 1941; Lopez Aranguren, 1930; Lotsy and Kuiper, 1923-24; Lydekker, 1896;
Maccagno, 1932; MacDonagh, 1940; Madueno, 1912; Marcgrav de Liebstad, 1648;
Marelli, 1931; Matthew, 1939; Mello (see Ubisch and Mello, 1940); Mello Leitao,
1937; M^raux, 1942 a, 1944 a; Michaelson, 1936; Miller, 1912, 1916, 1927, 1929;
Miller and Krieger, 1929; Montandon, 1929 c; Moodie, 1923; Morals Rego, 1944;
Murphy, 1936; Myers, 1938; Nehring, 1888, 1889, 1891, 1893, 1894; Nordenskiold,
1922, 1930; Osgood, 1915, 1934; Oviedo y Vald6s, 1851; Peterson, 1904; Phillips,
1922; Pocock, 1923; Preston, 1939; Rengger, 1830; Ridoutt, 1942; Romero, E. C,
1925, 1927; Rusconi, 1930, 1933; Santesson, 1935 a, 1935 b; Santos, E., 1942;
Schmidt, M., 1929 b; Schmitt, 1931; Schwartz, 1939; Sclater, W. L., and Sclater,
P. L., 1899; Scott, 1937; Sellards, 1940; Silva Coutinho, 1906; Simpson, G. G.,
1934, 1940 a, 1940 b, 1943, 1945; Smith, A. C. (see Killip and Smith, 1931);
Smith (see Elliot Smith) ; Speck, 1935; Strong, 1934, 1942; Stroock, 1937 a, 1937 b;
Swales (see Wetmore and Swales, 1931); Tappy, 1944; Tate, 1932; Thomas, O.,
1910, 1917; Townsend, 1910; Tozzer and Allen, G. M., 1910; Tchernavin, 1944;
Tschudi, 1844-46; Ubisch and Mello, 1940; Verissimo, 1895; Vogt, 1942; Wass^n,
1934 c, 1934 d, 1935; Wetmore, 1926, 1929, 1931; Wetmore and Swales, 1931;
Yepes (see Cabrera and Yepes, 1940); Yacovlefif, 1935 b; Young, S. P., and
Goldman, 1944.
THE USE OF WILD PLANTS IN TEOPICAL SOUTH AMERICA
By Claude L^vi-Strauss
INTRODUCTION
It is not always easy to distinguish between wild and cultivated
plants in South America, and there are many intermediate stages
between the utilization of plants in their wild state and their true
cultivation. Karl von den Steinen (1894) gives several examples of
these transitional stages in Central Brazil: among the tribes of the
upper Xingii River (Handbook, vol. 3, p. 321), he saw paths lined
with piqui trees, which generally grow wild, and with mangaba and
urucii trees that had been transplanted near the settlements and arti-
ficially irrigated. On the other hand, actual cultivation was very
rudimentary. One native tried to plant discarded matches; others
blew on tobacco plants to insure their growing. The Twpi-CawaMh
of the upper Madeira River gather the seeds of an unidentified wild
grass that grows in the forest, and in order to facilitate the harvest
they tie together several stems before they are ripe, so that the seeds
of several plants fall on the same spot and pile up in small heaps.
The tribes of the Pimenta Bueno River leave on their clearings some
palm trees, in the bark of which edible grubs develop. These are
the first steps toward cultivation. W. E. Roth (1924, p. 214) writes:
It must be borne in mind that in the clearing of the forest the Indian will
usually save from destruction any economic palms or edible fruit trees. Dance
says that kushi ants will not have their nests near a cunaparu (Phyllanthus sp.)
plant, the milky juice of which is acrid and insufferably irritant, and it is for this
reason that many fields contain two or three of these plants.
In the Tropical Forests, gathering as well as cultivation may be
highly developed, for the utilization of wild plants often entails refined
exploitative techniques that require far more than the mere collection
of wild foods. Few people, for example, have made a staple of a food
as highly poisonous as manioc. The great skill shown in utilizing the
vegetable envhonment is also shown in the various uses made of the
same plant. For example, manicoba {Manihot dichotoma, M. glazi-
ovii, M. heptaphylla, M. piauhyensis, M. violacea) is a source of poison;
of rubber (borracha do Ceard, de Jequie, de Manicoba) ; and of food,
its grated roots being consumed as flour after the poison has been
extracted and its oily seeds being eaten (Pio Correa, 1909). Protium
465
466 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
heptaphyllum provides a balsam, a rosin for glazing pottery, and a
drink, the last prepared from its fruits. The preparation of several
wild foods requires various complicated processes, such as those for
preparing bitter manioc and green-heart seeds (Nectandra rodioei).
Roth (1924, p. 218) describes the latter:
The seeds are grated and put in fresh water, and a matter precipitates similar
in appearance to starch. It is repeatedly washed to lessen its bitterness, which
is never lost entirely. It is then mixed with rotten wood, pounded previously
and sifted, and those who have it in their power mix a little cassava flour with it.
In tropical South America, the general cultural levels are determined
historically rather than by the local plant resources, for no fundamen-
tal culture traits appear to depend directly on the botanical environ-
ment. Pine nuts in southern Brazil and Brazil nuts in northern Brazil
are two important foods not found elsewhere, yet no special aspect
of the culture of the tribes exploiting them can be directly related to
their exploitation; conversely, no special traits are found in the areas
lacking these nuts. Fibers from palm trees (Astrocaryum sp.) and
from a bromehad (Bromelia sp.) are used indifferently in the same
area, though palm fibers are more commonly used in the north and
Bromelia in the south, and differences in materials and techniques
between these two areas are insignificant. Nordenskiold (1924 a) is
responsible for the notion that wild plants "set their stamp on the
culture of the Indians." The example which he gives is unconvincing.
He writes:
Thus, in 1909 I came across a couple of Guarayu Indians on the Rio Parapeti.
They had long portable baskets woven out of paripinnate palm leaves. As we
entered the Parapet! territory the baskets became worn out, but as there were
no paripinnate palms in this part, they could not make new ones. If, for any
reason, the Guarayu tribe were forced to migrate from their present region to
the Parapet! region they would have to change the type of their portable baskets.
[Nordenskiold, 1919, p. 15.J
The statement draws its importance from a former statement by
Nordenskiold that "fanshaped leaves are of little use, while paripin-
nate are so useful" (ibid., p. 4). As a matter of fact, the Guiana
Indians used both fan-shaped and paripinnate palm leaves, and both
kinds have about equal value in basketry, so that the presence or
absence of one or the other is of little consequence. The difficulty
of the Guarayu mentioned was culturally, not environmentally, caused.
The facts, indeed, point in a quite different direction. Many
vegetal species in South America have a widespread distribution,
and the same vegetal environment surrounds tribes far distant from
each other. For purely cultural reasons, these tribes make a very
different use of their environment. The distribution of Ficus,
Bombax, BerthoUetia, and Cariniana does not explain the presence
or absence of bark cloth; the two great centers of bark cloth, i. e.,
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—^LEVI-STRAUSS 467
the upper Amazon and northeastern Bohvia, are cultural—not geo-
graphic—centers. The failure of Central Brazil to develop this
industry was not because of the lack of convenient material; the
Bororo, for example, make bark cloth, although only for the perineal
band of women's dress.
The striking fact is that, far from depending wholly on the natural
environment, South American Indians throughout the tropical area
show exceptional ability to discover substitutes wherever a vegetal
species is lacking. For example, Pardal quotes the substitution of
the decoction of the bark of pariah {Simaruba, Simaba, Picrasma)
for urucii (Bixa orcllana) in the southern part of the tropical area
where it is difficult to grow urucii. The principle of body ointment
and adornment is preserved; the plant varieties used for this purpose
dififer. The same is true of the balsams: in the south, Copavfera
langsdorfii replaces Copaifera multijuga of the Amazon; and when
the Leguminosae listed in pharmacopoeia as yielding benzoin
are lacking, they are replaced by either Myrocarpus or liquidambar
(Pardal, 1937, pp. 104-105). For the varnishes, Protium hepta-
phyllum served in the north, Bulnesia sarmienti in the south; for
stimulants, guarand in the north, mate in the south; for weapons,
arrow shafts are made either of taquara {Chusguea sp.) or of Gynerium
sagittatum, according to the lack of one or the other in a definite
region. The Chave, who lack even the latter, have replaced it with
Arundo donax (Nordenskiold, 1920).
It is also difiacult to agree with another statement by Nordenskiold
(1919, p. 4), who says, "that the abundance of wild fruits, as weU
as the intensive dryness during part of the year and the flood during
another part, account for agriculture being so underdeveloped in the
Chaco." Nowhere in South America has the abundance of wild
resources impeded agriculture. On the contrary, the various inde-
pendent places of origin of agriculture postulated by Vavilov (1926,
and after Sauer, 1937) aU have many kinds of wild foods, and in South
America incipient farming and developed exploitation of wild resources
tend to be associated rather than mutually exclusive. That the abun-
dance of wild foods does not preclude farming is shown in the case
of Guiana:
One Indian ( Akawai) will clear and, with his wife, plant 2 or 3 acres in as many
weeks, and 7 or 8 acres will supply them with a year's food, so that 10 or 12
weeks in the year is absolutely all that is required for actual labor, and the rest
of the time remains for pleasure, hunting, and fishing. [Roth, W. E. 1924, p. 214.]
In the mind of the South American Indian, the principal geo-
graphical distinction is that between the savanna and the forest.
The first is imsuitable for cultivation as well as for gathering and
collecting wild foods; both animal and vegetal life on it are sparse.
794711—50 31
468 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
The forest offers abundant wild plants and game, and its moist soil
is fertile. The stupidity of the deer which in a myth tries to culti-
vate manioc in the savanna filled the Baca'iri with mirth, according
to Steinen (1894, p. 488).
Cooper (1942 a, 1942 b) has suggested that the tropical area of South
America could be divided into two subareas according to the level
of cultural achievement: ". . . the Orinoco-Amazonian farmers and
the scattered tribes subsistmg by a purely collecting economy or else
with a rudimentary or recently acquired horticulture" (Cooper, 1942, b
p. 147). The same author suggests that, considering the fairly close
correlation between the cultural groups and the natural areas, the first
group should be called Silval and the second Marginal, the latter
subdivided into a Savannal and an Intrasilval subgroup. Irrespective
of the usefulness of such a classification for practical purposes, it is
necessary to keep in mind that farming always accompanies, and is
never a substitute for, the exploitation of wild resources. The Silval
area is not only an area of farming but is one with abundant wild
vegetal food and industrial plants. Moreover, few tribes subsist
solely by a collecting economy, and they are distributed at random
in such varied places and in such geographic environments (the
forests of Paraguay and the Guajira Peninsula, for instance) that
their lack of farming seems to depend much more on the cultural
history of each separate region than on geographical factors. Finally,
there is no reason to consider that the rudimentary agiiculture of the
great majority of the savanna tribes was recently acquired. These
remarks lead to the following conclusion: The characteristics both
of farming and of the exploitation of wild plants in South America
show that their place of origin was the Tropical Forest or the banks
of the northern streams which are naturally bare and remain un-
covered by water during most of the year (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 214;
see also Sauer, this volume, pp. 331-344). This Silval culture, based
altogether on farming and on the exploitation of wild resources, which
requires as much skill as farming, is the only genuine culture of
tropical South America. (See also Handbook, vol. 3, pp. 883-886, on
the two culture types in the Tropical Forests.)
All South American tribes clung to the forest whenever they were
forced to change their habitat. This was true in the case of the Tupi
during their long and widespread migrations. Petrullo (1932) noticed
that the inhabitated area of the Xingii River begins only at the points
where the gallery forest becomes a true rain forest spreading inland.
The savanna, where manioc does not grow, is always avoided and
probably was occupied only by tribes driven uito it by stronger
populations. In the savanna the horticultural pattern was partially
retained by turning to the best possible account the strips of gallery
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 469
forest along the streams. It was sometimes improved, as shown by
Nimuendaju's discovery among the eastern Ge of a cultivated Cissus
not reported elsewhere. Farming was abandoned in favor of himting
(Bororo) or of collecting and gathering wild foods, or of both. But
there is little doubt that all nonhorticultural South American tribes
were formerly farmers. The well-known text by Karl von den Steinen
(1894) about the behavior of the Bororo in the presence of the gardens
opened by the Brazilians is of little weight when compared to the
fact that these very Indians were acquainted with an elaborate
harvest ritual. Farming might have been forgotten among some
Bororo as a result of the abundance of game alor g the marshes, but
agriculture was not new to them.
Utilization of wild foods exists in the tropical area on two different
levels: a basis level, in which it coexists with farming and is centered
in or aroimd the forest; and a subsidiary level, which is one of col-
lecting brought about by compulsive adaptation to the savanna and
which often remains partial and is always secondary.
THE PALMS
Several species of palms played an outstanding part in native
cultures. Thus, for instance, Gumilla (1791, 1: 145) remarks that
the muriche palm [Mauritiaflexuosa) was the mainstay of the Warrau
economic life. From it these Indians obtained wood for their pile
dwellings, fiber for their clothes, ornaments, hammocks, and fishing
tackle, starch for making bread, sap for their wine, the fruits for a
sort of punch, and leaves for their baskets. They also extracted large
edible larvae from its decayed trunk.
The pupunha, or peach palm {Guilielma gasipaes), is a palm long
cultivated by the Indians, though it still grows wild. The edible
fruit of the cultivated tree lacks the thick shell characteristic of the
wild varieties. Palms are semicultivated, for wild palm trees are
often spared on a clearing and tended together with the cultivated
plants.
About 20 genera of palms were widely used, being exploited for the
following purposes:
Edible fruits.—Several genera yield nuts which are edible after the
shell of the fruit has been broken. Most important in the native diet
are the uaguassii (baguassu, babassu), or pindoba nut {Orhignya
speciosa), which is rich in oil, and the nuts of the genera Acrocomia,
Astrocaryum, Attalea, Catoblastus, Cocos, Copernicia, and Maximiliana,
which have different food values.
With other species, it is not the nut but the fleshy substance sur-
rounding it which is consumed. Both the nut and the flesh are eaten
of the mucaja or bacaiuva {Acrocomia), but only the flesh is eaten
470 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
of the caranai {Mauritia horrida) and the buriti {Mauritia vinifera)
m central and western Brazil, and of the miriti or ite (Mauritia
jlexuosa) in Amazonas and Guiana. This fruit is all-important in the
diet of many tribes, because of the many vitamins contained in the
mush prepared with its orange-yellow pulp. Thevet (1878) describes
the uricuri or buri da praia (Diplothemium maritimum) , a small tree
with edible fruits relatively abundant between Rio de Janeiro and
Cabo Frio.
The fruits of several palm tree genera are used only to prepare
beverages or mushes. The most important are the assai (Euterpe
oleracea, E. precatoria), the manicol (Euterpe edulis), the bacaba or
turu (Oenocarpus distichus, 0. bacaha), the lu (Oenocarpus sp.), the
patua or pataua (Oenocarpus pafua), the aeta (Mauritia Jlexuosa),
the kokerit or anajd (Maximiliana regia), the awarra or jawari
(Astrocaryum tucumoides), and the marajd (Badris minor). In most
cases the ripe palm fruit is soaked in lukewarm water—boiling water
would harden instead of softening them—and then the pulp is sepa-
rated from the shell or kernel and made into a thick, oily, fragrant
drink, which has a high nutrient value. These drinks may be con-
sumed immediately or after standing a night, which gives them a
slightly sour taste. Sometimes manioc flour is added to them.
Palm wine.—The sap of the Mauritia vinifera is drunk fresh or
slightly fermented. It is collected in a trough-shaped cavity dug in
the trunk of a felled tree (Warrau). The coroxo wine is made from
the fruits of the Acrocomia acuhata. (See also Handbook, vol. 1,
p. 418.)
Palm cabbage or palmito.—The "palmito," i. e., the terminal shoot
of several species of palm, is one of the few fresh vegetables in native
diet. It is eaten raw, broiled, and sometimes boiled. The palmito
of almost all the palm species can be consumed, but some have a
bitter taste, as for instance the Acrocomia. The Brazilian Indians
show a marked preference for the palmitos of the Euterpe, Cocos, and
of several species of Iriartea. In the Chaco, the Indians consume the
palmitos of the caranday (Copernicia cerifera).
Starch.—The Warrau extract starch from Mauritia in the following
manner:
When an ite tree begins to fructify it is cut down, a large slice is cut off one side,
and the stringy substance of the interior is cut into shreds, the remainder of the
trunk serving as a trough, in which it is triturated with water, by which is dis-
engaged a considerable quantity of starch. The fibrous particles are then ex-
tracted, and the sediment, or aru, formed into molds like bricks. This is spread
out on stones or iron plates over the fire, and makes a very nutritive but at the
same time unmasticable bread. [Roth, 1924, pp. 215-216; cf. Gumilla, 1791,
1: 149.]
This starchy food is known under the name of sagu in northern and
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 471
eastern Brazil (Pio Correa, 1909). The Guayaki extract a starchy
flour from the pindo palm {Cocos romanzoffiana) (see Handbook, vol.
1, p. 436; also Vellard, 1939, p. 84).
Oil.—Oil can be extracted from several palm fruits by crushing and
boiling them. It may be used in cooking, for lighting purposes, or in
medicine; but more often the Indians mixed it with urucii or some
other pigment to smear on their bodies. The palm species which
produce oil are: Orhignya speciosa, Astrocaryum tucuma, Astrocaryum
tucumoides, Attalea speciosa, Maximiliana regia, and Oenocarpus
(0. bacaba and patua).
Salt.—The ashes of the fibers and of the fruits of some palm trees,
such as jara (Leopoldinia major), and of the leaves of some other
species, such as Mauritia Jlexuosa, are boiled and the decoction is
allowed to evaporate in order to obtain a brownish powder which is
used as salt. Staden (1928, pt. 2, ch. 11) saw and describes the whole
process among the ancient Tupinamba: From the ashes of a palm
trunk, they make a solution which they boil imtil the salt is separated.
"It tasted like salt and was grey in colom-."
House thatching.—Palm leaves are the most common plant ma-
terials for thatching the roofs and frames of native huts. The method
of thatching depends upon the nature of the leaves. If the fronds
are paripinnate, such as those of the anajd, the leaflets are made to
fall limp and loose by tearing loose the "eye," i. e., the internal articu-
lation of the leaves with the midrib. The palms are attached hori-
zontally to the purlines, overlapping like tiles. For fan-shaped
leaves, the techniques are more elaborate. The ancient Tupinamba
parched the leaves of the pindoba over a fire and then plaited them
before thatching their huts. Among the Guiana Indians, palm leaves
preferred for thatching are: the truli or bussu {Manicaria saccijera),
caranai {Mauritia horrida), buritl or ite {Mauritia vinijera, M.jlexuosa,
or M. armata), dallibana {Geonoma baculifera), ubim and several
Geonoma {G. ehgans, G. paniculata, G. pohliana, G. schottiana), anajd
or kokerit {Maximiliana regia), manicol {Euterpe edulis), turu or
bacaba {Oenocarpus bacaba), assai {Euterpe oleracea), etc. (Roth,
W. E., 1924, pp. 265-270).
Basketry.—Max Schmidt (1905) classifies twilled basketry in two
classes depending on whether fan-shaped or paripinnate leaves are
used. He believes that many decorative motifs in the art of these
Indians come from the basketry patterns that are inevitably produced
by using fan-shaped buritl palms.
Paripinnate leaves, such as those of Maximiliana regia, Orbignya
speciosa, Orbignya phalerata (cusi of the Chaco), two species of Astro-
caryum (respectively, awarra and akko-yuro in the Guianas, tucdm
and tucumd in eastern Brazil, murumuru or Astrocaryum murumuru
472 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
in the Amazon, and several species of Desmoncus (kamwarri or jacitara)
are particularly suitable for making fans, mats, and temporary carry-
ing baskets.
With the fan-shaped leaves of the buriti or ite palm, the Indians of
eastern Brazil weave fire fans, containers, trays, and rectangular
baskets which are characterized by geometrical patterns (lozenges,
etc.).
Twine, cords, and strings.—The young unopened leaves of the
Mauritia flexuosa reduced to the cortical strips and soaked in water
for several days are made into cords which have many uses in the
Amazon Basin. The fibers of several Attalea, mainly those of the
piacaba (Attalea funifera) or chiquichiqui [Leopoldinia piagaba) pro-
vide material for thick or small ropes. The name "tuciim" is given
to several species of palm trees, mainly Astrocaryum or Bactris,
particularly Bactris setosa, which give excellent fibers for strings and
ropes used for making hammocks, nets, etc. These species are as
important to the Indians of the Amazonian or Orinoco Basins as the
Bromeliaceae known as caraguata are to the Indians of the Chaco.
The name ''jupati" is given to plants of the genus Raphia.
Wooden objects.—Posts, fences, and palisades are often made of
the wood of the catizal or paxiuba (Socratea exorrhiza and Socratea
durissima). The natives of eastern Bolivia and the upper Amazon
make their bows of the hard, black wood of chonta palm (Guilielma
insignis). Clubs and spears are often carved of the same wood.
The stem of the paxiuba {Socratea exorrhiza) serves to encase the
Arundinaria tube of the blowgun. The gigantic trumpets of the
Uaupes River Indians are made of sections of paxiuba palm {Socratea
exorrhiza) wrapped with long strips of iebaru {Epema grandiflora)
.
Finally, the vegetal wax of the carandai or carnauba palm tree
(Copernicia cerifera) must be mentioned here. This species is especially
important in northeastern Brazil. Nordenskiold (1929 a, fig. 1)
has published a Chacobo manioc grater from Bolivia. It consists of
a section of the trunk of a thorny palm tree. Often, to make a grater,
thorns are imbedded in rows in a wooden planlv.
Beads and ornaments.—The black polished shells of the small nuts
of the Astrocaryum are practically everywhere carved into beads,
earrings, and other types of ornaments. The wood of other palm
trees is occasionally used for miscellaneous purposes. These are
pati {Orcus sp. and Cocos botryphora), buri and buri-assu (Diplothemium
caudescens, D. campestre), aracuri {Cocos coronata), curua or acuri
or auacuri (motacu in the Chaco), several species of Attalea {A. speciosa,
A. phalerata, A. princeps, A. spectabilis) , buritirana {Mauritia aculeata)
etc.
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 473
TIMBER WOOD
The number of species of trees used by the Indians in their industries
is so large that a complete list would fill a volume. Here are enu-
merated the names of species most frequently mentioned in the old
literature dealing with the culture of the Brazilian Indians.
Several kinds of aroeira are used : aroeira branca {Lythraea moleoides,
L. brasiliensis), aroeira molle (Schinus molle, which also yields the
so-called American mastic), and aroeira vermelha (Schinus terebin-
thifolius)
.
"Cedro" comes from several families of plants: imbuia (Bignonia
sp.); cabreuva {Myrocarpus sp.); acareuba (Calophyllum brasiliense);
conduru, a red wood (Brosimum conduru); ubiraeta or iron wood
(Caesalpinia jerrea) ; barauna (Melanoxylon brauna) ; jurema (Pithe-
cellobium tortum and Mimosa verrucosa) ; ivory white or "pau marfim"
(Balfourodendron riedelianum) ; red guarabu {Peltogyne conjertiflora) ;
black caviuna or jacaranda (Dalbergia nigra); "Vinhatico," a yellow
reddish wood (Plathymenia reticulata); and piquihi {Caryocar barbi-
nerve). The genera Tecoma and Couralia provide various reddish
and blackish woods. Jatahi and jatoba are trees of the genus
Hymnenaea; macarandiba is Lucuma procera; guapeveira is a species
of Chrysophyllum; andira or "pau de morcego" is Andira rosea or
A. fraxinifolia; jequitiba is Couratari brasiliensis; sucupira is Bow-
dichia virgiloides and Pterodon pubescens; arariba or araruva, a
striped wood, is Centrolobium robustum; urucurana is Hieronymia
oblonga and a species of Alchornia.
In addition, several palms, especially Orbignya, Astrocaryum,
Guilielma, and Iriartea, are used for hut frames, weapons, fences,
etc.
Some woods are traditionally used for making specific objects.
Clubs and macanas are generally carved of the hard wood of various
Leguminosae, especially purpleheart (Copaifera pubiflora, Caesalpinia
sp., and Myrocarpus sp.), snakewood {Brosimum aubletii), and amara
{Schvmrtzia tomentosa). The Tupinamba used ibiratinga (Funifera
sp., of the family Thymelaeaceae) to make the staves of their spears.
The Guiana Indians made their best paddles of the fluted projections
of the yaruru or paddle wood (Aspidosperma excelsum) ; the Tupinamba
of Genipa americana or of uaca {Ecclinusa ramijiora).
The light woods or "gameleiras" include a great many species of
Ceiba (e. g., copaubucu, Ceiba erianthos) and Ficus, as well as ubira-
gara ("barriguda," or "barrigudo" tree, Cavanillesia arborea, and
several other Bombacaceae) , umbaubeira {Cecropia adenopus), apeiba
(Apeiba sp.), and paraparaiba (Cecropia and Triplaris).
These light woods are used mainly for making ear or lip plugs
(Suya, Botocudo, etc.), cylindrical containers for feathers and orna-
474 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ments (Bororo, etc.), rafts or jangadas (on eastern Brazilian coast,
Apeiba sp. or apei is used), and canoes {Cavanillesia arborea and
Ceiba pentandra).
Canoes.—In Guiana, canoes and corials were made out of the
following trees: Siruaballi {Nectandra spp.), tenyari or mara (Cedrela
odorata); purpleheart (Copaifera pubifiora) , kabukalli (Goupia glabra)
,
itenalli {Vochysia tetraphylla) , silk-cotton tree {Ceiba pentandra),
crab-wood {Carapa guianensis), incense tree (Protium guianense),
Dimorphandra mora, and several species not yet identified. In
northern Brazil canoes were dug out of the trunks of Cedrela odorata
and Ceiba pentandra. The Indians of central Brazil make their
canoes from the bark of jatoba (Hymenaea courbaril). The same
bark was probably used by the Tupinamba. The Twpi dug canoes
out of a Bombacaceae or of Ficus doliaria. Iriartea ventricosa is
used for the same purpose.
Bows.—In the Guianas bows are made from at least half a dozen
different timbers. Those which have been identified are the purple-
heart (Copaifera pubifiora), burakura, burukuru, burokoro, leopard-
wood, or snakewood {Brosimum aubletii), and Lecythis ollaria. In
Brazil the most common bow wood is Tecoma conspicua, called for
that reason pau d'arco.
Perfumed woods.—Beads of necklaces are often carved from
fragrant woods. These are: carunje (species of Ocotea and Nectan-
dra), vanilla (Vanilla sp.), cinnamon wood or anhaybataa (Pseudo-
caryophyllus sericeus, Cinnamodendron axillare, and Capsicodendron
pimenteira) , rosewood or jacaranda (Dalbergia nigra), and pau santo
(species of Bulnesia and Zollernia).
Certain other woods have an unpleasant odor: ubirarema or
"canella merda" {Nectandra myriantha), pau d'alho {Gallesia scoro-
dodendrum), and several vines which smell like garlic {Lundia longa,
Clytostoma noterophilum, Segueira fioribunda, Adenocalymna allia-
ceum, etc.).
FIBERS
Fibers used by tropical Indians in their industries come mainly
from palm trees (see p. 472). Fibers are also extracted from several
Bromeliaceae, mainly Bromeliafastuosa and B. serra, which are known
as caraguatd, gravata {Tupi), chaguar (Quechua), pita, kuraua, etc.
In the Guianas and in many regions of Brazil, the Indians utilize
the fibers of both palm trees (tuciim) and of bromeliads, though the
first give thinner and better strings. In the Chaco and southern
Brazil, the Indians employ almost exclusively fibers of Bromeliaceae.
In Colombia, Ecuador, and Peril, the Indians obtain the fibers for
their ropes and textiles from the agave.
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 475
The Brazilian Indians use vines and creepers of many species for
ropes, cables, or strings. Those called cipo belong to many families
and genera. Cipo-embe is the adventitious root of a plant of Philo-
dendron. The timb6 group includes thinner varieties of vines {Ser-
jania and PauUinia) which may be twined or plaited. Timborana
{Lonchocarpus sp. and Malpighiaceae sp.) serve the same purposes.
In the northwestern parts of South America, the name bejuco is given
to Vitis tiliifolia, Trichostigma octandrum, Entada gigas, etc.
Roth (1924, p. 118) lists nibbi or sippi, mamuri, and muna (Carludo-
vica sp.) as bushropes which in their natural condition may be used as
twines.
Paina (Chorisia speciosa), embiriti (Bombax munguha), and goay-
aimbira {Cecropia concolor) are trees which yield a fibrous substance
used by the Indians. The cottonlike wads which the Indians attached
to the buts of blowgun darts come from the fruits of Bombax glohosum
and Eriodendron samauma.
Bark cloth.—Bark cloth may be obtained from several species of
trees. In eastern^^Bolivia and on the upper Amazon the Indians use
bark of trees of the genus Ficus, which are known in Bolivia as bibosi.
From the Guapore to the Orinoco River cloth is made from the bark
of species of Bertholleiia and Cariniana; in the northern parts of the
continent and in the West Indies, from cabuya (Fucraea gigantea),
majagua {Hibiscus tiliaceus), memiso {Muntingia calabura), and man-
barakrak (Lecythis ollaria) ; and in eastern Brazil, the bark of embiriti
(Bombax munguba).
MISCELLANEOUS
According to Von den Steinen (1894), the Xingii River Indians
cultivated a wild grass which they used as razor blades. The fruit
of a Bignoniaceae ("pente de macaco," Pithecoctenium echinatum)
was used as a comb by the Tupi and other tribes. The Tapirape
use the fruits of a grass ("capim flecha," Streptogyne crinita) as tweezers
for plucking the hair (Baldus, quoted by Hoehne, 1937, p. 115).
As the two more important fruits used as containers were cultivated
(Crescentia cujete, cuia, giiira, and Lagenaria siceraria), only the shell
of Lecythis blanchetiana (one of the numerous sapucaia nuts) and the
hollowed-out seeds of several pahn trees (Asirocaryum) and the
staunch flour containers made from the leaves of Heliconia and Cala-
thea may be mentioned here. The leaves of Heliconia bihai and of
several Geonoma were also used for roof and wall thatching.
The calabashes of the upper Rio Negro are lacquered with a decoc-
tion of carayuru—Bignoniaceae and cassava leaves sprinkled with
human urine (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 302).
In addition to numerous palm nuts (see The Palms, p. 469), a great
many nuts (genera Bertholleiia and Lecythis) and seeds ("olho de
476 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
cabra" or comedoi: Ormosia nitida, Omphalea diandra, Myroxylon
toluiferum, and others) are used as beads in necklaces, tassels, and the
like. Several hard-shelled seed pods, including Thevetia peruviana
and Juglans sp., were made into rattles for accompanying songs and
dances. Also used for rattles in Guiana were many nuts and seeds
known only by their local names: Kawa and cerewu or cerehu seeds
and caruna and ahouai nuts. The hollow cylinders used to strike the
ground as a dance accompaniment are made of trumpet wood {Cecro-
pia) or bamboo (Gadua). The drums of the Orinoco are hollowed from
the trunk of several trees: silverballi (Nectandra) ; karuhoho (Arawak),
simaruba (Warrau) or muratatau (Carib); omu (Warrau); and some-
times of Alauritia flexuosa (Roth, W. E., 1924, pp. 464-466). Bundles
of palm leaves (Maximiliana maripa) enter into the construction of the
Oyana drums dug in the ground and struck with the feet (ibid., pp.
468-469).
GUMS AND RESINS
Most of the gums known to the Indians are obtained from the
Leguminosae. They are generally used as drugs, but may also be
employed in the native industries.
Lighting substances.—All kinds of rubber burn quickly with a
bright flame. In addition to its other industrial uses, rubber is
collected in lumps of coagulated latex and carefully kept to light fires.
The lump is drilled with the fire drill, which produces a highly in-
flammable dust. The rosin of the locust tree (jatoba, jatahi, simiri,
algarroba—names which in different regions are given to the same or
different species: Hymenaea courbaril, Cassia blancheti, and others)
when lighted or thrown in a fire gives a brilliant light. Guaconax
(Amyris maritima) and almecega {Hedvngia balsamifera and Protium
heptaphyllum, the latter "the haiowa of the Arawak, shipu or sibu
of the Warrau, and sipipio of the CariV' (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 80))
serve the same purpose.
Plastic substances.—^On the upper Guapore River, the translucent
rosin of Hymenaea courbaril and probably of many other trees is made
into nose and lip plugs by means of wooden molds. The Guarani
used the rosin of a tree called abati timbaby in the same way. Several
rosins are applied as a glaze to the whole or to parts of newly fired
ceramics: in southern Brazil, Paraguay, and northern Argentina the
rosin of "pau santo," "palo santo" (Bulnesia sarmienti) ; and in the
north, that of icica (Protium brasiliense, P. heptaphyllum, P. guianense,
P. aracouchili, P. carana) and of Hymenaea courbaril. The Nambi-
cuara make their pots waterproof by washing them when still hot
with a decoction of the rosinous bark of a Mimosa. The same thing
is said of the Warrau (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 133).
Vol.61 USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 477
Gums and glues.—The rosins already mentioned and especially
that of balata or turara (Mimusops globosa) and of "pau breo," manni,
ohori, or manil {Moronobea coccinea) are widely used for fastening
points and feathers to arrows, for waxing threads, for calking canoes,
and for attaching stone chips or thorns on cassava graters, blades to
knives, and axes to their handles.
Balsams.—The rosin of the Hymenaea courbaril is chewed for pains
in the stomach and flatulence, and is biu-ned for fumigations in case
of colds and headaches. The balsam of acouchi {Protium sp.),
umiri (Humiria Jloribunda) , and wallaba (Eperua sp.) are said to
heal wounds. The same virtues are ascribed by Indians and Whites
to Copaifera multijuga, C. officinalis, and C. langsdorfii, which are
known as copayba, cabima, curucay, curaki, purukai, mawna, mararen,
and maran.
Corohiba or cabureiba (Myroxylon toluiferum, the tolu balsam of
Colombia and Venezuela) is popular with the Indians of central and
southern Brazil. According to Soares de Souza (1851), the ancient
Tupinamba collected it with pads of cotton, which they later squeezed.
Other balsams used by the tropical Indians are: cabreuva (Myro-
carpus frondosus, M. jastigatus), obira (Apocynaceae), imbauba or
ambay {Cecropia adenopus), corneiba {Schinus terebinthifolius or
Lithraea brasiliensis) , and gayac (Guaiacum officinale).
The Guayba, Tunebo, and Chiricoa used a rosin called mara (Protium
sp.) for hunting deer, which are said to be attracted by its odor.
OILS AND UNGUENTS
To make oil of crab wood (caraba or andiroba, Carapa guianensis)
"the Roucouyenne of Cayenne . . . preserve the seed for a year by
burying it in the ground and making veritable silos of it . . . The
Oyampi of the Oyapock River boil the seeds, expose them for several
weeks to the air in a scooped-out tree trunk, crush them with their
feet, and finally let them drip on an inclined palm leaf" (W. E. Roth
after Crevaux, 1924, p. 85). The oil is used to anoint the hair and
skin and to prepare paint. From makeima bark {Mespilodaphne
pretiosa, Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 86) the Macushi extract an ethereal
oil for use against diarrhea and dysentery. Most species of Lecy-
thidaceae, some of Eugenia and Virola, and Bertholletia excelsa (the
Brazil nut) have fruits which, when boiled and crushed, yield an oU
or a vegetable tallow which may be used as a food, as an unguent, or
for lighting purposes. Palm oils are described under The Palms
(p. 471).
PIGMENTS AND DYES
The most important pigment in all tropical South America is cer-
tainly the urucii or roucou (called achiote in Mexico, mantur in
478 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Quechua, bija in the West Indies, and, in other dialects, arnotta,
faroa, kuseve, shiraballi, mubosimo, and majepa). Bixa orellana is
cultivated by most tribes, although many of them merely transplant
young wild plants to places near their huts. Bixa orellana is, how-
ever, a widespread wild plant and thus belongs to the large group of
plants which have not been modified through cultivation. The red
pigment of the urucii comes from a thin skin covering the seeds.
These are washed and mashed, and the pigment, which settles to the
bottom of the container, is dried, mixed with animal or vegetal oil or
gum, and made into balls or cakes. Uructi dye is used to color cotton
thread and to paint weapons, ceramics, and implements, but it is
employed especially to anoint the body and even the hair. Whether
this widespread custom has a predominantly esthetic or hygienic
function (protection of the body against heat and insects) is a much-
debated question. In northern Argentina, where cultivation of Bixa
orellana is difficult, a decoction of pariah bark (Simaruba, Simaba,
and Pricrasma) or "palo amargo," is used instead. Bodily oint-
ments are also made from guavira (Campomanesia) , taperihud (Cassia),
caburehi (Myrocarpus) , and isipo kati (Aristolochia) (Pardal, 1937,
pp. 99 ff.). Thevet (1878), Lery, Gomara, and others have de-
scribed the unguent used against body parasites and made of hibou-
couhu; Hoehne considers this plant a Myristica (Hoehne, 1937, p.
126).
Another red paint used for body and pottery decoration and varying
from orange to purple according to the technique of preparation is
caraweru, barisa, barahisa, biauro, etc., which comes from the boiled
or fermented leaves of Bignonia chica. It is kept in small straw
baskets or in tubes. Unripe Genipa fruit of the jagua or xagua,
launa or lana, tapuriba, tabuseba, etc. {Genipa americana) yields a
juice which becomes black or dark blue when exposed to the air.
From Argentina to the Guianas, it is used as a dye and as a paint
for the body and for pottery and utensils. The tree is sometimes
cultivated but also occurs wild. From arrisaiu-a or karasaru berries
the natives of the Guianas extract a clear blue used for body paint.
The foUoAving dyes are used more for native handicrafts than for
the body: "Pau brasil" of the old travelers or oroboutan of the
Tupinamba (Caesalpina echinata), used to dye feathers red; other red
dyes are yzipo roots mentioned by Dobrizhoffer (1822), mespil or
itarra {Belinda aubletii) used in the Guianas to paint the paddles,
the inside of calabashes, etc., maba bunakara {Coussapoa latijolia)
and buri-badda {Homalium f), Maparakuni eryihroxylum of the north-
eastern Arawak, and kuruwatti {Renealmia exaltata) used as a remedy
for ophthalmia, as a dye, and on the Pomeroon supposedly as the
pigment for tattooing in the old days (Roth, W. E., 1924, pp. 90-91).
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 479
Besides Genipa americana, a black dye is extracted from inga or
shirada bark (Inga lateriflora). It is mostly used in basketry. Sev-
eral yellow pigments come from tatajiba or tayuva (Chlorophora
tinctoria), which has an edible fruit, and from an unidentified plant
which Soares de Souza called caapiam (Hoehne, 1937, pp. 241-242).
A blue, indigolike dye comes from Anil trepador (Vitis sicyoides) and
from anil-assi (Eupatorium sp.). The old literature mentions several
other vegetable dyes which are not yet identified. The sakuapera
of the Arawak and Warrau is Henriettea succosa (Roth, W. E., 1924,
p. 90).
SHAMPOOS
Shampoos include the Brazilian" arvore de sabao"; this is the Guiana
and West Indian "I" of the Taino, identified by Roumain (1942, pp.
65-66) as Gouania lupuloides or G. polygama, certain roots and fruits
of Sapindus divaricatus used by the Tupi, cjaru (Colletia spinosa) of
Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina, and Sapindus saponuria of
Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina.
RUBBER
W According to W. E. Roth (1924, pp. 83-84), Sapium jenmani, or
S. cladogyne, and some species of Hevea were probably the original
sources of rubber. The Omagua made balls, rings, and syringes from
the milky sap of a creeper which, from the structure of its fruits and
flowers, must be ascribed to a genus of the Apocynaceae.
The rubber balls of the Paressi and Nambicuara are made of the
latex of mangabeira (Hancornia speciosa). The name "caucho"
(rubber) is given to Castilla elastica and to Sapium eglandulosum.
The rubber latex of soveira or sorveira (Couma guianensis, C. macro-
carpa, C. utilis) can be drunk either pure or diluted with water. The
Indians coat their skin with the latex of several rubber trees in order
to suffocate parasite worms lodged under the epidermis.
FOODS
Tubers.—Wild food plants include roots, fruits, nuts, and shells.
Few tubers have been identified, because the Indians generally col-
lected them only in time of scarcity, when they were substitutes for
manioc, Dioscorea, Zanthosoma, and other cultivated tubers. Among
the wild tubers eaten is mandioquinha do campo (Zeyheria sp.).
Green vegetables.—Green vegetables are scarce in native diet,
being limited to manioc leaves, palm shoots (q. v.), a species of Cissus,
which Nimuendajd found cultivated among the eastern Ge, and a
very few others.
Nuts and seeds.— Besides palm nuts (p. 469), which are consumed
from the Chaco to the Guianas, there are two other nuts of great value.
480 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The Caingang and Guarani of southern Brazil depend for several
months each year on the nuts of Araucaria angustifolia. The Tupi
called these iba, the fruit "par excellence." To the Araucanians they
are just as important. In the Amazon Basin, sapucaia (Lecythis ol-
laria or L. pisonis) and Brazil nuts, tocari (Bertholletia excelsa), are not
negligible items of native diet. These nuts were a favorite food among
many tribes of the Beni and the Madre de Dios Rivers.
Other nuts with food value for the Indians are those of piqui
("Almendras del Brasil"), sawari or chachapoya {Caryocar harhinerve,
C. hrasiliense, C. tuherculosum, C. amygdaliforme) comanda-iba
(Sophora tomentosa), comanda-assu (Mucuna altissima), and jatoba
or locust tree (Hymenaea courharil)
.
In the Guinas, cassava flour is often increased, mixed with, or even
replaced by flour made of the following seeds. Mora (Dimorphandra
mora), greenheart (Nectandra rodiaei), dakamballi (Votiacapoua
americana), pario, and nuts of the sawari tree (Caryocar tuherculosum)
.
W. E. Roth (1924, pp. 219, 230) quotes Schomburgk on the occurrence
of wild maize (?) on the eastern foot of the Pacaraima Range. Not
only seeds and nuts are occasionally added to cassava flour, but also
soft wood.
Wild rice {Oryza subulata) is abundant in Uruguay, Rio Grande do
Sul, in the marshes of the upper Paraguay and of the Guapore Rivers
(Hoehne, 1937, pp. 33-39), and in the Orinoco Valley, but the Indians
of the last region do not seem to have consumed it. According to
Hoehne, Oryza sativa may be aboriginal in South America.
Although peanuts (Arachis hypogaea, A. nambyquarae) were
generally cultivated, "southern Brazil, and particularly Sao Paulo,
Parana, and Mato Grosso, is the land of origin of the different peanuts.
All known species still exist there in wild state
. .
." (Hoehne,
1937, p. 216).
Fruits.—Some widely distributed fruits were used both cultivated
and wild: caraguata (Bromelia fastuosa) ; inga, shirada, or pacay (Inga
vera, I. lateriflora, I. bahiensis, I. fevillei); maracuja (Passifiora
quadrangularis, P. alata, P. edulis); and pineapple (Ananas sativus).
The use of the following centers around the Chaco, southern Brazil,
southern Bolivia, and northern Argentina: The important algarroba or
aloja (Prosopis alba), principally used as a drink; guabiroba (Myrtus
mucronata and Psidium multifiorum, P. corymbosum, P. cinereum,
P. guazumaefolium)
;
guavira (Campomanesia) ; tamarin, common in
the Chiquitos region but lacking in Paraguay, according to Dobriz-
hoffer; tusca (Acacia aroma)', taruma (Vitex montevidensis)
',
and
chaiiar (Gourliaea decorticans) . A curious use of quebracho, wood
yielding tannin, may be mentioned here:
The Guarani burn pieces of the tree tayy, receive the smoke or soot arising from
them into a clean dish, and by pouring hot water upon it, convert it into ink which
Vol 6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 481
mixed with gum and sugar is b}' no means to be despised. [Dobrizhoffer,1822
1:398.]
The "fructa do lobo" {Solanum grandiflorum, yielding the alcaloid,
grandiflorina) has a central and southern distribution in the savanna
lands of central Brazil. Its delicious large peachlike fruit seems to be
the object of a food prohibition in several regions. Some varieties
may be toxic.
Cashew {Anacardium occidentale) is generally cultivated, but another
wild species, Anacardium giganteum, yields small fruits which the
Indians collect at the foot of the tree after the monkeys have thrown
them down. The Brazilian Indians consume the fruits of several
other species of Anacardiaceae: umbu (Spondias tuberosa), hobo, jobo
{Spondias monhim, S. dulcis, S. robe), caja-mirim, maropi or hog-plum
(Spondias lutea), and acaju or acaja (Spondias monbim). The tuber-
like roots of umbii are edible.
Mangaba fruits (Hancornia speciosa) are so important to the savan-
na tribes that when they are in season the Indians undertake large
expeditions for the sole purpose of collecting them. Likewise of great
importance are the fruits of several Psidium (P. turbiniflorum, P.
guayava, P. variabile), and of several Myrtaceae, such as cambuy and
jaboticaba (Mouriria pusa), both common trees in eastern Brazil.
The following species yield fruits which are eaten occasionally by
the Indians: Cambuca (Myrcia sp.), massaranduva or macarandiba
(Lucuma procera) , mucuge (Couma rigida), ubauba (Pourouma cecrop-
iaefolia), ubacaba (Britoa triflora), murici (Byrsonima), canapu (Phy-
salis pubescens), Cereus sp., Eugenia sp., Genipa maerianae and G.
edulis, Malpighia sp., "banana do brejo" (Mostera deliciosa), etc.
In the northern part of the continent and in the Antilles, fruits
eaten include the following: Oiti coro (Couepia rufa), oiti da Bahia
(Moquilea salzmannii)
,
piquia (Macoubea guianensis) , bacopary (Rhee-
dia brasiliensis) , icaco (Chrysobalanus icaco), bacury (also cultivated)
(Platonia insignis), abio (Lucuma caimito and Pouteria caimifo, which
are different from the caimite of the West Indies, Chrysophyllum
caimito), the mammee apple or "abrico do Para" (Mammea americana,
to be distinguished from the mamey of Cuba, Calocarpum mammo-
sum), several species of Couma, several Annonaceae (Annona muricata,
A. reticulata, aratigu), and several species of cacao (Theobroma cacao,
T. bicolor, T. grandiflorum, T. speciosum). The wild kakaui (Theo-
broma sylvestre) and the "cacau selvagem" (Pachira insignis), which
are eaten raw, are important food items for the tribes of the upper
Madeira River (Levi-Strauss, ms.).
Some kinds of mushrooms were consumed on the Orinoco, and are
also considered a delicacy by the Nambicuara.
482 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
DRINKS
When no water is available, the Indians know how to quench their
thirst with the sap of several vines and creepers. This sap resembles
pure, clear water, and it can be gathered easily in a calabash. The
best known vine is the waterwhithe (Vitis sp., Entada polystachya)
and salisali (Lonchocarpus rufescens or Lonchocarpus nicou), a creeper
also used for drugging fish. Its water is clear and fresh, but only
its first flow can be drunk, because later it becomes white and milky,
and is toxic (Crevaux, 1883, p. 278).
In periods of drought the Arawak of Pomeroon obtained water from
truli fruits (Manicaria saccifera). Water may also be obtained from
the sheath bases of the leaves of several plants: some Tillandsia, the
buriti palm (Mauritia flexuosa) , and caraguatd (Bromelia sp.).
A great many beverages, some of them fermented, are prepared
from the fruits, seeds, and roots of wild plants. A popular liquor is
made with the cultivated and wild pineapples (Ananas sativus). The
ancient Tupinamha prepared a fermented beverage with cashews
{Anacardium occidentale) . In the Chaco, beer is made with chaiiar
(Gourliaea decorticans) , mistol (Zuzyphus mistol), tusca, and algarroba
pods (Prosopis), etc.
Refreshing drinks are obtained from hitchia (Byrsonima spicata),
hlawaraballi (Protium heptaphyllum)
,
guavira (Campomanesia), and
several species of Psidium sp. and Eugenia sp,
CONDIMENTS
The preparation of salt from the ashes of leaves or fibers of some
palm trees has been described (see The Palms, p. 471). Another type
of vegetable salt is obtained by boiling an aquatic plant, oulin, weya,
weira, weyra, or huya {Mourera fluviatilis). It is a dirty brown and
inferior in quality. Roth, who describes its preparation among the
Guiana Indians, considers it the same as the caruru salt mentioned
by Coudreau (Roth, 1924, p. 223), and it is probably the same as the
Trumai salt made from waterlilies (Quain, ms.; see Upper Xingii,
Handbook, vol. 3, p. 326). Numerous tribes, for instance the Nam-
bicuara, cannot bear the taste of salt, but tribes which do enjoy it
use native salt, bitter as it is, in large quantities. There is, in fact,
a strong contrast in the like and dislike of various tribes for **hot"
foods.
Peppers (Capsicum) are usually cultivated, but wild peppers
(Capsicum rabenii, C. baccatum) occur on the Brazil coast (Soares de
Souza, quoted by Hoehne, 1937, p. 218). The coastal Tupi used a
"long pepper which is crushed together with salt, pinches of which
are swallowed after each mouthful"; this may be Piper longum or
the bitter grass jambi or nhamby (Eryngium foetidum) , which was
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 483
also known to be used as a condiment (Hoehne, 1937, pp. 157-158,
252). Jambi has also been identified as Ageratum conyzoides.
The Nambicuara flavor "tonka beans," known in Brazil as cumaru
(Dipteryx odorata), by crushing handfuls of them with grasshoppers.
The Tupi-Cawahih add tocari (Brazil nut, Beriholletia excelsa) to
maize when preparing maize beer (L6vi-Strauss, ms.).
There are other condiments of animal or mineral origin.
POISONS
The composition of ciu-are has been the object of many discussions.
Sampaio (1916) lists the following plants which are used in the
preparation of the curare of the Nambicuara and Paressi: Strychnos,
Lisianthus virgatus, Cassia rugosa, Dioscorea sp., and species of
Apocynaceae, Marcgraviaceae, and Sapindaceae. Vellard (1939),
however, has proved that the Nambicuara curare consists only of
the extract of a plant of the genus Strychnos. There is no doubt
that this and other species of Strychnos {S. medeola, S. toxifera, S.
cogens, S. crevauxi) provide the active element in the preparation of
the more elaborate poison of the Amazon Basin.
Dance, quoted by W. E. Roth (1924, p. 151), makes mention of
two other arrow poisons: the heauru-canali and the hurubuh, similar
to the hog tannia.
"Bresillet" or carasco (guao of the Taino) was perhaps used as an
arrow poison, and Oviedo mentions it as a cosmetic for whitening
the skin (Roumain, 1942, p. 29). It is doubtful if the poisonous
manceniller (Hippomane mancinella) was ever used for arrow poison.
A poisonous bamboo used in the Guianas as an arrow point is said
to be Guadua latifolia (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 151); Roth quotes
Barr^re that arrows were poisoned in Cayenne with the milk of the
pougouly tree {Ficus venenata) and with several other ingredients.
Among other poisons were Thevetia ahouai (eastern Brazil), T.
peruviana (northern Brazil and West Indies), and T. bicornuta (Mato
Grosso), commonly known in Brazil as "Chapeu de Napoleao,"
which Thevet (1878) stated were used for revenge in love affairs.
The Nambicuara used the rosin of certain Bombacaceae as a magical
poison, and there are many other unidentified native poisons, such
as pakuru-neard, a cardiac poison of the Choco mentioned but not
identified by Nordenskiold (1930) and studied by Santesson (1929).
In Surinam there was an especially poisonous arum called punkin.
Arum venenatum surinamense (Roth, W. E,, 1924, p. 564). Most
poisons are kept secret by the natives.
Several wild grasses are known as poisonous to animals.
The so-called fishing poisons include a large number of plants
794711—50—32
484 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
the physiological action of which is not at all identical. Some are
true poisons, some act only by suffocating the fish.
Hoehne (1937, pp. 98-99) lists for Brazil three groups of fish
poisons: guarana timbo (Dahlstedtia pinnata); many species of
Tephrosia, in particular Tephrosia toxicaria; and the group of the
"timbo do cerrado" comprising Magonia puhescens, Indigqfera les-
pedezoides, and a species of Sapindaceae.
The Tephrosia species are known under the name of tingui in most
parts of Brazil and as yarro-conalli by the Macushi. The barbasco
of eastern Bolivia and the upper Amazon is Serjania perulacea. In
Peril the name barbasco is also given to Tephrosia toxicaria. The
ochoho of eastern Bolivia is Hura crepitans.
In the Guianas, the following fish poisons were identified:
Tephrosia, haiari, heri, nako (kumu or cube of Peru) {Lonchocarpus
nicou, L. densiflorus, L. rufescens)
,
quanami, gonami, kunalli, etc.
{Clibadium asperum, C. Surinam ense). On the Demerara, cumapuru
{Phyllanthus conami) leases are bruised with leaves of kunami, a
shrub, and the dried light pericarp of the arisauru (Derris pterocarpas)
,
which give buoyancy to the mass, and cast into the river along with
pellets of dough to tempt the fish and to paralyze and kill them
(Roth, W. E., 1924, pp. 203-204); baiara-baUi {Muellera frutescans)
is an Arawak poison. According to Gumilla, alligators were shot
with arrows made of poison bamboo (Roth, W. E., 1924, pp. 202-207).
There are several antidotes for poison, among them a decoction of
Potalia amara leaves for cassava poisoning, the only one identified
by W. E. Roth (1924, p. 711). (See Medicines, below.)
MEDICINES
Early travelers were surprised at the number of herbs known to
the Indians and by the fact that the natives always used "simple"
remedies, each employing only one plant at a time, whereas Europeans
relied more on semimagical combinations of several herbs.
Few primitive people have acquired as complete a Imowledge of the
physical and chemical properties of their botanical environment as
the South American Indian. With the exception perhaps of the
cinchona bark {Cinchona sp., several Rubiaceae, especially "cascarilla"
of the Spaniards, Cinchona puhescens), there is no species used in
modem pharmacopoeia which was not famUiar to the natives in
pre-Columbian days. Furthermore, it is probable that only a fraction
of the herbs used by modern Indians are presently known and ex-
ploited. The following list is only partial and fragmentary, and it is
limited to the species mentioned most frequently in the literature.
For most internal disorders, the natives administer an emetic
followed by a purgative. The principal emetic is the root of the
Vol.6] USE OF WILD PLANTS—LEVI-STRAUSS 485
ipeca or poaia (Cephaelis ipecacuanha), but in certain regions of the
Guianas, the Indians use the bark of the wallaba tree {Eperua sp.),
a small creeper (Vandellm sp.) and tobacco juice (Roth, W. E., 1924,
p. 704). Other emetics known to the Indians in central Brazil are
Cissampelos glaberrima, Manettia ignita, the kaamara' tai (Asclepias
curassavica) , and kaa' chsa {Chiococca anguifuga).
A great many purgatives are laiown to the Indians: several Caya-
ponia (tayuya of the Tupi); cassia (taracu, Cassia occidentalis)
;
several kinds of nuts, such as anda-uassu (Johannesia princeps) and
"pinhao do Uruguay" (Jatropha curcas); jeticucu or "batata da
purga" (Operculina convolvulus); several species of Ipomoea; sarsa-
parilla {Herreria salsaparilha) and its numerous substitutes {Smilaoi
aspera). Against worms the Indians use gameleira branca, the latex
of Ficus anthelmintica or F. glabrata, F. dolaria and of some other
Moraceae, the seeds of Andira, etc.
For gastric disturbances, the Brazilian Indians take paico
(Chenopodium) and Dryopteris; the Guiana Indians, Jatropha gossypi-
folium, Boerhaavia hirsuta, Chelonanthus alatus, Allamanda aubletii;
and the margitial Indians of the Tropical Forest area, yerba del moro
(Amaranthus sp.) or urutu (Alternathera repens).
For healing wounds, the Brazilian Indians used besides balsams
(q. V.) the crushed seeds of Mucuna altissima, tupixaba (Scoparia
dulcis), hiboucouhu (Virola sp.), crushed seeds of the toxic fruits of
Carapa guianensis, pounded and parched leaves of Pipe?' jaborandi,
and Pilocarpus pennatifolius.
Astringent herbs of native pharmacopoeia are camara (Lantana
camara), Polypodium crassifolium, Oxalis tuberosa, and 0. angusti-
olium.
To stop bleeding, the Indians used Arenaria lanuginosa, Oenothera
rosea, Chrysophyllum glycyphloeum, and some mushrooms {Polyporus
coccineus and Geaster saccatus).
Among the drugs used to cure eye pains, a constant complaint of
South American Indians, Roth mentions red-pepper juice, the leaves
of mokumoku {Caladium arborescens) , a decoction of Wansimai roots,
and the purplish red juice of kuruwatii (Renealmia exaltata). A plant
"similar to a palm tree" {Jatropha urens, according to Hoehne) serves
the same purpose.
Febrifuges include decoctions of the barks of Diospyros paralea,
Scoparia dulcis, Lisianthus purpurascens, Tachia guianensis, Strychnos
pseudo-guina. Cassia amara, amapaima or casca preciosa (Cryptocarya
pretiosa), Uvaria febrifuga, and Nectandra rodiaei, and infusions of
Eryngium foetidum, Byrsonima crassifolia, and guarana (Paullinia
sorbilis). Other febrifuges listed in the literature are: quina (Hortia
brasiliana), quinaquina {Myroxylon sp.), "quina do matto" {Esen-
486 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
heckiajehrijuga) , taperihud {Cassia sp.), coroba {Jacaranda oxyphylla),
caapeva {Pothomorphe sidaefolia), caapomonga {Plumbago scandens),
and camara {Lantana sp.).
Against diarrhea and dysentery, the Indians made infusions of
the bark of Byrsonima crassifolia, Amhelania acida, Jatropha curcas,
Stachytarpheta jamaicensis, Cephelis ipecachuanha, and Acrodiclidum
camara or Akawai nutmeg, and of the seeds of greenheart {Nectandra)
;
also of the sap of the wild nutmeg as a mouth wash and a cure for
"yaws" (Roth, W. E., 1924, p. 709).
Antidotes used in Guiana for snake and spider bites, sting-ray
wounds, and poisonous arrows are: Dracontium duhium, Byrsonima
crassifolia, Rhizophora magle, and Potalia amara (Roth, W, E., 1924,
pp. 710-711). The Yahape used Kyllinga odorata and caapia {Dor-
stenia sp.).
Sedatives known in Brazil include guaxima {Urena lobata) and
ubirataya or ibirarta-iba {Pilocarpus pennatifolius) . Abutua {Chon-
drodendron platyphyllum) and Verbena erinoides are appetizers. To
cure venereal diseases, the Indians used the bark of hyvourahi {Pradosia
glyciphloea, according to Hoehne) and several species of Bignoniaceae.
Other special plant uses are: Aphrodisiacs {Justicia pectoralis
and Jatropha sp.), contraceptive {Stenomesson variegatum), cure of
toothache (mohomoho or jaborandiba, Piper spp.), hernia remedy
(samambaia, Pteridium aquilinum), and cure of pidmonary afflictions
{Gnaphalium spicatum), blisters {Ranunculus pilosus), scurvy {Nas-
turtium pumilum and N. officinale), hemorrhoids {Tillandisa usneoides),
and catarrh {Mirabilis peruviana).
Several species of Datura and Thevetia are used for their anesthetic
properties.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agassiz, 1869; Barbosa Rodrigues, 1898 a, 1898 b; Bertoni, M. S., 1927 a;
Bodenbender, 1940; Chevalier, 1936; Cooper, 1942 a, 1942 b; Costa and Faria,
1936; Costantin and Dubois, 1910; Cr^vaux, 1883; Dobrizhoflfer, 1822; Dubois
(see Costantin and Dubois, 1910); Faria (see Costa and Faria, 1936); Florence,
1875 and 1876; Gumilla, 1791; Herrera, 1940; Hoehne, 1909-30, 1919, 1932, 1937;
Joyce, 1934, Lacerda, 1909; L6vi-Strauss, ms.; Marcgrav (see Piso and Marcgrav,
1648); Martins, 1823-50, 1824-32, 1824, 1840-1906, 1858, 1867, 1939, also in
Orbigny, 1847; Matta, 1913; MuUer, 1928; Nimuendaju, Hdk., v.3; Nordenskiold,
1918, 1919, 1920, 1924 a, 1929 a, 1930, 1931; Orbigny, 1835-47, vol. 7; Pardal,
1937; Peckolt, 1871; PetruUo, 1932; Pio Correa, 1909, 1931; Piso and Marcgrav,
1648; Pittier, 1926; Quain, ms; Reimburg, 1921; Rivet, 1925 d; Rochebrune, 1879;
Rodriguez, P., 1915; Roth, W. E., 1915, 1924; Roumain, 1942; Rugendas, 1835;
SaflFord, 1916, 1917 c, 1917 d, 1927; Saint-Hilaire, 1827-32, 1833; Sampaio, A. J.
de, 1916; Santesson, 1929; Sauer, 1936, 1937; Schiaffino, 1927; Schmidt, M., 1905;
Soares de Souza, 1851; Spruce, 1908; Staden, 1928; Steinen, 1894; Stout, 1938;
Thevet, 1878; Uhle, 1889-90; Vavilov, 1926; Vellard, 1939; Wallace, 1889.
CULTIVATED PLANTS OF SOUTH
AND CENTKAL AMERICA
By Carl O. Sauer
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important, most difficult, and least-known classes
of culture traits is the body of plants taken under native cultivation.
The following sections attempt a review of some of these plants as
living artifacts which give evidence of culture origins and diffusions
independently of, and sometimes contradictory to, the conventional
records of archeology, linguistics, and ethnography. The evidence at
hand is shockingly fragmentary, considering the importance of the
material to an understanding of culture history, and the conclusions
here offered are to be considered rather as queries than assertions.
The evidence considered has been of the following kinds:
(1) Observations that were made before a significant displacement
of crop plants took place through European influence. Not only are
the Spanish chronicles, and to a lesser extent those of the Portuguese
and French, remarkable in the sharpness and detail of such observa-
tions, but for all Spanish colonies the Relaciones geogrdficas of the
end of the 16th century made formal and systematic inquiry as to
native and introduced field crops and fruit trees (Jimenez de la
Espada collected four volmnes of these for South America and pro-
vided masterly notes, 1881-97). In addition, there are the priceless
natural histories for Spanish America of Oviedo y Vald6s, the first
version of which was completed in 1525, the last in 1548; of Soares
de Souza for Brazil in 1587, and of the Jesuits, Acosta in 1590 and
Cobo in 1596-1653. These give an approximately continuous series
of competent observations from 1514, the year when Oviedo first
came to Darien, to 1653, when Father Cobo ended his long activity
of noting New World agriculture. Perhaps no other part of the world
has an equal wealth of such data for that time. (In bibliographic
references to these works, the date of the modern edition will be used.)
(2) Archeological materials, mostly limited to the desert Coast of
Peru and Chile. Not only were organic remains preserved here by
reason of aridity, but the cultures of Nasca, Moche, and Chimu
utilized plant motifs for decoration or reproduced them plastically
with fidelity and frequency. These have been briefly examined by
487
488 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
the writer in the west Coast museums, and even more cursorily in the
field. The excellent study by Yacovleff and Herrera, "El Alundo
Vegetal de los Antiguos Peruanos" (1934-35), is one of the founda-
tion stones of the present paper.
(3) Regional studies of native cultivated plants and agriculture:
Richard Latcham for Chile and adjacent lands (1936 b), F. C. Hoehne
for Brazil (1937), Lorenzo Parodi for Argentina (1935), Fortunato
Herrera for Peru (1921, 1934, 1942), and A. E. Nordenskiold for
South America in general.
(4) Systematic botanical studies that have regarded the historical
agency of man as a distributing and modifying agent: W. E. Safford,
(1917 a, 1917 b, 1925), O. F. Cook (1901, 1910, 1925), Wilson Popenoe,
(1921, 1924), Oakes Ames (1939), Paul Standley (1920-26, 1928,
1937-38), and Fortunato Herrera (1921, 1934, 1942) being especially
noteworthy for their awareness of the role of man in plant distributions
and modifications.
(5) Genetic studies, which are increasingly throwing light on cul-
tural processes and contacts. Maize, cotton, and tobacco are already
sufficiently known as to hereditary composition and geographic dis-
tribution so that important conclusions may be drawn as to their
origin and spread. The forms that have been established through
selection by the primitive cultivators are actually culture traits, with
the peculiar advantage that they continue to exist long after the
aboriginal population has disappeared. They may also reveal cul-
tural origins and movements far antecedent to the usual data of
archeology. The attempt has been made, therefore, to evaluate not
only the gross distribution of species, but to use the results of genetic
studies where these are sufficiently advanced to give an insight into
the diversification of a cultivated species.
The evidence presented in this paper is weakest for eastern South
America, especially for Brazil. Less advanced native agricultures,
early fading of native populations, the limited number of botanical
observations focused on the differences between cultivated and wild
plants, and unfamiliarity on the part of the author with this part of
Latin America are the reasons for the gaps in treatment.
Cultivated plants may be classed under four groups, though the
knowledge is inadequate at present thus to allocate many, if not most,
of the plants under cultivation: (1) The unmodified wild species which
is planted for convenience of harvesting or for increase of producing
units, or which may be allowed to increase by protecting a wild stand.
The number of such plants is almost indefinitely large, especially
among woody species. Here man serves only to enlarge the local
population of the given species or to extend its range by carrying it
to settlements and clearings where it did not grow originally. (2)
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 489
Domestication takes place when, in addition to the care and planting
of the wild species, local improved races are created. These may
replace the unmodified wild form in certain areas, but not in others.
Here man definitely appears as an agent of selection. (3) Full domes-
tication is achieved when the wild form, though still existent, is
discarded for purposes of cultivation, and only improved mutants
or hybrids are grown. (4) Finally, there are the cultigens of which
the wild ancestors are lost, and which in most cases depend on the
care of man for their continued existence. In numerous cases these
have lost the capacity to produce seeds or are otherwise unable to
maintain themselves.
We are only at the beginning of the study of the cultivation of
plants. Those grown by man have been much less well recorded than
the wild flora. Field botanists tend to pass them by, unless they are
suspected of being wild; students of native peoples too rarely have
known enough about plants, their tillage, and use to identify or collect
the material needed. The question as to whether a plant occurs
wild or as an escape from cultivation is in very many cases unanswered
and may be answered only by a painstaking comparison of the culti-
vated with the wild-growing form and its locale. Valid cultural
historical data can be secured only by gradually building up records
of the variations within each Idnd of plant and their geographic
distributions. In the main, the definitive labeling of the relationship
of one form to another will have to be done by genetic study, as is
now being done for maize and cotton. A hundred field observations
and collections are needed where we now have one, and these need
to be communicated to plant specialists and then reinterpreted in
terms of culture history. For error in the following pages no apology
is offered if they stimulate observation of the basic cultural process
of modifying native plant materials to suit economic needs and
preferences.
MAIZE
Maize, the great food staple of the American Indian, was grown to
the farthest limits of New World agriculture, with the exception of the
excessively cold Highlands of the Andes. Its range in latitude was
from the lower St. Lawrence and upper Missouri Rivers southward
to the Island of Chiloe. The latter area demanded perhaps even a
greater adaptive selection than did the high northern latitudes, for
the summers of Chiloe are not only short, but extremely cool with
few, brief, and uncertain stretches of sunny weather.^
> Latcham, who knew the southern part of Chile well a half century ago, thinks that the maize grown there
was the old form known as curahua in Araucanian, a round-seeded pop or flint corn of reduced size of plant
and ear and of precocious growth, maturing in about 4 months (1936 b, pp. 136-137) . He seems to have over-
looked the implication of a quotation he uses elsewhere from Cart6s Hogea relating to Chilo§ in 1558. This
first visitor to the island spoke of a large supply of big {crecido) maize and of large ears.
490 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The famous "sacred corn of the Incas," grown in sheltered sun-
warmed slopes above Lake Titicaca, marks the highest limits of the
grain (about 3,900 m. or 12,700 feet). It is grown there not only on
the islands, but in terraces above Puno. The Titicaca maize has
been at times referred to as though, for ritual and traditional reasons,
it was grown here at altitudes far above those attained elsewhere.
Maize is a crop of importance, however, in the upper Vilcanota Valley
well above Sicuani (3,574 m. or 11,615 feet). Farther down valley,
Cuzco is in the heart of a region of flourishing and diverse cultivation
of both maize and potatoes. Indeed, almost the whole length of the
Vilcanota-Urubamba depression is brimming with many kinds of
maize, from the edge of the puna to the tropical lowlands.
The Andean vaUeys of south Peril, of Bolivia, and of North Chile
(Highlands of Tarapacd and the upper Loa VaUey) mature maize at
considerably higher altitudes than is possible in more equatorial
regions. In these margins of the tropical zone, longer summer days
and greater summer warmth are found than in the equatorial High-
lands. Near the Equator, where there is no summer season, maize
culture hardly reaches 3,000 m. (9,750 feet), as about Quito. Bogotd,
at 2,660 m. (8,645 feet), is near the upper limit for central Colombia.
In Ecuador and Colombia the inflow of cloud-forming air from the
tropical lowlands also depresses the day temperatiu-es. In contrast
to the south, in the northern Andes are grown types of corn that
take nearly the entire year to mature. Here there are also extremely
dwarfed types, growing only knee high. Seeds of such types, brought
from the Quito area and planted at Pasadena, however grew to plants
of normal height.
Although maize is but a single botanical species, and one that
normally is cross-fertilized, yet geographical separation, differences
in time of flowering, and preferences of the native cultivators have
formed in time and preserved to the present an extraordinary variety
of forms, hardly equaled among cultivated plants. The tracing of
kinship and diversity in this wealth of forms promises much new light
on the history of man and of agriculture. Maize has been the subject
of a vast amount of study by geneticists, and is the best-known plant
as to its genetic constitution. At the moment, these studies are in
full course of being directed to the analysis of its origin and diversi-
fication. Especially Paul Mangelsdorf, Edgar Anderson, and asso-
ciates are making notable contributions thereby to genetics and
anthropology (Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939; Mangelsdorf and
Cameron, 1942; Anderson and Cutler, 1942). Any future considera-
tion of maize as relating to Indian culture must be based on a knowl-
edge of these remarkable investigations, too comprehensive to be
summarized here, but basic to the remarks that follow. They are
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 491
supplemented by personal observations in the Andes, the South
American west coast, and Mexico. These remarks, it is hoped, may
invite a study of the relevant genetic literature.
There is sadly little in most written accounts of maize that helps
to recognize the particular kind under consideration. The older
historical records rarely noted more than the color of the grain, or
occasionally the time it took to mature and some items on its utility
in food and drink. Field botanists were little interested, since it was
a cultivated plant. Ethnologists have had small curiosity about the
plant and its habits, and not a great deal about its uses in the kitchen.
The simple things we need to know about Indian corns in all parts
of the New World for the most part remain to be gathered: the habit
of growth of stalk, leaf morphology, the nature of tassel and ear with
its husks and silk, plant color, tillering, shape of the cob, arrangement
of the seeds, and their shapes. Less significant are the items most
commonly noted, i. e., the color of the seed and the nature of its
endosperm (excepting in popcorns).
The work of Mangelsdorf showing that Teosinte (Euchlena) is not
an ancestor of maize but a hybrid between maize and a species of
Tripsacum, has clarified the problem of origin and classification. It
has removed the strongest argument for considering Central America
as the place of origin for maize. Perhaps even more significantly, it
has laid the basis for distinguishing between "pure" maize and the
forms that have Tripsacum admixture in varying amount. This is
interpreted as due to a backcrossing into maize from Teosinte, and
hence the "secondary" maize varieties may have been developed in
Guatemala (and central Mexico?). Cytologically, a fundamental
distinction is made between the pure maize with knobless chromosomes
and the Tripsacum admixed forms that have knobby chromosomes.
Morphologic differences further distinguished the Tripsacum-free
maizes from the tripsacoid ones.
The nontripsacoid maizes are considered as the older group, and
they seem to occur especially (though not generally) at the outer
peripheries of corn cultivation, in highland situations, especially with
cultural isolation, and widely in South America, but much less so in
North America. Tripsacoid qualities, in so far as knoAvn, are strongly
present in tropical maizes, supporting that cultivation spread from
temperate climates into hot ones.
The "pure" maize probably involves the following characteristics:
Knobby joints and a somewhat zigzag stalk, hairy leaf sheaths and
stiffish leaves, purplish color in all or several parts of the plant,
coarse root system, ears of pyramidal shape (markedly tapering
and having a heavy butt), soft, brittle cobs and long glumes, irregu-
larly rowed seeds, and erect tassels. A tripsacoid maize by con-
492 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
trast is likely to exhibit slender, canelike growth, elastic and little
subject to breaking or lodging, often of bright green color; cylindrical
ears; dense woody cobs and short glumes; seeds in straight rows;
widely branching tassels; and free tillering.
According to Mangelsdorf and Cameron (1942, pp. 237-238), the
pure South American maize spread to Guatemala and hybridized
with Tripsacum growing about the maize fields. By repeated back-
crossing, Teosinte was formed, and from it new forms of maize arose
by further crossing. They state:
New varieties came into existence in which the seeds were smaller, more
inclined to be indented, more uniform in size and shape and arranged in straight
rows on the rachis. The cobs became firmer and less susceptible to shattering,
the stalks became tough and resistant to lodging, the leaf-sheaths became gla-
brous instead of pubescent and the plants became resistant to smut. These new
tripsacoid varieties were much superior to the pure maize at lower altitudes,
and rapidly replaced it, if indeed it was ever extensively grown there.
These new forms then spread both north and south, especially at
low altitudes, and extended the range far beyond that of the "original"
Andean kinds.
Dent corns are a highly complex group needing much additional
collecting and study. Some are secondary hybrids of maize and
Teosinte. Denting (a depression in the mature kernel) is based on
the inheritance of a number of genes. The Russian geneticists
established the greatest diversity of this type as located in Mexico.
There is a strong correspondence between the major area of denting
and that of the preparation of hominy by soaking in lime or wood
ash (nixtamal in Mexico). Mangelsdorf and Reeves (1939) point
out the rarity of dent corn in the Andean area, though it must be
noted that denting is quite common in prehistoric corn of the Coastal
desert of Peru (as in the large finds at Paracas). The implication is
that the immigration from a secondary center (from Guatemala?)
took place at a rather remote time.
The tropical flint corns are another group showing Tripsacum
introgression. They dominate the shores of the Caribbean, and may
have been almost the only maize of the West Indies. Vavilov and
Kulashev consider that this was the parent of the maize introduced
into Spain and now grown all about the Mediterranean. In the tropi-
cal valleys of Colombia it is very tall, with thin but very elastic
stalks, bright green color, loose tassels, and produces long, cylindrical
ears, with rather large, flinty, honey-yellow kernels. A similar corn
was probably before the eyes of Oviedo y Valdes when he wrote
(1851-55, bk. 7, ch. 1) of a stalk like a lance, more or less the thickness
of the thumb, growing much taller than a man and with leaves greener
than that of sugarcane. The flintiness of these types makes them
especially weevil resistant, and hence most suitable for storage in hot
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 493
climates. To what extent the flinty corns of the Andean lands
(morocho) are of the secondary types remains to be investigated. It
is probable that they include both pre- and post-Tripsacum forms.
We know that numerous kinds of flour corn (capia, in Quechua),
popcorn, and sweet corn are of very wide aboriginal distribution and
undoubtedly were often selected at different places and times for cul-
tivation. They have as yet little diagnostic value. Some of the
popcorns, however, are old, as shown by their archcological frequency
in Peru and Chile. Edgar Anderson, in studies under way, is finding
that certain forms of popcorn are genetically primitive.
Mangelsdorf has revived the hypothesis that the most primitive
corn is pod or tunicate. He further suggests that this may have
existed wild and, indeed, that it may perhaps still be discovered grow-
ing wild, perhaps in the Parana-Paraguay Basins. He cites five
references to its cultivation by the Guarani Indians, the name "pising-
allo" there being given to it, and its general suitability to the climate
of that area with long, warm, and rainy summers, and a following
dry season.
A pod-corn-like ancestor may well have existed. There are many
cobs and ears in the desert archcological sites of both Peru and Chile
showing excessively large, long glumes, also soft, brittle, extremely
thin, and perhaps hollow cobs, and sharply up-curved pointed seeds.
This hawk's-bill type of seed is still common in the Highland corns,
as about Quito and Cuzco.
The location of the cradle of maize in the Guarani land appears
unwarranted. Its position is quite peripheral to agriculture as a
whole and to the distribution of advanced cultm-e traits and complexes.
There are many areas as suitable ecologically. The distribution of
pod corn in cultivated maize is very wide, and extended to North
American Indians, as Mangelsdorf points out. The term "pisingallo"
is probably Quechua and is known at least as far as Antioquia in
Colombia.
It seems more reasonable, therefore, to consider that maize origi-
nated sufficiently far away from the Equator to have a weU-marked
contrast between a warm, rainy summer, and a dry, cool fall (but no
cold winter). Northward, it is difficult to locate an area suitable as
to climate and soil much short of Guatemala. Southward, however,
such a condition exists, especially south of lat. 10° S. in the large
eastern valleys of the Andes of Peru, such as the Urubamba. In this
valley, incidentally, maize growing is not restricted to irrigation,
as Mangelsdorf appears to think. There are sections of secure and
sufficient rainfall, and the flood plains generally have sufficient flood-
ing and subu'rigation.
Present evidence points to a dissemination in all directions of the
494 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
early forms from an unknown center, and especially their successful
specialization in the upper parts of the temperate and the lower part
of the cold zones. In the northward migration a new group of forms
developed in Guatemala, Mexico, and the North American Southwest,
especially by backcrosses with Teosinte (Euchlena). These new forms,
especially the tropical flint corns, but also dent forms, were then dis-
tributed southward as weU as northward. The former suppUed an
admirable grain suited to moist tropical lowlands. They penetrated
the West Indies, but apparently did not pass to the adjacent mainland
of the United States. They also became the chief grain of BrazU, it
would appear. The other tripsacoid corn distributions are not
suJS&ciently well known for South America to make any conclusion at
present.^
The original home of maize is a greater puzzle at present, with
genetic studies continually enlarging the phylogenetic picture, than
ever before. It was probably not tropical, nor did it come from land
deficient in rain, but we cannot say that it began in the northern or
the southern hemisphere nor can it even be attributed with certainty
to the New World as long as certain matters concerning Southeastern
Asia remain unsolved. It is likely, however, that the origin of maize
wiU be discovered in a fairly near future.
As to the uses of maize, we have also only fragments of information.
The Spanish annalists give the impression that more of it was drunk
and less eaten in the West Indian-South American area than in the
Mexican-Central American area. "Chicha" is an island Arawak
word. The first Spanish visitors, such as Cieza de Le6n, were im-
pressed by the drinking powers of the Indians in Colombia. The
records on chicha in the Tnca-dominated lands are numerous and weU
known. In general, flint corns appear to have been most used. The
distribution of sprouting and roasting, of chewing the grain, and of
the fermentation of (roasted and unroasted ?) meal needs further
study, as does the occurrence of wine from green cornstalks. Parch-
ing entire ripe grain and popping are also much more emphatically
South American than Middle American. It would seem also that the
boiling and roasting of ears in the milk stage consumed a larger share
of the crop in South American practice than of that to the north.
Certainly today corn is more a vegetable and less a grain than it is in
Mexico. Whether the preparation of hominy by soaking in lye or
lime water, and its subsequent grinding while moist, were known
aboriginally in South America is stiU doubtful. It seems that maize
> Unpublished work by Hugh Cutler has shown the wide occurrence of a species of Tripsacum along the
eastern base of the Andes. It is possible, therefore, that the earliest tripsacoid traits were acquired in South
America and that additions took place when corn was mingled with the Tripsacum of Guatemala.
Vol.61 CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 495
was nowhere, south of Honduras, the staple foodstuff that it was
further north.
LESSER SEED CROPS
Grasses, other than maize, were cultivated in the New World only,
insofar as known, in Chile and in the Sonoran region: (1) A domestic
cereal grass has been collected lately among the Varohio tribe of
northwest Mexico and identified as Panicum sonorum (Gentry, 1942,
p. 64). (2) Teca is a lost winter cereal of ChUe, well documented
in early accounts and there called a form of small barley or oats, but
not known to have survived to the latter part of the 18th century
(Latcham, 1936 b, pp. 161-163). It was roasted, ground, and mixed
with water as a drink (ulpo) (Lenz, 1904-10, 2: 714, 758), similar to
the pinole of the Mexicans. (3) Somewhat better loDOwn is the
Chilean mango, which was foimd by Gay in 1837 still grown in Childe,
and identified by him as Bromus mango (Gay, 1854). His type speci-
mens have been preserved, and there are rumors that the plant is not
extinct. It was a biennial; and it also was drunk as ulpo, used some-
what for making chicha, and was baked in pones. Latcham (1936 b,
pp. 159-161) calls attention to the fact that it was not mentioned by
the early chroniclers, who, with one exception, however, did not know
the Indians of South Chile (such as Chilote).
Chile also is the home of madi {Madia sativa), a species of
Compositae grown for its oily seeds. A wild form is known in Cal-
ifornia as tarweed. This plant was cultivated from Central Chile
south to Childe Its seeds were ground, cooked, and mixed with
other meal. It is a fairly good source of edible oil, though there is no
evidence that the Indians pressed the oil and used it separately. The
Mexican chia {Salvia hispanica, though not a native of Spain)
is stni an Indian crop grown well southward into Central America.
Its gelatinous seeds are valued as food for infants and the infirm.
Chile holds a singular position in the cultivation of seed crops.
In addition to maize its aborigines grew quinoa (see below), mango,
teca, and madi, the last three peculiar to that country. The inference
is that these are ancient crops native to that land and that they
preceded the cultivation of the more productive maize and quinoa.
Chile has a rainfall regime opposite to that of the rest of South
America, with the dry season in summer. Its endemic crops were
planted in the cool and rainy season (spring, or even winter) and
matured in summer. Later, we may imagine, they were gradually
replaced by quinoa and maize, both introduced from Perd. The
adjustment was not difficult in the case of quinoa, which is grown on
the Andean Highlands at minimal vegetative temperatures and met
similar conditions in Coastal Chile. In the case of maize, however,
the passage from the irrigated, warm summer lands of the north to
496 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
nonirrigated cultivation in the cool south undoubtedly required long
selection.
The goosefoot and amaranth families have yielded a number of
cultivated plants, grown mostly for their seed but also used as greens.
They served in Indian cooking, and still do in part, as substitutes for
spinach. The most important is the Andean quinoa or quinua
(Chenopodium quinoa), replacing maize in the higher mountains; it
was formerly cultivated from the Chibcha Highlands of Colombia to
the southernmost limit of agriculture in Argeutina ^ and on the
Pacific Coast as far as Chil6e. It may be noted that in higher lati-
tudes quinoa became adapted to the contrasted climates of central
Argentina (= mid-Texas) and ChUoe (= Oregon coast). It has now
retreated from the extremities of its earlier range, but is still a
characteristic food plant of the 7wca-dominated Highlands. Quinoa
is definitely a cultigen, with no close wild relative. Possibly it is the
same plant as the nearly lost Chenopodium nuttallii of the Valley of
Mexico.
Quinoa is a remarkably useful plant to the Highland Indians. It
needs little warmth for its growth, tolerates some frost, and yields
far more than any other grain in the Highlands. A gross feeder on
nitrogen, it is often planted in old enclosures used by llamas and
sheep. A number of varieties are distinguished, largely by color of
plant and seed
.
A large-growing, whitish-seeded form may be a long-
established selection from the general polymorphous stock. Fields
of quinoa give the only note of bright color to the puna landscape,
their color range nearly duplicating the autumn display of hardwoods
in the United States.
The seeds are bitter and require repeated washing. In addition to
being used as boiled grain and ground as meal, they are fermented in
making chicha. Ashes of the stalks are kneaded into pellets to be
chewed with coca beans. Archeological occurrences have been noted
by Safford (1917 b), Yacovleff and Herrera (1934-35, 3: 306-307),
and for Chile by Latcham (1936 b, p. 155).
Canihua, or canahua, has been recognized as a species (Chenopodium
pallidicaule) (in 1929 by Aellen). The old chroniclers usually named
it as a form of quinoa or as grown with the latter; Cobo (1893) for
instance, called it an "ashy-colored quinoa producing an especially
potent chicha," neither of which qualities seems to be especially
pertinent to the plant. Canihua is a much less vigorous plant than
quinoa, commonly growing only to a height of 1 to 2 feet; its seed
panicles are looser and smaller. It is especially used as a roasted
meal, is usually stirred in cold water, and, like the Mexican pinole,
' There is an account of the Indians of Cordoba cultivating quinoa (Jimfinez dc la Espada, 1881-97, 2:
151).
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 497
is a mainstay of Indians in their travels. The plant is less exacting
of fertile soil, I should judge, than quinoa and even more resistant to
cold. It is common on the high puna of Bolivia and in the coldest
parts of southern Peni. There is a good summary of it by Cesar
Vargas, 1938.
Colonial records from north Mexico into Northwest Argentina
make brief note of the cultivation of amaranth, most commonly
designated as "bledo." The classical study is still Safford's "For-
gotten Cereal of Ancient America" (1917 b), which contams most of
what is known to this day. In central Mexico the Spaniards dis-
couraged its growth because of the ritual use of the meal in pagan
ceremonies, but it is by no means an uncommon Indian crop today,
and the cakes of huautli or tzoal are still seen in markets of many
towns and villages now celebrating Catholic feast days. It is one of
the major crops of the hill Mayo in southern Sonora, and probably
survives in Indian cropping throughout the hot summer lands of
Mexico and Central America. In the Andes, Fortimato Herrera
(1942) has identified it particularly with the Huanca people, and as
grown in the barrancas of Huancavelica, Junin, Ayacucho, and
Apurimac, below the levels of quinoa cultivation. It has a number
of Indian names in Perij, perhaps the commonest being "quihuicha."
The botanical position of the cultivated amaranth is still micertain
(Ames, 1939). There are a number of varieties, more or less inter-
gradmg, but whether these are distinct species is undetermined (such
as caudatus, paniculatus, hybridus, etc.). They are of ancient, possibly
very ancient, culture in Mexico and the Andes, but also in India and
other Asiatic monsoon lands; in each case they are deeply embedded
in native ways and bear old local names, and serve as cereal and pot-
herb among conservative and remote people. Ames points out that
the relationship of the crop amaranth remains to be determined for
both sides of the Pacific as part of the question of early trans-Pacific
cultural connections.
The possible role of amaranth in the beginnings of agriculture was
considered by SafFord. Gilmore (1931) has shown since that an
amaranth was cultivated in the Mississippi Valley along with other
weedy plants, before maize and beans were known there. The culti-
vated amaranths and chenopodiums are improved relatives of the
common pigweeds of barnyards and fields. They establish themselves
with ease on flood lands, rich in organic matter, wherever nature or
man provides an open sunlit space. The first attempts at growing
crops by primitive man are likely to have been on precisely such sites.
It seems likely however, that these first trials at cultivation would have
been made with some other plant, such as an edible root, more invit-
ing to culture than a small-seeded, weedy annual. In such case the
498 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
pigweeds would be thought of as entermg the primordial floodplain
clearing as volunteers, perhaps tolerated for their abundant seeds.
Yet the Mississippi Valley primitive horizons disclose no such crop,
but only the seeds of "weeds," judged from their augmented size to
have been selected and planted. Safford's surmise of the high age of
amaranth cultivation may be correct therefore. The cultivated
amaranth was developed not so much in the direction of great in-
crease in seed size as of the forming of large panicled heads, carrying
a great number of seeds. An individual crop amaranth plant is
probably not inferior in the weight of seed produced to a plant of
maize, and a field of amaranth in Indian cultivation is likely to out-
yield one of maize. Both amaranth and quinoa are efficient economic
mechanisms. Their failure to pass into the White man's agriculture
is apparently due to a disdain that attaches to them as food for
Indians, as in Peni and Bolivia, where public and private effort is
directed to the expansion of wheat and barley.
BEANS
Legumes were cultivated for edible seeds in every agricultur&l area
of the New World. The American domesticated plants include four
species of the common bean (Phaseolus), perhaps one jackbean
iCanavalia), the peanut (Arachis), and a lupine (Lupinus).
The lupine (Lupinus— species undetermined; Fortunato Herrera
first crUed it tauris, but later changed it to mutabilis) is restricted to
the high Andes from Ecuador to Bolivia, above the altitudes at which
the kidney bean can be grown. It is known in Quechua as "tarhui,"
in Spanish as "chocho" or "altramuz." This handsome plant is
usually interplanted with the dwarf Andean maize and grows to
about the same height. The very large white seeds are extremely
bitter and reputedly also poisonous (alkaloid?). They requii'e re-
peated soaking for a number of days to become palatable. It is
apparently a cultigen developed from a local wild lupine as a cold
land substitute for the kidney bean. With its large seeds and its
tolerance of low temperature and poor soUs it would be a valuable
crop plant had selection succeeded in getting rid of the bitterness of
the seed. Archeologically it is known from Tiahuanaco designs
(Yacovleff and Herrera, 1934-35, 3:305-306). In modern times it
has been replaced in large measure by the Old World broadbean
(Vicia faba) and field pea {Pisum arvense) which grow well in the
higher levels of Andean agriculture.
The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) is one of the few domesticated plants
attributed to Brazil, the nearest wild relative being found from Bahia
to Kio de Janeiro (Bukasov, 1930, pp. 177-179, after ChevaHer).
Indians in Mato Grosso and Santa Catarina have cultivated somewhat
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 499
divergent forms, which however are referred by ChevaHer in his mono-
graphic treatment to the species hypogaea. The peanut grown by the
Nambicuara of the Plateau of Parecis in Mato Grosso retains the
perennial habit, and may therefore be the most primitive form in
cultivation. If the Nambicuara, situated between Arawak tribes on
the west and Tupi southeastward, are the keepers of one primitive
cultigen, their study may yield further light on the origins of Brazilian
agriculture. The peanut was generally important in Tupi economy.
Soares de Souza gives a good early account of the plant and its use
in the Bahia area, stating that its culture was reserved to the women.
The peanut also was grown, it seems, throughout Arawak territory
into the Antilles, whence the name "mani" under which it is commonly
known in Spanish America.
It was also well established in the warm valleys flanking the Central
Andes on both sides, and therefore a familiar product by trade in the
Highlands. Large quantities of it are found in the tombs of Coastal
Peril. They indicate therefore a cultural connection between eastern
Brazil and Coastal Peru of considerable antiquity. Ames (1939, pp.
47-48) has pointed out the resemblance of the Peruvian archeological
forms to the kind of peanut grown in the Orient and suggests the need
of comparative morphologic-genetic studies. (See also Bois, 1927-28,
1 : 94-96, who recognizes after Dubard a Brazilian and a Peruvian
subspecies, the latter the cultivated form in the Orient.) The assump-
tion that it was introduced into the Malayan, Indo-Chinese, and south
China areas by Whites rests on no specific evidence. Bukasov (1930,
p. 178), following Kivet, suspects the possibility of a pre-Columbian
trans-Pacific dissemination that reached Africa. In view of its wide
and important establishment about the China Sea and Indian Ocean,
the weakness of its penetration into continental North America is
remarkable. In Mexico it has been only an incidental food item, not
appearing for instance on Montezuma's list of tributes. Its Mexican
name "TlalcacahuatP (ground cacao), suggests late introduction.
Nor was it grown north of central Mexico, though soil and climate
are suitable. There is a strong suggestion that it belonged in the
complex of manioc cultivation (both bitter and sweet) in its New
World distribution.
The jackbean (Canavalia ensiformis) belongs to a tropical genus,
with both American and Old World species. The taxonomy of the
cultivated Canavalias remains unsettled. By some they are all
placed in one species, by others in two, ensiformis usually considered
of New World, gladiata (swordbean) as of Old World origin. The
morphologic distinctions are minor and have not been tested genetic-
ally. One of the points of difference usually brought out is that the
seed color of the New World jackbean is white, and that of the Old
794711—50 33
500 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
World brown, pinkish, spotted, etc. However, the graves of Coastal
Peru yield numerous lots of colored and spotted jackbeans. (In the
Uhle collection at the University of California are two large lots of
Canavalia, one consistently particolored, dark brown mottled on
light brown, and the other a single color, now like old saddle leather.)
See also the illustrations and text in Yacovleff and Herrera (1934-35,
3: 290-291), where in addition particolored beans of present cultiva-
tion are noted. The bean has also been determined archeologically
for the southwestern^United States (Whiting, 1939). No notice seems
to have been taken of the plant by Spanish chroniclers, nor do I
know of the survival of native names. It survives, on a very small
scale, in cultivation from Mexico to Peru and Brazil, including the
West Indies (Bukasov, 1930, p. 177, in part after Piper). Apparently
it is a cultigen, with occasional escapes. Its archeological distribution
and relation to wild species indicate the jackbean as a New World
domesticate. Future studies may determine whether the Old World
forms are derivativeTfrom the New World stock. The New World
forms have a low repute as a food, but I am not aware that definitely
poisonous qualities are ascribed to them. In some of the Old World
forms toxic quahties (HCN ?) have been claimed.
Aside from its size the jackbean has little to recommend it as a
foodstuff. It is not clear why its domestication should have been
undertaken or its culture maintained at the side of the lima and
kidney beans, which grow in the same areas. However, very little
is known of its role in native economies. May it have been a more
ancient tropical domesticate than the other beans, and simply con-
tinued to be grown out of conservatism of habit after the better beans
were available?
The true beans include four American domesticates: (1) Phaseolus
vulgaris, the common, kidney, navy, string, or snap bean; (2) P.
lunatus, the hma bean; (3) P. multiflorus (or coccineus), the scarlet
runner bean; and (4) P. acutifolius var. latifolius, the tepary bean.
For the common bean the name "frijol" (and its variants) is used
through most Spanish and Portuguese areas. This name is of Medi-
terranean origin (cf. the Latin form Phaseolus) and was there applied
to a similar plant, probably either a Vigna or Dolichos. With the
immediate transfer of an Old World name, Indian names for the like-
appearing New World legumes were not taken up by Europeans,
except in the Inca region where "poroto" became an alternative name
for the frijol, and "pallar" for the lima bean. For the latter, haba is
a common term in many sections, giving rise to confusion with the
real haba (Viciafaba).
The tepary bean has the most limited distribution and is probably
the latest to be developed at the hands of man. Its major use has
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 501
been by the Cdhita and Piman tribes and their neighbors, that is, in
the area adjacent to the upper Gulf of CaHfornia. A minor series of
occurrences has been noted lately in the lowlands of Chiapas and
Guatemala, and in spots north along the Coast; nothing is known of
its presence elsewhere. It would seem therefore to be a domesticate
by substitution for the other beans in the very hot, and more or less
arid, lands of Sonora and Arizona, because of its heat tolerance,
partial tolerance of soil alkalinity, and minimal demands of water.
It is fairly old archeologically in the southwestern United States.
The lima bean predominates over the frijol in the majority of the
American Tropics. It is a usual crop in the tierra caliente, wherever
there is a sufficiently well-marked dry season. In its basic forms it
is a tall-growing, climbing perennial, requiring a warm, wet growing
season followed by a warm, dry period. Rarely is it found much
above 1,200 m. (4,000 feet) above sea level. Truly wild limas have
been reported from Guatemala, and the form assemblage of the kinds
cultivated there favors this area as the primary center of domestica-
tion (Mackie, 1943; Bukasov, 1930; Ditmers, Ivanov, and Popova,
1937).
The genetic architecture of the species is poorly known as yet.
Mackie (1943), on the basis of long experience in lima bean breeding,
has undertaken the most comprehensive appraisal of its origin and
dispersal in these terms. He recognizes three main "branches"—the
Carib, the Hopi, and the Inca—all dispersed from the primary center
in Guatemala. The first, and probably oldest, of these passes through
Yucatan, the Antilles, into Venezuela, and possibly into Brazil, though
the Amazonian lands are unfavorable to it. In the Carib branch
"potato" shapes and bright-red color are common, and many plants
produce seeds high in a glucoside that causes cyanide poisoning if
cooked in the ordinary manner. The possible connection with this
branch of the Konian bean in French Guiana may be suggested (Bois,
1927-28, 1 : 153, after Chevaher). A second division is called the Hopi
branch by Mackie, extending up the Mexican west coast, through the
southwestern United States, and into the southeastern part. This
small-seeded group is sharply separated from the Carib branch by
lack of photoperiodicity, flatness, and lack of glucoside. It is appar-
ently a selection for cultivation in areas of warm summers and long
days. That this selection was slow is shown by the late and subordi-
nate appearance of the lima bean in archeological records of the south-
western United States, and this despite the apparent antiquity of
domestication of the lima bean. The third or Inca branch consists
of the Peruvian pallar, of maximum size of pod and seed, least primi-
tive in its characteristics. The Peruvian or "Inca branch" is the
most highly bred, and in it forms were established that were able to
502 SOUTH AMERICAN ESTDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
penetrate far southward, as in Chile, into latitudes of greatly length-
ened summer days. On Brazil the records do not permit a conclusion
as to whether Inca and Carih branches are both represented. Soares
de Souza described a white fava of superior quality and larger than
the broadbean of Portugal, which would seem to have resembled the
big Peruvian limas.
The major difficulty in the dispersal routes proposed by Mackie is
the derivation of the Carih branch from Guatemala by way of Yuca-
tan, since the existence of this ethnic bridge is not substantiated by
most ethnographic data. However, the lima-bean data do point in
this direction. As known at present, from the Russian studies, the
lima beans and also the frijoles of Colombia belong with Peru, those of
Venezuela (and Guiana ?) with the Antilles and Yucatan. It should
be noted that the word "henequen," according to Henriquez Urena
(and also the plant ?) , was taken from the Maya of Yucatan into the
Taino culture of the Antilles.
In Coastal Peru there was an extraordinary preoccupation with the
pallar as decorative motif. In Mochica art the "lima-bean warriors"
are famous. Conventionalized forms are extremely common on
Nazca pottery, and in Paracas textiles are many beautifully worked and
expert, very exact representations of beans of different color markings
(all figured in Yacovleff and Herrera, 1934-35; 3: 287-289). (See
also Handbook, vol. 2, p. 175; fig. 21, c.) Here this bean had an
economic significance unequaled elsewhere, and apparently also a
certain symbolism was attached to it.
A curious problem attaches to the cyanide content of the probably
primitive races of the cultivated lima. Mackie (1943) called attention
to the occurrence of lima beans on uninhabited Socorro Island off
northwest Mexico and the poisoning of Captain Colnett's crew there
in 1798 by eating these beans. Such beans have been collected on
Socorro and grown. They probably may be considered as an escape
and are referred by Mackie to the Carib line. From the Dutch East
Indies through Indochina and Burma (to Reunion) a race of lima
beans of primitive characteristics has long been in native cultivation.
Throughout southeastern Asia the appearance of high cyanide content
in such beans is common and well known. Perennial habit, dark
colors, and small to moderate size are prevalent. A genetic basis of
the glucoside is probable and possibly rests on a number of genes that
became suppressed outside of the Caribbean and southeast Asia by
deliberate selection. If, then, southeastern Asia should prove to be
a reservoir of the more primitive lima beans, long since extinct in
Peril and Mexico, a further problem of the time and manner of trans-
Pacific connection is raised by which the American bean was com-
municated to the native population across the Pacific. The great
Vol.61 CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 503
cyanide-poor white limas of South Africa, on the other hand, suggest
Peruvian origin (via Brazil and the Portuguese).
The common bean (P. vulgaris) and the (scarlet) runner bean (P.
multiflorus or coccineus) are the principal forms in temperate land (C
climates) native agriculture, with wide penetration, however, into
tropical margins and, in the United States, into microthermal (D)
climates.
The runner bean has been little specialized and everywhere in its
range appears to be a secondary legume; the reason is not clear, since
it has admirable qualities for cultivation and eating, raw as well as
cooked. Even the tuberous roots are a food. On limited evidence
the Russian geneticists assign its origin to Central America or southern-
most Mexico. It is also common in the Cauca River drainage of
Colombia. Little information is at hand as to its occurrence else-
where in South America. There is no known reason for ascribing
great antiquity to it, and it is possible that a fuller knowledge of its
distribution, especially as to types, will be useful in tracing later pre-
historic diffusions from Central America.
The common bean, with the exception of high altitudes and of
tropical regions, is almost coextensive with the distribution of maize.
From the southern edge of the Mexican plateau northward, dwarf,
bush forms predominate, and there is also commonly, but not always,
a segregation of bean field and corn field. In equatorial latitudes,
and through South America generally, climbing forms appear strongly
predominant in aboriginal agricultm-e, and mixed planting with maize
seems to be the rule. A wild ancestral form may possibly occur in the
western Highlands of Mfeico and Central America (from Jalisco to
Guatemala ?), The Russian studies favor this area for the origin of
its domestication, based further on the great variety of primitive
characteristics in the cultivated plants and seeds. They consider
Peru definitely as a secondary, later center for more highly bred,
specialized forms, with Colombia falling into the Peruvian pattern.
The beans of the Andean lands are mostly of large size, somewhat
cylindrical shape, and the black-seeded forms, so common in Mexico
and Central America, are less representative. Despite the great
collection of the Russian expeditions and the elaborate genetic analy-
ses based thereon, information is most incomplete on many parts of
Latin America and conclusions as to phylogeny and dispersal are still
uncertain.
It may be remarked, finally, that Old World legumes in Indian
cultivation also need study. These are divergent forms of the cow
pea (Vigna sp.), not a few areas of cultivation of Cajanus indicus, and
even some of Oriental Phaseolus, aU of which need to be localized
504 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
exactly and the seeds planted for comparison with known Old World
forms.
THE CUCURBITS
The Old and New World cucurbits are clearly divided, the New
World having produced four genera: Cucurbita, to which belong all
squashes and pumpkins and some gourds in the English vernacular;
Sicana, so named from its Quechuo name but called "curua" in
Brazil; Sechium, which yields the "chayote" of Mexico; and Cyclan-
thera, cucumberlike when immature. In addition, the Old World
bottle gourd (Lagenaria) is of immemorial cultivation in America
and the vegetable sponge {Luffa) is widely distributed in the Tropics.
In the genus Cucurbita a minimum of four species is recognized.
Cucurbita maxima, called "zapallo" in western South America after
the Quechua name, is exclusively South American in its aboriginal
distribution. It is not known to have reached the Caribbean in
Colombia, but appears in the northern temperate lands of Inca
domination. It was spread throughout the warmer parts of the
Inca realm, and its apparent failure to penetrate northward
beyond the Inca conquests suggests that it was carried northward
by them. The situation in Venezuela and the Antilles is quite
unclear. Oviedo seems to have noticed on the islands only the cala-
bash vine, or true gourd. From the Indians of Cumand, according
to Henriquez Ureiia, the name "auyama" was taken by the Spaniards
as meaning a squash, and it was used in New Granada until the
Quechua term supplanted it. But what it was has not been determined
and present-day Antillean agriculture has imported so many things
from all sides that it may be impossible to name the aboriginal
squash. Hoehne (1937, pp. 158, 188) recognizes in the "moranga"
of northern Brazil C. maxima. In Mochica and Chimu pottery there
are many faithful reproductions, including a form much like our
Hubbard squash. The seeds are found in mass in graves of desert
Perii. Southward, in Chile, it is grown to the limits of agriculture,
and in middle Chile has developed the most gigantic form of all
pumpkins. In late years, Chilean varieties have been brought to
northeastern and north-central United States, where they now have
become common winter squashes. Here belong also the turban
squashes. The species is recognized in its fruit by its cylindrical,
often bulbous and spongy, stem and the filling of the central cavity
by fibrous placenta and seeds, and its origin is to be placed east of
the Andes.
Cucurbita moschata, widely grown in Central America and Colombia,
is apparently of Mexican or Central American origin. Bukasov has
divided it into two races, white-seeded Mexican and brown-seeded
Colombian. The former is the "ayote" of the Nahua. The Crook-
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 505
neck form, with its angular stem, is well represented in Mochica
pottery. Hoehne considers the "gerumii," much planted in northeast
Brazil, as C. moschata.
The common field pumpkin, summer squash, vegetable marrow,
and ornamental gourd of the United States, Cucurbita pepo (the
species of most extreme variation in form and size), probably did not
get into South America at all, and not strongly into Central America.
The cold-land member of the genus is C. ficifolia, the black-seeded,
watermelonlike vine with figlike leaves. It is now very commonly
grown by the Indians in the Andes, much more so, in fact, than in
its native Mexican plateau, where it is called "chilacayote." It should
be noted that a white-seeded race also exists. In most of the Andes,
C. ficifolia is called Mexicana; in Colombia, Vitoria. It is therefore
considered a Colonial introduction. Nor is there mention of it in
Acosta, Cobo, or other early accounts. If true, this pre-Columbian
absence of a cucurbit in the cool lands of the Andes is perhaps the
most curious quality in the geographic distribution of the genus.
The importance of the squashes in native economy was and is
great. Immature, they are in their season the most important green
vegetable. Ripe, they are boiled and especially roasted as an impor-
tant source of starchy and sugary food. Their excellent keeping quali-
ties make storage possible for months, and they are often cut in strips
and dried in the sun or over coals. The seeds are largely used roasted,
and in some cases are even more prized than the flesh. Commonly
they are sown with other plants, but in areas deficient in moisture
they are frequently seeded during the dry season on a stream bar, or
even in the stream bed. The marked geographic detachment of the
center of each species from the other indicates a plural origin of their
cultivation, or else that C. moschata is the oldest form, C. maxima
being a South American, C. pepo a North American derivative. The
habit of the plant further suggests that it may have come in as a
volunteer into primeval fields, there been tolerated, and then
deliberately associated by man with the main field crop.
Sicana odorifera is probably to be listed as a native cultivated plant.
Cobo said that in Peru it was known as "calabaza del Paraguay"
because it was native in that Province. Sicana is, however, a Quechua
name, and, as is "curua," is considered Brazilian. It was eaten,
according to Cobo, both raw and cooked, but was prized for its fra-
grance, as is the case today. It is found widely about houses in the
Tropics and, in view of the native names, may be supposed to have
been disseminated independently of the Europeans.
Somewhat more important in cultivation is the Cyclanthera pedata,
undoubtedly of South American origin, and probably from the Carib-
bean. Cobo gives a good account of it as resembling a cucumber in
506 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
looks and flavor. It is also cooked. He gave as its Haitian name,
"c^ygua," and as the Quechua term, "achoccha." It is commonly-
grown in Colombia today.
Sechium edule, the "chayote" of the Nahua (also "guispui" in
Guatemala: Bukasov, 1930, p. 79) is identified by Cobo only for New-
Spain. In South America it is kno-wn to me only by its Nahua name,
and this distribution therefore seems modern. The fruit is ordinarily
cooked as a green vegetable; its numerous tubers are boiled and roasted
(the ^'chinchayote" of the Nahua).
The bottle-shaped gourd (Lagenaria) is often cited as the one culti-
vated plant common to both the Old and the New World, and its
dissemination attributed to waves and currents. It is usually thought
that the plant derives from the Old World. It is a cultigen as we
know it in America and depends on the care of man for its preservation.
It is in no sense a strand or marsh plant. The theory of its accidental
dissemination involves, in addition to the undamaged transit of an
ocean, a waiting agriculturist who carried it in from the seashore to
a suitable spot of cultivation. It is at any rate an anciently grown
plant in the New World, as the many gourds in archeological sites
attest. A variety of types from Peruvian graves is shown by Yacovleff
and Herrera (1934-35, 3: 314) who point out also that many forms of
the ancient pottery, especially in Nazca, derive from Lagenaria shapes.
Gourds with designs burned into them are widespread through the
old pre-Conquest sites of Coastal Peru and North Chile. In Quechua
the bottle-shaped gourd was called "puru," the globular one "matti"
(now commonly "mate") (ibid. p. 316). From the Nahua the term
"tecomate" has been applied in North America to the cup gourds,
"jicara" to the form bisected for basins. (Hernandez, 1942, bk. 2,
ch. 8). Pyrogravure, carving, and lacquering of gourds has been
and is a well-developed craft from Perii to Michoacdn. The growing
of the gourds is largely concentrated in certain lowland valleys where
selection has given rise to specialized forms for which there is a wide
demand in native trade. They are carried further by native trade
than is pottery. Shapes range from small cups and dippers, through
constricted bottles carried by field laborers, to the great flattened
globes, cut in half for Idtchen pots and storage basins, and used entire,
for floats used in ferrying streams. The assemblage of forms and
their distribution have never been studied. Nor have comparisons
with Old World forms been made. Oviedo, Cobo, and others pointed
out that the "calabazas" of the New World did not serve as food, as
did the immature Lagenaria in the Mediterranean (and incidentally
also in the Orient.) It is generally a hot-country plant, but in
Colombia a large form exists that is grown in the cool Highlands of
Antioquia.
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 507
TROPICAL ROOT CROPS
The early Europeans were much interested by the root crops of the
New World Tropics. These were something new to them, for at
home they Imew only such things as turnips, carrots, and radishes,
garden vegetables rather than field crops. In consequence, the early
accounts are especially full on these strange new plants and their care
and use. The shores of the western Atlantic, first entered by Span-
iards and Portuguese, depended on root crops rather than on seeds
as food staples. About the Caribbean and on the east coast of Brazil
the food tubers and fleshy roots basic to the native economy were
chiefly manioc and sweetpotato, but also certain plants of the mono-
cotyledonous families of the yam and arrowroot. The peanut has
been considered earlier, under leguminous seed plants.
Manioc (Manihot utilissima)^ *'mandioca" in Brazil and Paraguay
(from the Tupi-Guarani) , "yuca" in most parts of Spanish America
(from the island Arawak), is thought to have originated on the Coast
of tropical Brazil, because of the concentration of Manihot species
there. It is possible, however, that it was derived from some drier
area in the Andean base of the Amazon drainage. (There are such,
though not manifest in weather records.) I should prefer an origin
on the dryish shore of the Caribbean. Manioc is a cultigen, and
has not been referred to a specific wild ancestor. In the course of
long cultivation it has practically lost the capacity of reproduction
by seed, having been handed down from one generation to another
by cuttings.
An indefinitely large number of varieties have been developed,
grouped in use as poisonous and nonpoisonous, or as bitter and sweet.
The sweet maniocs are Imown as "aypi" in Twpi, and were called
"boniato" in the Caribbean. (For discussion of the term boniato,
see Henriquez Urena, 1938, pp. 87-94). The range of variation in
the species has never been studied satisfactorily and the botanical
relation of hydrocyanic acid to other plant qualities is not clear.
In eastern South America the bitter and sweet manioc are both grown,
often in the same field, and the producers are able to distinguish
them with certainty. It has often been assumed that the poisonous
form is the older and that the sweet forms were selected from parent
bitter stock.
Functionally the two groups are differentiated. The "aypi" is
simply boiled or roasted, like the sweet potato. The bitter manioc is
subjected to grating, washing, pressure, and baldng. The resulting
"bread" is "cazabe"; from the colloidal starch tapioca is prepared,
perhaps originally an Amazonian Indian process. In general the
bitter maniocs are higher in starch content and superior to the sweet
group as food.
508 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The sweet group has enormously the wider distribution. (1) It is
grown throughout the range of the bitter manioc ; that is, the tropical
lands of Brazil, Venezuela, and the West Indies. (2) It extended to
about lat. 30° S. in Brazil, with the southern Guarani and their
agricultural neighbors. (3) Grown in Northwest Argentina, it is also
common in the yungas of eastern Bolivia, Perii, and Ecuador. (4) On
the Pacific Coast it extends from the Arica area northward beyond
South America, and is grown especially where a minimum amount of
water must suffice for irrigated farming. It is abimdant in the pre-
historic graves of the desert. (5) In Colombia it is cultivated in the
tierra caliente and also in the tierra templada to an elevation of around
1,800 m. (5,850 feet). (Bukasov, 1930, p. 92, who also made the
observation: "In this very dry year [1926] amid maize plantings
killed by drought and yellowed fields of sugarcane, the yuca fields
stand out by their flourishing appearance.") (6) Still grown through-
out the lowlands of Central America and southern Mexico, it formerly
extended northward about to the northern limits of the advanced
coastal cultures, i. e., into Sinaloa. Its Mexican name, "quauhcamote"
("tree" or "great sweet potato"), indicates a late arrival there.
At least some forms of sweet manioc withstand more severe dry
periods and require less warmth than do the bitter kinds. Yet the
restricted distribution of the bitter manioc is not to be explained by
climate alone. Climate does not explain its failure to expand into
Colombia and Central America. This indicates either that it was
a late form that had not had time to reach these areas, which is un-
likely, or that there was a lack of receptiveness to it on the part of
the cultures about the western end of the Caribbean. In this con-
nection it may be pointed out that where bitter manioc is dominant,
it was the main breadstuff, with maize of subordinate importance,
and grown only in one variety, or a few. (Maize and manioc alike
do best with a dry season following a rainy one, manioc requiring
less rain. The dominance of bitter manioc over maize from the
Antilles southward through Brazil (mostly lands of abundant pre-
cipitation) is therefore almost certainly not due to climatic advantage).
On the other hand, the sweet manioc is nowhere the staple and
hardly anywhere was it prepared as bread. It was subordinate
everywhere in the west to maize, which was gro^vn in greater varietal
and functional diversity than in the bitter manioc regions. Oviedo's
classical account of agriculture about the Caribbean makes this clear
(1851-55, bk. 7, chs. 1 and 2). He knew both islands and mainland
well, and noted the absence of the bitter manioc in "Tierra Firme"
and the importance and variety of maize culture there as compared
with its lesser role in the islands. The Tupi and Carib seem to have
been the main carriers of the bitter manioc culture, and in part also
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 509
the Arawak. The absence of the bitter manioc in Colombia including
the Caribbean coast suggests a cultural break between it and Vene-
zuela, paralleling the situation with regard to frijol and hma beans.
Information is needed for the Amazon Basin; the Spanish accounts
from the upper tributaries in general identify only the Sweet form.
Cobo (1893, bk. 4, ch. 7) gives details for western South America;
Soares de Souza (1851, pt. 2, chs. 37-43) gives a full account of culti-
vation and preparation in Brazil. A good review of economic botany
is suppHed by Bois (1927-28, 1: 436-446).
The sweetpotato {Ipomoea batatas) had a New World distribution
similar to that of manioc, but somewhat wider. (1) It reached farther
into the temperate zone of the Pacific Highlands; (2) it was grown in
Chile as far south as the Quillota Valley (near Valparaiso), according
to Latcham; (3) it was more widely distributed in Mexico and an
older crop than yuca, but its northern limit of cultivation barely
crossed the Tropic.
The genus of the morning-glory or Ipomoea ranges widely through
the warm lands of the world, with hundreds of species, a number of
which are tuber bearing. Among botanists there have been adherents
of belief in an Old World origin of the sweetpotato as well as those
who thought it originated in the Americas. The genetic studies of
Tioutine (1935, pp. 3-11) make it probable ''that the generic relation-
ship between 1. batatas and I.fastigiata is closer than that of the other
species." The latter is a wild species of tropical America, a common
"batatilla" of Caribbean lands. We may consider therefore the like-
lihood of domestication of the sweetpotato in the latter area, and more
probably on the South American mainland than in the islands or on
the Central American side. The sweetpotato belongs in a culture
complex that operated by vegetal means of reproduction, that is, by
cuttings of plants or tubers, and not by seed reproduction. Western
Central America falls with Mexico into the seed complex, and the
sweetpotato is to be regarded as adventive there into an older agri-
cultural pattern. It seems also that South America is markedly
richer in varieties of sweetpotato than Central America and Mexico,
though no adequate collection and study of these have been made.
Under ordinary means of reproduction the sweetpotato is multiplied
entirely by plant division. It is now known that occasionally seeds
are set, and these are being used in scientific hybridization, but they
played no role, it would seem, in the domestication or in the develop-
ment of the existing varieties, which operated by taking note of bud
mutations and planting divisions of the desirable new form. It is
possible, therefore, that all sweetpotatoes have been derived from
a few ancestral plants which were multiplied by dividing and planting
their shoots by generation after generation of planters.
510 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
Native names of the sweetpotato have been the subject of two
masterly studies by Henriquez Ureiia (1938, pp. 15-86): "Papa y
batata," and "El Enigma del Aje." "Batata" and "aje" are names
derived from the West Indies. The old and now largely disused
name "aje" belongs more probably to the sweetpotato than to the
yam (Dioscorea), though numerous students have applied it to the
latter, perhaps by reason of later confusion, just as we confuse yams
and sweetpotatoes in the United States. The term "aje" seems to have
been given to an inferior sweetpotato of large roots and rapid growth.
Oviedo considered aje and batata as closely akin, and among the charac-
teristics of aje which he described that point to its identification with
the sweetpotato was the planting of it by the division of the young
shoots, a procedure general with the sweetpotato, and hardly appli-
cable to the tubers of yams. The Nahua name "camote" has spread
through Spanish Colonial influence over much of Spanish America,
and has replaced largely the Quechua name, "apichu." For a starchy
form the Quechua designation "cumara" survives from the days of
the Conquest (used by the Inca Garcilaso), Fortunato Herrera
thinks, with some reason, that this was the group described as "ajes"
by Oviedo.
The name "cumara," used in Peril and in Oceania, raises the oft-
discussed question of the date of the introduction of the sweetpotato
into the South Seas. It is not necessary here to resume the views of
Rivet, Friederici, Dixon, Nordenskiold, and others who have engaged
in this controversy. The case for the carriage of the tubers by Euro-
peans across the Pacific is weakened by two considerations: (a) The
extraordinary variety of forms cultivated in the South Seas (20 vari-
eties being claimed for the Maori), and (b) the fact that the sweet-
potato developed races in New Zealand much farther removed from
tropical growth conditions than anywhere in the New World. It
extended in the South Island well beyond the Canterbury Plain (about
lat. 45° S.), the highest latitude reached by aboriginal agriculture
anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. This was about 12° farther
south than it penetrated in Chile and 20° beyond its aboriginal North-
ern Hemisphere dispersal. Such an adaptation to high latitude and
very cool summers is nearly incredible for a selection to have been
made as the result of casual, late introduction by European sailing
vessels. It may also be noted that these Maori forms seem to have
been starchy and coarse-fibred, like the cumara of the Andean yungas,
and suggest a derivation from an older, and now nearly extinguished
American form. The Maori sweetpotato was rated by Hooker as a
separate species, though only varietal rank is now accepted (Bois,
1927-28, 1:317-318).
The ordinary yams {Dioscorea alata, cayenensis, and batatas) are
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 511
natives of the Old World. Their introduction with the African slave
trade was described by Oviedo for the West Indies and Soares de
Souza (1851) for Brazil. The New World Tropics hold a number of
wild species of Dioscorea, some with edible tubers. In eastern Brazil,
in particular, a number are grown (such as D. dodecaneura, piperifolia,
and hastata, according to Bois, 1927-28, 1: 484-485), no information
being given as to whether domesticated forms have been developed
out of the wild parents. One American Dioscorea, the "yampee"
(D. trifida, to which is referred also D. brasiliensis) may be a truly
domesticated plant. Its smallish, but reputedly excellent, tubers are
rather widely grown in the Atlantic Topics from the Antilles to Brazil.
These may be the "carazes" (modern Brazilian name "cara" ?) to
which Soares de Souza referred (1851, pt. 2, ch. 44) and which he
distinguished from the Old World "inhames" (ibid., ch. 35); the vines
were supported by stakes and the mature tubers preserved by smoking.
In the arum family the place of the taro of the Old World is taken
by species of the New World genus Xanthosoma, called "yautia" or
"malanga" in the Caribbean, "mangareto" (Bois, 1927-28, 1: 526) in
Brazil. The principal cultivated species is X. sagittifolium, with
Engler ("Pflanzem'eich," 1920, IV, 23E) also listing X. jacquinii as of
wide insular and mainland distribution about the Caribbean. Bois
lists further as cultivated X. hrasiliensi, X. belophyllum, X. caracu, X.
mafqffa, and X. violacecum for parts of the Atlantic Tropics. In
addition to the tubers, the leaves are used as cooked greens. As in
the case of taro, the cidtivation is usually in moist lowlands. The
yautia was known to Oviedo and Cobo for the Caribbean, and is
apparently discussed by Soares de Souza (1851, pt. 2, ch. 44) under
the term "taiazes": "the leaves being eaten with fish in place of
spinach, and with green beans in place of lettuce, and have a very
superior savor; the Indians eat them [the tubers ?] boiled in water
with salt, and with large quantities of peppers." In the Peruvian
yungas, according to O. F. Cook (1925, p. 100), the roots are dried
and stored.
The arrowroot (Maranta arundinacea) is widely distributed from
Brazil to the Caribbean and is grown in wettish land. The prepara-
tion from it of starchy flour, "fecula," is said to be a modern invention,
and the name of the plant is said to derive from the older use of the
root as an antidote to arrow poison (Schumann, in Engler's "Pflan-
zenreich," 1902, IV, 48). The name "leren" (liren, lliren, etc.) may
apply to this plant. The description of lir^n by Oviedo (1851-55,
bk. 7, ch. 13) and Cobo (1893, bk. 4, ch. 9) clearly does not, but may
refer to Calathea allouia, the Carib "alluia" also known as topimampur
in the West Indies (Schumann, loc. cit.), where this plant is still
cultivated.
512 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ROOT CROPS OF TEMPERATE LANDS
The lone New World umbellifer transformed into a cultivated plant
is the "arracacha" or "racacha" (Arracacia xanthorrhiza or esculenta),
a major food in the tierra templada of the northern Andes, especially
in Colombia. Its extension into the tropical Caribbean may be modern,
since it was not described by Oviedo. In the temperate yungas of Peru
its use in native economy is less than in northern South America. It
is reproduced usually by division of the root crown; it would be inter-
esting to laiow whether its planting by seed is practiced in native
agriculture. The wild ancestor is not known. The failure to pene-
trate tlu-ough neighboring Central America and Mexico may argue
for the lateness of its cultivation or simply that it was not accepted
into the seed-agriculture complex of that region. Neither explanation
is very satisfying.
Peruvian archeology has numerous ceramic representations of the
starchy roots of the "achira" (Canna edulis, probably), still a fairly
common market item in Coastal Perd and the temperate valleys as
far as Jujuy and Salta in Argentina (Parodi, 1935, p. 141), and
often naturalized along irrigation ditches. There may be other cannas
grown for edible roots in Latin America (C. coccinea and C. discolor
in the West Indies?).
"Yac6n" is the Quechua name and "aricona" the Aymara term for
a tuberous composite (Polymnia edulis) grown in temperate valleys
from Colombia to Northwest Argentina. Its tubers resemble the
Dahlia, to which it is related—^"on the outside the color of earth and
inside white and of the consistency of a turnip. They are eaten raw
as fruit and have a very good flavor and much better if exposed some-
what to the sun" (Cobo, 1893, bk. 4, ch. 16). Because of its sweetish,
watery quality it is considered a pleasant refreshment; its food value
is low and probably lies chiefly in its sugar content.
The " jicama" {Pachyrhizus sp.) of the Mexicans has become "xiqui-
ma" in the Andes, the older Quechua name being "ajipa." The large
turniplike roots are edible, the beans poisonous. YacovlefF and
Herrera demonstrated the presence of its roots in Peruvian graves and
the use of the plant as "decorative motif" in Nasca art (1934-35,
2: 51-66; 3: 282-284). The plant as described by Cobo (1893, bk. 4,
ch. 17) is almost unlaiown in modern Peru, but is still cultivated in
the Bolivian yungas. Parodi (1935, pp. 137-141) lately has called
attention to the cultivation of both a violet- and a white-flowered
variety about Jujuy, and to the taxonomic uncertainties of the whole
jicama complex. I am acquainted with it only as a refreshing raw
vegetable eaten out of hand like the yac6n, in which form it is a very
common summer food in Mexico and Central America. It is appar-
ently cooked in the West Indies, where its English name is yam bean.
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 513
and especially also in southeastern Asia (Bois, 1927-28, 1: 170-172).
In South America it is boiled and would seem to have a notable starch
content; possibly Mexican and South American jicamas are different
species. Old and New World forms have been divided into two
species (references in Bois), but the distinction is not sharp, and
perhaps all of the distinguishing marks of the supposed Old World
species exist also in the American plants. This is another case of
a trans-Pacific occurrence of a cultigen, morphologically somewhat
differentiated on the opposite sides of the ocean, but almost surely of
common origin. In both areas the plant is of concern only to native
cultivators.
The starchy root cucurbit, chinchayote, was noted in the section on
cucurbits (p. 506).
Aside from the arracacha, the root crops of the temperate Tropics are
not, nor are they likely to become, staples replacing other sources of
starch and sugar, such as are provided by the maize-beans-squash
complex, fully suited to these climes.
ROOT CROPS OF COOL LANDS
The origin of the potato ("papa" in Quechua and many parts of
Latin America), and its diversity in native agriculture have received
new light through the work of the Russian Institute of Applied
Botany, especially through the monograph of S. M. Bukasov (1933).
As the result of very extensive collection of wild and cultivated
materials they have radically redefined the concept Solanum tuberosum.
This specific name they would limit to the potatoes of Chile (and
possibly the commercial forms of European and North American
derivation). In Chile the home of the potato is in the coastal low-
lands of cool summers and long summer days, and especially in the
wet areas of the south. Possible local wild ancestors were suggested.
(They are inclined to exclude the oft-claimed "malla," S. maglia,
of Chile as ancestor of the cultivated species.) The greatest diversity
of cultivated types is in the island of Chilo6 and the adjacent main-
land on the north, both of which they regard as the cradle of what
we of North America know as the potato, which found a similar,
congenial home in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere
(possibly with incrossing of blood from other Andean (?) potatoes).
The Russian students point out "the restricted area and plasticity"
of the Chilean group of potatoes as against the great Andean form
assemblage. It is doubtful, therefore, whether the first origin of
potato domestication may be assigned to this southern area, marginal
moreover to aboriginal American agriculture. Perhaps, rather, in
view of the great number of species of tuber-bearing Solanum distrib-
uted from the North American Southwest to Uruguay, Chile may be
514 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
regarded as a secondary center of domestication, making use of a
Peruvian domesticate after an earlier pattern of potato domestication
had been elaborated in the Andes to the north. (The Bukasov mono-
graph assumes a wide geographic gap between the aboriginal cultiva-
tion of the Chilean and the Andean potatoes, omitting all North Chile
from the area of potato gro^ving. This is in error and means only that
the Russian workers did not get material between Central Chile and
the Bolivian Plateau. The mountain villages of North Chile have an
important and varied potato culture. As a casual observer, I should
place these with the potatoes of Bolivia and Peril. The area is of
particular interest for future study as probably holding the long-day
forms of the Andean potatoes, and possibly as the meeting place with
the southern, Chilean, kinds.)
For the Andes the Russian work has established 13 new cultivated
species, which they have named. These occupy a large continuous
Andean area from the Boyacd district in Colombia to that of CalchaquI
in Argentina. Of these Solarium andigenum has the widest distribu-
tion, and includes within its range most of the areas in which the other
species are found, the exceptions being the species of high frost resist-
ance and those of the warm valleys.
For central and south Peril and Bolivia the Russian studies of
Solanum andigenum have yielded 1 subspecies, 17 varieties, and 34
forms, representing also large ecologic and functional diversity.
Most of the kinds grow at altitudes from 3,000 to 4,000 m. (9,900-
13,000 ft.). A few, grown around the higher elevation, are somewhat
frost-resistant, and these are usually of the "bitter" sorts used in pre-
paring chufiu. Such is the variety "ccusi," with blue or lead-
colored tubers; "yani-cusi" in Vargas (1936, pp. 46-47). An impor-
tant and readily recognized kind is "ccompis," the only white-flower-
ing potato in Peril and widely grown in Bolivia and southern Perd
because of its heavy yield.
The pioneering Russian studies have now been greatly enlarged
and revised by the collections, cytogenetic examinations, and taxo-
nomic systematization of the Imperial Bureau of Plant Breeding and
Genetics, by Dr. J. G. Hawkes and associates. The principal publica-
tions to date are all by J. G. Hawkes (1941, 1944, 1947).
This finely conceived enterprise, still in progress, already has given
a clearer view of the systematic position and evolution of the culti-
vated potatoes than we have for most plants. Passing over the exami-
nation of wild and weed species, which will be of more and more signif-
icance in determining cultivated origins and modifications, I will
attempt to give in the following paragraphs a brief abstract of the
British findings on the cultivated complex, which is a polyploid series
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 515
(basic chromosome number 12), ranging from diploids, through tri-
ploids and tetraploids to one laiown pentaploid.
Hawkes accepts 10 cultivated diploid species, individually for the
most part of restricted range, but with an over-all extension from
Boyaca in Colombia to the Cochabamba region in Bolivia. In general
these may be regarded as the more ancestral forms, the ones taken
first into cultivation and modified. They are in the main less vigorous
and yield fewer and smaller tubers than the higher polyploids, and
hence have given way largely to the latter, except in out-of-the-way
areas. At the most primitive end of the whole series of cultivated
potatoes lie five species, notable for quick maturity, short dormancy,
and occurrence at low altitudes and under higher temperatures than
are characteristic of other potatoes. These fall into two geographic
groupings: at the north (1) the large species of Solanum rybinii of the
Colombian departments of Boyaca, Popayan, and Pasto; (2) *S^.
kesselbrenneri of inter-Andean valleys of Ecuador and southern Co-
lombia; and (3) S. ascasabii from the Ecuadorean east-Andean
montana. Far to the south (4) S. phureja is at home in the temperate
yungas east of La Paz; and (5) S. cardenasii about Cochabamba.
Most diversified of the diploids in variety and habitat is the S.
stenotomum, which extends from Central Peru to Central Bolivia.
To it belongs the famous jet-black chapina, used for dyeing rather
than food. Notable also is the diploid S. goniocalyx, the white-
flowering, golden-fleshed Papa amarilla of Peru, prized for its nutri-
tiousness and nutty flavor, its climatic position apparently being cool
temperate. S. ajanhuiri and some clones of S. stenotomum are notably
frost resistant, but in the main the diploids are dominant at the lower
elevations of potato growing.
Far and away the most important potatoes are the tetraploids,
which Hawkes has placed in one great species complex, S. tuberosum,
with two great geographic subspecies, andigenum and cMleanum,
disagreeing in this respect with the Russian views. Hawkes makes
a strong case for the derivation of the Chilean potatoes from Andean
lands, pointing out that there are no diploids kno^vn, wild or culti-
vated in Chile, and that the only other possible Chilean wild ancestors,
a few tetraploids, are hardly suitable and seem to be merely feral,
namely low-yielding types that have been dropped from cultivation,
but not yet exterminated. He sums up his case as follows:
The tetraploid potatoes arose in the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, spreading
rapidly, chiefly by human agency. The higher yielding types moved more
quickly than the lower yielding ones and hence became especially abundant at the
edges of the distribution range. They are, therefore, to be found in Chile, the
southern end, and in Colombia, the northern end of the Andes. In the south
(Chile) the widely different climatic and latitudinal conditions, coupled with a
more or less complete geographic barrier, aided in the differentiation of a new
7S47H—50 34
516 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
species, S. iuherosum s. str. [Hawkes, 1944, p. 108. In the 1947 publication this
is reduced to the subspecies chileanum.]
The triploids are an indefinitely large lot of casual hybrids, a few-
superior clones having become established by man through vegetative
reproduction. Chiefest of the triploids is the luki, S. juzepczukii,
most remarkable for its frost resistance, and often the dorminant tuber
at high altitudes in northern Bolivia and adjacent Peril. Bukasov's
original surmise that this plant, which is sterile, originated by a cross
of the wUd S. acaule and a cultivated diploid, has been confirmed
lately by Hawkes (1947, p. 628), who succeeded in reconstructing it
by crossing the wild ^S*. acaule with the cultivated S. stenotomum. The
one cultivated pentaploid, S. curtilobum, at high altitudes from
Cuzco to Potosi, is a bitter tuber and is prepared by freezing, the plant
being markedly frost resistant.
The preparation of potatoes for indefinite storage as chunu and
moraya utilizes (1) certain forms of S. andigenum (as ccusi, huaiia),
and (2) the three high mountain species, S. juzepczukii (luki or
ruklvi), S. curtilobum, and S. ajanhuiri. For the most part these
chunu potatoes are bitter kinds (papas amargas), not suitable for
consumption by boiling or baking. However, some nonbitter
potatoes may also be thus used, such as the form of andigenum
called "alccai huarmi" (No. 16 of Bukasov; also Herrera (1921).)
The botanical meaning of the term ''luqui" (ruldd), applied to certain
bitter potatoes used in chunu remains undetermined. In general,
also, the bitter potatoes are late-maturing, have some degree of
frost resistance, and constitute the group grown at the highest alti-
tudes (3,800-4,300 m., about 12,500-14,000 ft.). The whole culture
complex of plant and product is tied to the cold limits of agriculture,
especially to the part of the puna centering upon the old Collao. The
process of freezing, thawing, and drying by which chunu is produced,
and that of refining it into moraya or tunta has been well described
by Cobo (translation in Safford, 1925). (See also Handbook, vol. 2,
pp. 527, 578.).
The complex constitution of the cultivated potatoes and their
geographical distributions does not admit of an unequivocal interpre-
tation as yet, but the data indicate a revision of usual views on Andean
agriculture. There is every probability that the diploid species are
the oldest in cultivation, only the Papa amarilla having quality and
yield to make it a successful competitor with the higher polyploids.
The 10 known diploid species range from warm temperate valleys
to the cold extreme of agriculture in the tropical latitudes of the
Andes; insofar as knowTi, they do not enter extratropical latitudes.
Within the Tropics, in other words, they form a series of cultigens,
connecting at the lower end with tropical root crops, at the upper
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 517
limits reaching into the coldest spots where tillage can be practiced.
Five of the ten known cultivated species are restricted to the lowest
altitudinal limits of low-latitude potato growing, and these "are
altogether more primitive and more closely related to the wild species"
than other cultivated potatoes (Hawkes, 1944, p. 99). Four of the
five "most primitive" species belong to the far north, Colombia and
Ecuador. The superior S. goniocalyx would appear to belong zonally
immediately above them. The S. stenotomum complex falls into the
heart of the Andean Highland potato country, from Central Peru
to Central Bolivia; the frost-resistant S. ajanhuiri to the colder parts
of north Bolivia. The luki, notable as a source of chunu, has been
demonstrated to be a stenotomum x acaule cross, the latter a weed
in fields at high altitudes. The diploids and their known hybrid
cultigen, therefore, by themselves may have provided a series of
stepping stones, perhaps from North to South, and from low to high
altitudes, for the estabhshment of potato culture. Root crop culti-
vators, coming originally from tropical lowlands, may well have found
in wild tuberous Solanums a gradual means for ascending as cultiva-
tors to the cold puna. (Further comment on this thesis is given
below.)
The S. tuberosum (tetraploid) complex developed later, probably
out of both cultivated and wild diploid ancestry. Their greater
yield and superior vigor caused them to be substituted increasingly
for the older diploid lines and to dominate the iUtiplano of Bolivia
and Peru. Still later they were carried to the cold lands of Colombia
and down to the cool coasts of Chile, where they differentiated into
one varietally diverse subspecies. The comparative advantages of
S. tuberosum andigenum in highest altitudes is not evident, and at
warmer levels they have not been able to take the place of more
primitive sorts. Their common origin is attributed to the Altiplano
centering about Titicaca.
The major cultivated Oxalis is the "oca" {Oxalis crenata), probably
the second most important root crop of the Highlands. Like the
Andean potatoes, it is markedly photoperiodic and seems to find its
highest latitudinal limit somewhere in northern Argentina and Chile
(Puna de Atacama ?). (Farther south Oxalis has been cultivated in
the Coastal lowlands from Coquimbo to Chiloe, perhaps 0. tuberosa,
the data being disorganized; see Latcham, 1936 b, pp. 90-92.) North-
ward, Bukasov (1930, p. 237) reports it as extending into the Venezu-
elan Andes. In Peru Yacovleff and Herrera (1934-35, p. 308) name
five sweet varieties. It is eaten raw and cooked, but is most commonly
seen offered in the markets as "cavi," dried in the sun and considered
as having a chestnutlike flavor. The process, in which much of the
acid is lost, is described by Weddell (cited in Bois, 1927-28, 1: 80-81).
518 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
A heavily yielding bitter variety is prepared by a method identical
with the making of chufiu and the product called "caia" (ccaya).
The ulluco, or "papa lisa" (Ullucus tuherosa) apparently exists as
a single cultivated species (Bukasov, 1930, p. 232), from the Bogotd
area southward into northern Argentina (Parodi, 1935, p. 141). Its
smooth red, yellow, or variegated tubers are seen fresh in the markets
more commonly than oca. It is a satisfactory source of starch and
sugar, but rather insipid, and its consumption is mostly confined to
Indians.
The tuberous nasturtium (Tropaeolum tuberosum), called "anu,"
"isana," or "mashua" in the central Andes, and "cubio"in Colombia,
may be sufficiently differentiated between the Colombian and Peru-
vian forms to constitute two distinct species (Bukasov, 1930, pp. 227
ff.) The tubers are too sharp in flavor to be eaten raw. In Bolivia
a chufiu is prepared from them, named "taiacha" (Weddell, in Bois
1927-28, 1 : 78-79) . The plant received emphasis from the chroniclers
because of its reputed antiaphrodisiac properties, Cobo for instance
stating the the Inca emperors fed their armies on the march with such
tubers "that they should forget their wives." (1893, pt. 4, ch. 18).
Least among the highland root crops is "maca" (Lepidium meyenii),
a relative of the peppergrass. Cobo gave its occurrence as restricted
to—
the province of Chincha-cocha [Junin?] where it grows in the highest and coldest
parts of the sierra, where no other cultivated plant succeeds. The root is of the
size and form of a Muscadine pear (cermeno), pearly-white inside like a turnip,
and after drying is much reduced and has the appearance of dried pears. It is
sweet and of good flavor; it is eaten after drying, both boiled and roasted. It has
a strange quality, that wherever planted one year, it exhausts the soil in such a
manner that in more than ten years it is impossible to return to planting that
land, and in order that it may not be frozen with the continuous snows and frosts
which prevail where it is grown, the Indians are accustomed to cover it with straw
until the time for harvest. [Cobo, 1893, pt. 4, ch. 15.]
Diversity, staple use, and geographic extension make it seem reason-
able that Andean Highlands, hke the tropical lowlands, owe their basic
agriculture to reproduction by plant division. It is possible to assign
to the potatoes the leading role in the agricultural colonization of the
Andes, except for the one fact of the existence, side by side with the
potatoes, of the lesser tuberous crops just noted. The only one that
seems to have its own ecologic niche is the maca. All the rest are
grown under the same conditions of cold chmate and under the same
edaphic situations. None has any peculiar place in economy, kitchen,
or diet. The potatoes in general produce more, have better food
value, and are perhaps more tasty. It is difficult, therefore, to ex-
plain the presence of less useful tubers as of later origin than the more
useful ones. Oca, uUuco, and anu are real cultigens, bred to differ
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 519
largely from their wild kin. Why should people have troubled to
select inferior tuber-yielding plants, if they had better ones to hand
in potatoes?
It seems to me, therefore, that we have in these minor tuber crops
the remnants of the oldest Highland agriculture; that long before
potatoes were bred to grow on the bleak reaches of altiplano and
paramo, these microthermal native tubers had made sedentary life
possible by supplying starch food and had been made into domesticated
plants. Also, the storage problem had been solved by inventing
chunu making and this was transferred later to potatoes, when these
became developed for puna climate cultivation. Between the earhest
cold-land and warm-land root crops (oca, ulluco, afiu vs. manioc,
racacha, and achira) there may remain a sensible climatic gap that
was bridged by the cultivation of mesothermal diploid potatoes. In
this case the major course of primitive potato breeding has been up-
slope into colder and colder lands, with gradual replacement of the
earlier cold-land tubers.
GARDEN PLANTS OF THE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
The Old World distinction of tillage, as field or as garden, was
largely lacking in the New World. New World cultivation was really
gardening. Columbus, for instance, properly referred to the land-
scape about Puerto Bello as being like a painted garden (huerta).
On the other side of the Atlantic, field crops were not used until their
fruits had matured. There was a definite, usually brief harvest
season and the time of gathering the ripened crops was marked by
harvest festivals. Green vegetables in the Old World were a separate
lot of plants cared for in special plots by a different mode of culture.
In the New World, on the other hand, the major food crops also yielded
for the most part the fresh vegetables. Kegularly, an important
part of these was consumed during different stages of the period of
growth. With maize, use began with the collection of the oil-rich
pollen. Everywhere an impressive variety of dishes was prepared
from maize grain in the milk and soft-dough stages. Beans were used
first as green pods; later the immature beans were cooked. Squashes
yielded a first harvest in their blossoms ; the fruits were boiled as green
vegetables at all stages prior to maturity. Thus it was with plant
after plant. Leaves, blossoms, and immature fruits supplied salad
and pot vegetables from the same plants that by their mature fruits
furnished the staple foods of the Indian communities.
The nightshade family (Solanaceae) has been much more important
in the New World than in the Old World in yielding cultivated plants.
In the latter such minor edible fruits as the eggplant and the Jerusalem-
cherry were domesticated, and the drug plants developed were
520 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
belladonna, mandragora, and henbane. In addition to potatoes,the
New World cultivated for food and condiment species of Solarium,
Capsicum, and the genera collectively known in gardening as tomatoes
;
poisonous plants taken under human care were Nicotianas and
Daturas.
The genus Solanum has provided an additional cultigen, more fruit
than vegetable, in S. muricatum. Formerly known in Quechua as
"cachun" it is now most commonly called "pepino", sometimes, in
English, "melon pear." Though flowering freely like a purple-
blossomed potato, good races of the plant have lost the capacity of
seed production. The better sorts contain no or only vestigial seeds
and are therefore reproduced by cuttings. It is a plant of temperate
climates, grown as an herbaceous perennial in the coastal area of Perii
and south to Norte Chico, Chile. In Ecuador and Colombia it is found
in valley cultivation between 1,200 and 2,500 m. (4,000-8,000 ft.) above
sea level. There is a good deal of variety from place to place in shape,
size, color, and quality, the best tasting being somewhat like a cucum-
ber and somewhat like a pleasantly subacid melon. The Peruvian
varieties are the more highly bred, the Colombian ones more seedy and
primitive (Bukasov, 1930, pp. 295-300). Its cultivation probably
began by cuttings in temperate vaUeys of the northwestern Andes.
Its spread northward from South America is probably Colonial. It is
represented in various Peruvian pottery, clearly recognized by the
characteristic discontinuity of stripes.
The naranjilla {Solanum guitoense) of the fruit drinks of Ecuador,
ranges from Banos to Otavalo, 1,500 to 2,600 m. (5,000-8,500 ft.).
According to Popenoe (1924, pp. 133, 149) there is no information on
degree and age of its domestication.
The husk tomatoes or groundcherries (Physalis) are placed by
Bukasov (1930, 286-291) into a Mexican group which are glutinous
and not sweet (P. aeguata or ixocarpa and P. angulata) and the sweet-
fruited aromatic Peruvian species (P. peruviana) called cape goose-
berry in the United States. In Mexico the groundcherries bear the
name "mHtomate," or tomato of the milpas, a term that may signify
planting with other crops in the milpas or volunteering among such
crops. They are commonly grown and widely marketed through
Mexico and Central America; they keep for a number of months, and
are used cooked or in sauces with chile. The plant is an annual,
with greenish to purplish fruits that commonly burst their husks.
The Peruvian species is a perennial with an orange-colored fruit
that does not fill the husk. It is commonly cultivated northward
through Colombia.
The history of the tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) is most
obscure. The usual reference of its origin to Peru has little in its favor
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 521
except the fact that several wild species of the genus belong there,
none of them, however, being indicated as ancestor. The use of the
tomato in the diet of Indians and common people is much more
incidental in Peru than in Mexico and Guatemala. No native name
is known for it in Peru, and its archeological occurrence there is
doubtful. The primitive, semiwild (and wild?) cherry tomatoes
(variety cerasiforme) are widely distributed about clearings and in old
jfields through the lower lands of Mexico and Central America but
also occur thus in Peru. These little tomatoes are often grown in
back yards with some selection as to size and quality. The name
"tomato" is Nahuan. In Mexico the true tomato generally is called
"jitomate" to distinguish it from Physalis and other solanaceous
fruits. A study of "tomate" words, including both plants and place
names, is needed. There are native names also in Mayan, but none
apparently in languages of lower Central America or north of Central
Mexico. It has been remarked repeatedly that Hernandez in his
description of the plants of Mexico did not include the tomato. Buk-
asov suspects that its real domestication is post-White and that
earlier it was a volunteer in mUpa crops (1930, pp. 273-287).^
The tree tomato (Cyphomandra betacea) is widely grown in western
South America in temperate valleys (Popenoe, 1924, p. 134, says
chiefly between 1,500 and 3,000 m., 5,000 and 10,000 ft. It is a com-
mon garden plant in every city of the Ecuadorean basins, including
Quito. The tree tomato is not known in the wild state (Bukasov,
1930, p. 295).
The chief condiments of the New World are fruits of the genus
Capsicum. These so-called peppers are known as "ajf," from the
island Arawak, through nearly all Spanish South America, and as
"chile," from the Nahuan, in Mexico and Central America. The
homeland of the original Capsicum peppers remains undetermined
while we await a better knowledge of Brazil and Guiana, Avhence a
great variety of species have been reported in considerable system-
atic confusion, and with much uncertainty as to what is wild and what
is cultivated. In mild climates the New World peppers naturahze
themselves readily, partly because birds attack the ripe fruits eagerly.
Views on classification range from grouping all the condiment Capsi-
cum under one or two species to the making of scores of species, and
from considering many of them as wild to saying that none has been
found in a truly wild state. An uncertain guess at present is that there
are two wild species, C. pubescens and C. frutescens. Both are semi-
woody perennials of Aw chmates. The former, the "roccoto" of the
Quechua, violet-flowered, globular-fruited, was a common pepper of
» James Jenkins (1949) in a study published since this paper went to press clears up the historical confusion,
and attributes the amelioration of the plant largely to native cultivators along the Gulf of Mexico.
522 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Peru in Conquest days (e. g., one of the three peppers named by
Guam^n Poma, and called "el comun" by Garcilaso) . The C.jrutescens
fruit is far more widely distributed, and perhaps the small-berried
variety baccatum is the basic form. The latter is reported as having
great varietal diversity in Brazil, but it is also very common through
the hot lands of Central America and Mexico, where it is usually
known as "chiltepin," the small, fiery green pepper. The cayenne
pepper is usually regarded as a garden form of C. frutescens.
Most of the cultivated peppers are herbaceous annuals constituting
the species Capsicum annuum. They are grown (1) in low latitudes at
altitudes intervening between the hot lowlands and the cool highlands;
(2) in the tropical margins in areas of Cw climate; and (3) beyond the
Tropics, as in Chile, in sunny valleys with long summers. The species
is definitely a cultigen and seems to have been derived from C.
rutescens. The greatest diversity of forms is found in Mexico (and
also in Brazil?) . The Russian collections register a marked impoverish-
ment of variety about the Caribbean. In Perd there are types of
advanced breeding, but no great diversity of form, a conclusion that
is supported also by the archeological record. Judging from historical
accounts, the role of the pepper in South American Indian fare appears
to have been larger in the Conquest period than at present. In
Mexico, however, the cultivation of chile has not diminished in
significance. Green, ripe, and dried, each kind has its special uses.
Villages still are noted for a particular chile which is carried to distant
markets. The greater survival of culture traits based on chile in
Mexico is probably associated with greater aboriginal importance.
The data of Herndndez, for instance, on growth and use of different
species of Capsicum are unmatched by any records from South
America. Speculation as to the place of origin of the annual peppers
requires more knowledge of the philogeny of the group. If the peren-
nial small-berry (C frutescens) peppers are native to a large part of the
American Tropics, instead of being naturalized, a plural development
of the annual peppers may have taken place through culture. We
are sure only that breeding of the annual peppers was carried farthest
in Mexico (botanical data especially in Bukasov, 1930, and Bois, 1927,
vols. 1, 3).
There are two cultigen tobaccos, Nicotiana tabacum and N. rustica.
The former has been determined by Goodspeed and Clausen as a
hybrid formed from N. tomentosum and N. sylvestris. The wild
sylvestris is found in the Province of Salta in northern Argentina; the
wild tomentosum has a wider range, through the yungas of Peru and
BoUvia. It is not known that the two species overlap in their natural
range. It may be, therefore, that one of these was taken under culti-
vation and thus carried to a place where hybridization with the other
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 523
resulted. In any case the cultigen N. tabacum should have originated
in the eastern valleys of the Andes, probably in Bolivia. Thence, one
may surmise, it was carried down Amazonian tributaries into the
flood plains of the Amazon, through Guiana, and into the Antilles.
The manner of its introduction into Europe records also a spread part
way through the east coast of Brazil. Ethnically it would seem to be
associated mostly with Arawak, Carib, and Tupi peoples. Its distri-
bution coincides reasonably well with that of the bitter manioc.
On the other hand, Nicotiana rustica was spread almost to the
farthest limits of American agriculture, apparently from Quebec to
Chiloe. This was, of course, the tobacco of the Indians of eastern
North America, the "piciete" of Mexico and Central America, and
probably the "petiim" of Brazil. Its use appears to be strongly coin-
cident with the distribution of the elbow pipe. Its very great range,
involving high latitudes, makes it proper to consider it as an older
cultivated plant than A^. tabacum, which did not extend beyond tropical
climates. It has strong narcotic properties and was, therefore,
probably the more suitable plant when ceremonial smoking was intro-
duced. It is not known whether N. tabacum was established on the
mainland of Central America or in Mexico. The accounts of
Hernandez (1942, bk. 2, chs. 107-112) make clear that the name
"yetl" was applied to unrelated medicinal (narcotic?) plants. In his
lengthy description of "picietl" he notes briefly another tobacco as
"quauhyetl," the great "yetl" which was tabacum. Since the account
was written after the Spaniards had begun to cultivate N. tabacum
in Mexico, it may refer to the plant introduced by them from the
islands. "Piciete" or "picietl" is the usual early name for N. rustica
in Mexico and Central America, and it is still cultivated widely in
remote settlements north through Sonora. Prof. Roy Clausen has
recently pointed out in a genetics seminar at the University of
California that N. rustica also is a hybrid, derived from species native
to the west side of the Andes in the borders of Ecuador and Peril,
that is, in the margins of the ancient Mochica and Canari lands. It
too, therefore, is an old South American domesticate which appears to
have spread in much the same fashion as did maize.
The most puzzling thing about both cultivated species ot Nicotiana
is their place of origin within the one agricultural area of the New
World in which there is neither historic not archeological evidence
of the smoking of tobacco. Clearly, therefore, Nordenskiold was
right in judging that smoking was a secondary use of tobacco. The
solution of the problem of the early use of tobacco may involve the
relationship of the chewing of tobacco to the chewing of coca. May
its use as a masticatory (or snuff?) have preceded smoking, and smok-
ing later have extinguished the earlier use except in a few areas? May
524 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
the chewing of coca have replaced that of tobacco in the Andean
lands and presented an effective resistance to the diffusion of smoking
when that habit got established to the east or north? It is very-
perplexing that the two cradles of tobacco domestication should have
abandoned the use of the plant, except as a minor drug.
CULTIVATED FRUITS AND NUTS
Some of the plants previously discussed, such as the pepino and
naranjilla, may be classed as fruits. Some herein considered as fruits,
such as the avocado and pejibaye, are substantial foods. No defini-
tion is offered for the cultivated items here assembled, which we should
call fruits in English. In order not to get entangled in a functional
classification of various cultures and domestic uses, tbe arrangement
here followed is in botanical order (Englerian system).
Palms.—Probably only two palms in the New World were truly
domesticated in aboriginal culture, the coconut and pejibaye. The
others appear to be unmodified wild species, which may receive some
protection in native economy or may occasionally be planted about
houses and fields.
The domestication of the coconut (Cocos nucifera) has been assigned
by O. F. Cook to an American origin (1901, 1910). These studies are
still the most significant contribution to the subject even though the
conclusions are not sustained in toto. The evidence that coconuts
were grown on the Atlantic side of the New World in pre-European
days is inconclusive, but there can hardly be doubt as to the tropical
Pacific shores. Oviedo is an adequate and explicit witness of their
establishment in great groves in Panamd, Costa Rica, and on Cocos
Island, and he was one of the first Spaniards to become acquainted
with Central America. It is possible that such groves of coconuts
existed as far north as the coast of Jalisco. Cook has presented strong
arguments that the distribution of coconuts along tropical sea coasts
is the result of deliberate planting by man and that they do not es-
tablish themselves by being washed onto beaches. The earliest
known groves in the New World were in part along the coast and in
part at some distance inland, but then, as now, apparently always as
groves, and not scattered through the native jungle or brush. Cook
is further of the opinion that these plantations were not made by
chance contacts on the part of South Sea Islanders, but that the plant
originated in the New World, and was there fashioned into a cultigen,
and was taken westward from America across the Pacific. This
evidence rests on the following: (1) The New World concentration of
almost all the species of palms related to the coconut. (2) Cook's
hypothesis that the primitive cultigen originated in interior tropical
valleys where salt springs impregnated the soil. This condition is
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 525
frequently met with in the valleys of Colombia, such as the Cauca,
where near relatives of the coconut are native. (3) The seed is a
remarkable mechanism specialized for germination in climates having
a long dry season, rather than for facility in marine distribution. (4)
The varietal simplicity of the coconut in the New World, as contrasted
with the great multiplicity of forms across the Pacific, is explained as
showing that "the greatest and most definite variations of the culti-
vated plant are much more hkely to occur and be preserved outside
its natm-al range, where intermixture with the wild type is prevented."
The complete hypothesis of Cook has met with resistance, especially
because it requires an ancient skill in navigation and because the coco-
nut has had little significance in American economy, as compared
with that of Indonesia. The thesis remains, however, to vex the
question of origin of this great cultivated plant.
The pejibaye, or peach palm (Guilielma utilis or Bactris utilis) is
one of the spiny-trunked palms with hard, dark wood commonly
called "chonta" in South America. In many cases it has lost the
capacity to produce fertile seeds and is reproduced by planting sprout
cuttings. It is, therefore, the most striking arboreous element in the
agricultural complex that depends on the planting of cuttings and
tubers. The palm is said to be unknown in a truly wild state. Its
range is from Nicaragua southward into Ecuador, and southeastward
down the Amazon indefinitely far into Brazil. Its climatic distribu-
tion is mostly within the Aw and warmer parts of the Cw climates
(map 9). The fu-m starchy fruits enclose a small oily seed which is
wanting in many cases. The fruit is not eaten raw but is boiled; it
is a staple food, with a chestnutlike flavor. O. F. Cook (1910,
pp. 308-309) has good illustrations and quotations from A. R. Wallace
and Spruce, the latter suggesting that it may have originated on the
east side of the Andes in vaUeys of limited rainfall. The location of
its cultivation may identify it with the ^loio-Arawak and proto-
Chibcha areas as a quite old cultigen (account and illustrations in
Popenoe and Jimenez, 1921).
Bromeliaceae.—The term "pineapple" {Ananas sativus) is a some-
what mixed assemblage genetically. In particular, it is not clear
whether there is one species in the genus Ananas, or a number, nor do
we know to what extent the uncultivated forms are wild or spon-
taneous. Small-fruited, long-leaved, spontaneously growdng pine-
apples commonly called "pinuelas" occur at least from Panamd to
Paraguay. Oviedo, in his lengthy discourse in praise of the pineapple
(1851-55, bk. 7, ch. 14), having described the fine cultivated sorts in
" Tierra Fu-me," adds that a lesser kind also grew wild in great quantity.
This may be the Ananas magdalenae of Standley (1928) described by
him as forming impenetrable thickets in the forests and yielding a red
526 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
fruit up to 15 cm. (6 in.) long, edible raw or cooked. Cobo (1893, bk.
5, ch. 17) described another such subspontaneous form from Santa
Cruz de la Sierra, where it was principally used for maldng wine.
The extent to which these pifiuelas are primitive pineapples or degen-
erate ones is not known. They are reported for the most part out of
areas in which pineapples are cultivated of old. Cultivation has pro-
duced in the pineapple again a seedless plant, dependent upon vegeta-
tive division for reproduction. According to Oviedo, there were
more and finer forms of it on the mainland than in the islands. It
extended into Mexico at least as far as Jalisco. Southward on the
Pacific Coast it was and is very important in the lowlands to northern
Peru. From Andean valleys of Ecuador, Popenoe records an exten-
sive production to 1,500 m. (about 4,900 ft.) and an incidental one to
2,300 m. (about 7,500 ft.). To the Quechua it was known as "achu-
palla," carried in from the eastern yungas and probably cultivated
through a continuous strip of territory into Paraguay. French and
Portuguese brought the name "ananas" and its fame from Brazil to
Europe. Throughout northern and eastern South America it appears
to have been a familiar fruit for all Indians, a common source of wine,
and in many cases a principal source of cordage. It may have orig-
inated in some northern inter-Andean valley, along with other plants
of the Idnds cultivated by division. At any rate, it penetrated pretty
far to the northward into the seed culture area of Central America
and Mexico and was adapted to cultivation at altitudes far above those
of tropical cHmates. Its ecology points strongly toward origin in AW
chmates bordering on the semiarid.
Musaceae.—The plantains and bananas (Musa paradisiaca) orig-
inated in southeastern Asia and were there bred into a great variety
of seedless cultivated forms. Their presence in the New World is
considered by many as due to post-Columbian introduction. Norden-
skiold has marshaled strong arguments for this view, the most con-
vincing being the absence of notice of this plant by the first explorers
of the American Tropics. In view of its conspicuousness and useful-
ness, it should at least have been recorded by some of the early ob-
servers who took notice of lesser plants. The etymologic evidence
collected by Nordenskiold is inconclusive, there being a multitude of
native names, in part of unknown meanings and derivation. The
origin of the name "pldtano," applied by Spaniards in the New
World, is obscure, and apparently was not derived by transfer from
the name of the Old World plane tree (Platanus), but may be from the
Arawak or another Indian language of the Caribbean mainland.
The species is commonly subdivided into two subspecies, the plan-
tain proper (normalis) and the banana (sapientum) . The former is
nearly always cooked and served as a staple in the diet; the latter is
Vol.61 CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 527
eaten raw as a fruit, and prepared by cooking to a lesser extent.
Oviedo's famous account, describing the introduction to the West
Indies from the Canaries, refers to the banana, though not by name.
Scares de Souza (1851) describes bananas under that name as intro-
duced into Brazil from Sao Thome. Some, perhaps all, of the bananas
were brought from the Old World by the Spaniards and Portuguese.
The case is not so clear for the introduction of the plantains. (1) In
contrast to the bananas, these are little used by Whites but are
characteristically and intimately associated with Indian economy.
(2) It is among them that most of the native names are found. (3)
Their varieties differ, at least in part, from those of the Old World.
(4) During the second half of the 16th century they were already
widely distributed through the Tropics of the New World from
southern Brazil to Jalisco, Mexico, and were commonly a staple of
Indian diet of diversified use. The multiplication of the plantains
is more difficult than that of a seed-bearing plant. The mature
rootstocks need to be dug up, divided, preferably dried for a while,
and then replanted. This species is an extraordinarily poor volunteer,
and its spread must have been almost entirely by deliberate and
rather careful planting. (5) During the second half of the 16th cen-
tury, the plantains were already considered a native crop. They are
thus classed, without exception so far as 1 Imow, in the numerous
Relaciones geograficas. Garcilaso de la Vega, Father Acosta, and
Guaman Poma, all three of whom were attempting to distinguish
aboriginal from introduced crops, stated that the pldtano was of pre-
Conquest cultivation in Peru. Thevet published in 1558 from ob-
servation a circumstantial description of plantains ("pacoba") as
grown by Indians in the coastal area of Rio de Janeiro. The observa-
tions of Lery, made about 2 years later in another part of the French
coast of southern Brazil, appear to describe under the name "pacoaire,"
a type of banana. Soares de Souza (1851), whose observations began
some time later on the coast of Bahia, has left an account of three
kinds of what he considered native "pacobas" and, in addition, of
the bananas that had been brought from Sao Thome and were eaten
especially by Negroes (Hoehne, 1937, pp. 120-121, 150-152, 221-224).
Whether introduced before or after Columbus, the plantains became
a foodstuff second only to manioc in the Tropics. In mesothermal
highlands having sufficient rain, less warmth-demanding forms are
much grown to the edge of the tierra fria, but many of these are of
modern introduction, such as AI. cavendishii.
Annonaceae.-—-The guanabana, or soursop (Annona muricata), is
widely documented in early cultivation, from Nicaragua to the
Coastal valleys of southern Peru and far tlirough the yungas. It
528 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
was also reproduced many times in the Mochica pottery. It extends
somewhat beyond tropical limits both as to altitude and latitude.
In the second subdivision of the genus the most important culti-
vated species is the chirimoya (A. cherimola). This is distinctly a
nontropical tree, most at home in the temperate Andean valleys, but
apparently also cultivated of old in Central America and perhaps in
Brazil. Popenoe (1921, pp. 331-336) has described the apparent
native home of the tree in the Loja area of Ecuador. Its wild habitat
probably extends into similar valleys of north Peru. A considerable
number of cultivated variants have been developed, and Safford recog-
nized three such varieties in the graves at Ancon (Yacovleff and
Herrera, 1934-35, 3: 276). The sweetsop, or anona (A. squamosa),
is restricted to tropical climate and does best in areas with a marked
dry season. The name ''anona" is also often given to A. reticulata,
the buUock's-heart of the British West Indies and "mamon" of Cobo.
It is easily distinguished from the former by its smooth surface and
yellowish to reddish-brown skin. Both species occur wild or perfectly
naturalized in many parts of the American Tropics of the Aw and
Amw climates. Neither species appears to have been altered by selec-
tion to the degree of the chirimoya or even the guan^bana.
Lauraceae.—The avocado {Per^ea americana) was already known
to Father Cobo in its three principal races: (1) The green-skinned
fruit with a rather thin, tough rind that peels easily and often has the
size and shape of a citron, known to Cobo as grown especially in
Yucatan; (2) the thick, rough-skinned, large-fruited form, especially
in Guatemala; (3) the small-fruited Mexican pear-shaped type, with
a green skin as delicate as that of a plum. The first is now called
the West Indian group, the second the Guatemalan one. The third
is the common Mexican avocado, the variety drymijolia, with anise-
scented leaves (Standley, 1920-26, 2:290-291). The first is most
nearly restricted to tropical lowlands. Popenoe says that it is grown
in Ecuador in the lowlands, but extends rather commonly to 1,500 m.
(about 5,000 ft.), whereas the third type is there cultivated mostly
between 1,500 and 2,600 m. (about 5,000 and 8,500 ft.). Oviedo
limits his description explicitly to the "Tierra Firme." At his time
the Spaniards of Panamd had not yet learned the Nahua name
"ahuacate" and called the fruit a kind of pear. The ones Oviedo
knew were large, big-seeded, and tough-skinned. In Nicaragua he
found them planted in the ''heredades e plazas o assientos de los
Indios, e por eUos cultivados." Apparently they were not known to
Oviedo in the West Indies. Their derivation is undoubtedly from
Central America and Mexico, the anise-scented type being perhaps
the basic form. To the north of Panamd the "ahuacate" is still a
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 529
more basic part of a native economy and culinary art than farther
south.
Cieza, on passing southward through Colombia, first noted the use
of the name "palta" in the upper Cauca Valley and Garcilaso later
gave the explanation that it was thus known in the lands of the Inca
because it had been introduced from the north by way of the Palta
Indians of Ecuador, Apparently it had not been known in Peru
long before the Conquest, for only a single Peruvian archeological
find is recorded by Yacovleff and Herrera (1934-35).
Rosaceae.—The "capuli" (Prunus serotina) is one of the commonest
fruits seen today about highland villages and markets from central
Mexico to southern Peru. The name used throughout the Andes is
derived from the Nahua "capulin," the common black cherry of Mex-
ico that bears its fruit in racemes. The capuli is considered a culti-
vated form of the semicultivated Mexican capulin, and the latter as the
southern equivalent of the common wild black cherry of the United
States. It was introduced into the Andes by the Spaniards (Cobo
suggests by way of Lima) and has now become characteristic of Indian
settlements to an altitude of 11,000 and even 12,000 feet (about 3,400
to 3,700 m.). It is now grown more largely in western South America
than in Mexico or Guatemala, and the fruit is often larger and much
finer than in the north (Popenoe and Pachano, 1922, pp. 51-62).
Leguminosae.—Various leguminous trees are protected in fields and
about houses, and some of them, like the "guamuchil" {Pithecolobium
dulce), are semidomesticated. Several species of the genus Ivga rate
as cultivated trees. They are grown chiefly for their great heavy pods
that contain a sweet pulpy pith. Fresh, they are eaten out of hand and,
dried, they are ground into meal. About the Caribbean the commonest
native names are "guama" or "guaba"; in the Quechua country the
usual name is "pacae." Both pods and leaves are abundant in Peru-
vian graves, and the pods were modeled both in the Mochica and
Chimu pottery.
Malpighiaceae.—Species of Byrsonima, Malpighia, and Bunchosia are
grown for their fleshy and often somewhat acid fruits. Locally, they
are most commonly known as "cerezo," "manzanita," or "ciruela."
In Central America the probably Mayan name "nanche" is commonly
used. Some of these tropical shrubs yield a tarter fruit than do most
tropical plants and, poor as they are, give an appreciated change.
Anacardiaceae.—The cashew or caju {Anacardium occidentale) , be-
came known from Brazil, though it is now quite widely distributed in
many parts about the Caribbean. It is not known whether it existed
in any of the areas of high culture. Its association is probably with
the tribes of the Tropical Forests, especially the Amazonian area. The
fruit is the cashew nut which must be roasted before becoming edible;
530 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
the cashew apple is the juicy peduncle that partially encloses the fruit»
and it has served both as a fresh fruit and a source of wine.
The genus Spondias is in uncertain classification. Following
Standley, S. purpurea, the purplish-flowered, scrubby, sprawling spe-
cies is the better form more commonly grown for its pleasantly acid
red and yellow fruits, undoubtedly the "ciruela" de Nicaragua of
Cobo's account. The arborescent species of the yellow flowers and
coarser fruit, then, is *S'. momhin or lutea, the hog plum of the West
Indies. It, however, is also often planted, and there are superior
strains of local reputation. It, probably, is the "hobo" or "jobo" of
early accounts from the West Indies and the mainland. The Nahua
term "jocote" is applied through Central America to both. The com-
mon Spanish term is simply "ciruela," and if a fruit is called a plum in
the Tropics it is likely to be a Spondias, unless it happens to be a shrub
of the Malpighia family. Both species of Spondias are commonly
planted from cuttings, the small one often used to enclose fields. Both
species are quite drouth-resistant and are very common in the Aw
lands of Central America and Mexico, constituting one of the most
characteristic elements of the scene in native villages.
Bomhacaceae.— Matisia cordata is a common fruit tree in the hot
valleys of Colombia and Ecuador. Its leathery-skinned, sweet fruit
has a slight resemblance to the true sapote, and in some fashion that
has become its popular name, resulting in some confusion to the visitor
and to the literature.
Guttiferae.—The mamey (Mammea americana) is grown for the
most part to the north of the Equator. It was praised by Oviedo as
the best fruit found in Haiti, but he thought the island mameys much
inferior in quality and size to those on the mainland. Especially the
Pacific Coast of Panamd and Nicaragua and northern Honduras
were credited by him with superior fruit. Cobo, for his part, singled
out the mameys of Cartegena and of Sonsonate as the best races of
this fruit. Therefore, a fair amount of pre-White horticultural selec-
tion seems to have taken place.
The madrono {Rheedia madruno) is a common village tree in the
warm valleys of northwestern South America. The pleasantly acid
fruit is eaten fresh.
Passifloraceae.—Fruits of passion flowers of many kinds are con-
sumed in quantity through most of the tropical latitudes of South
America. A very common tropical species is P. edulis, of Brazilian
origin, the purple-flowered, hard-shelled granadilla. In the warm
valleys of Colombia and Ecuador, P. maliformis is grown for a similar
fruit. From early times the granadilla'^ de Quijos, from a once flourish-
ing Indian land on the east slope of the Andes in Ecuador, have been
noted for their quality; these are probably the species P. popenovii.
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 531
The giant tumbo of northern Peru, called "badea" in Ecuador and
Colombia, is P. guadrangularis. It also is restricted to warm climates
and is of very different appearance from the preceding, bearing
delicate-skinned fruits a foot long. A characteristic form of the tem-
perate zone in the northwestern Andes is P. ligularis, the apincoya of
Cobo (Cobo devotes bk. 5, chs. 12-15, to accounts of several species).
The higher altitudes of the northern Andes have a number of species
that are grown for fruit and flower, commonly called "tacso" or
"curubo": here may be mentioned P. moUisima and pinnati-stipulata.
(Popenoe (1924) has given much study to the fruiting passion flowers
and has presented a good summary.)
Caricaceae.—The papaya (Carica papaya) appears to be a late pre-
historic immigrant into the high cultures of Mexico and Peril: (1)
There is neither a Nahua nor a Quechua name for it. (2) There is no
certain archeological knowledge of it in Peril. The general name is of
uncertain origin, possibly Arawalc, and has not penetrated to the
remoter parts of Mexico where it is commonly designated by the
bastard name "mel6n zapote." On the other hand, from the Maya
south through Central America there are native names. Oviedo is
positive in his assertion that it was first encountered by the Spaniards
in Panamd and designates the "Tierra Firme" beyond Nombre de
Di6s as the first area in which it was seen, adding that its cultivation
was important in Nicaragua and Honduras. Probably, therefore, it
is a Central American domesticate associated with Chorotegan and
Mayan culture.
From northern Colombia to northern Chile there is an interesting
and poorly known lot of Highland cultivated species. These are
generally reduced in size of trunk, fruit, and leaf, and the majority
are eaten only after cooking. Here belongs the mito of the Peruvian
Andes {Carica candicans). A number of species, all of which bear
local Indian names, are very common through the Highland settle-
ments of Ecuador and Colombia and well into the tierra fria. Popenoe
(1924, pp. 126-127) describes and illustrates tliree of them: (1) C.
candamarcensis growing to 3,000 m. (about 9,750 ft.) and reported by
him as wild in Loja; (2) C. pentagona, to 3,000 m., usually seedless and
only known in cultivation, and (3) C. chrysopetala.
Myrtaceae.—All of the New World species are poorly known as to
the age and extent of their cultivation. Fruits called "arrayan" are
widely eaten and used in refrescos from temperate Peril up to central
Mexico and in part belong to the species Myrtus arrayan or foliosa.
From eastern South America, the Siuinam or Cayemie cherry {Eugenia
uniflora) has been spread rather widely through the Tropics, (Is this
also the "pitanga" of BrazU?)
794711—50 35
532 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
The guayaba (Psidium guajava) is corrupted in English to guava
(which in Spanish America is apphed to Inga.) There is no question
that swine and cattle have spread largely the range of this fruit.
Oviedo says that it existed in the islands and in "Tierra Firme" in
red, rose, and white-fleshed forms, that it was commonly planted by
the Indians, and that the wild fruits were smaller than the cultivated
ones. It has native names in abundance from Mexico to Peru. There
are frequent references throughout this range of territory to superior
kinds of guayabas, and it is safe to assume that this heavily yielding
fruit is of ancient cultivation in the tropical and temperate areas of
high culture.
Sapotaceae.—Achras zapota is most properly called "chiclezapote,"
by mistake "cbico zapote," and hence further corrupted into "sapo-
tilla" or "sapodilla." In northern South America and in Central
America it may be Imown under the Spanish name of the European
medlar, "nispcro." The tree is indigenous to Yucatan and tropical
Guatemala, where it is an important source of chicle. It spread of
old, however, as a fruit tree yielding heavily its harvest of egg-sized,
very sweet fruits. The tree is distinctly limited to tropical climates,
and its aboriginal spread perhaps was not south beyond Central
America.
Calocarpum mammosum is the zapote proper of the Nahua. Its
popular names also have become much confused. Southward in
Central America it is known as "mamey zapote," i. e., zapote that
resembles a mamey, as "mamey Colorado," and even as *'nfepero,"
further distorted in British colonies into naseberry. Its original home
probably is southern Mexico and northern Central America. Oviedo
said that it was especially proper to the Chorotegan Indians, and he
also knew it in Honduras. The fruit grows to a diameter of 15 cm.,
the salmon-red flesh including often only a single large seed. The
seed is ground and mixed with cacao. It also is restricted to full
tropical climates.
The closely related genus Lucuma in its species L. obovata has pro-
vided one of the commonest motifs of Peruvian archeology (Yacovleff
and Herrera, 1934-35), and though of poor quality is widely grown in
the warm valleys of the northern Andes. Popenoe (1924, p. 131)
thinks it may be indigenous to the Oriente of Ecuador. There prob-
ably exist other cultivated species of Lucuma.
Pouteria caimito may be of aboriginal cultivation. It is known as
"abiu" in Brazil, "cauje" in Ecuador, and "caimo" in Colombia. Its
diffusion may have been effected by Amazonian tribes between the
east and west coasts of tropical South America.
Chrysophyllum cainito is the common caimito or star-apple found
all about the Caribbean, but not of old extending far beyond.
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 533
COTTON
Aboriginal cultivation of cotton extended from the Ho-pi and the
Rio Grande pueblos of New Mexico to Central Chile, Tucumdn, and
Paraguay. Latcham (1936 b, p. 223) gives particulars of its cultiva-
tion at the time of the Conquest of Chile and includes the valleys of
Copiapo, Coquimbo, and Aconcagua, far to the south of the present-
day limits. Acosta noted the importance of cotton growing in Tucu-
mdn, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, and Paraguay (1590, p. 165; also the
relevant areas in Jimenez de la Espada, 1881-97, vol. 3). Only in
North America did the limits of its cultivation fall significantly short
of the areas climatically suited. (It may be noted, however, that
archeologically cotton is known from the high Colorado Plateau,
such as Tsegi Canyon in northern Arizona.) There were, of course,
the parts of Brazil occupied by Oe tribes of rudimentary agriculture or
of none at all. Predominantly a crop of the hot lowlands, its cultiva-
tion extended also into intermediate altitudes where there were suitable
warm sunny valleys (e. g., north of Otavalo in Ecuador the people of
Las Salinas were noted for their cotton, Jimenez de la Espada, 1881-
97, 3:116).
Andean populations were supplied with cotton in quantity from
both flanks of the Andes. In the arid Coastal lowlands much cotton
was grown by irrigation. In both Inca and ^VQ-Inca Coastal sites
there is found, in addition to the cotton textiles, a good deal of cotton
in the seed (both the large naked and tufted seeds, probably barba-
dense at Ocucaje, for instance). On the eastern flank the yungas of
the Antisuyo were noted producers, as were, farther north, the Chacha-
poyas-Moyobamba and Quijos-Canela regions. In aboriginal Vene-
zuela the district of Tocuyo produced coarse cotton piece goods, from
which the name "tocuyo" passed into wide Spanish usage for coarse
cotton cloth (Latcham, 1936 b, p. 223). Very fine thread is found in
Peruvian textiles; at the other extreme twine and cordage were made
from cotton; especially in areas lacking the coarser fibers of cabuya
and maguey. The natural fiber colors, white, tawny brown, red,
and green are known. Seeds were not generally used for food, but
had medicinal uses. Soares de Souza, referring especially to the
Bahia region (1851, ch. 62), however, noted that "the natives eat the
seeds of cotton crushed and thereafter cooked, making thereof a
porridge caUed mingdu."
The classification of cottons has been put into order only in the last
20 years, the beginning being made by Russian studies, but the major
work carried thi'ough by scientists of the British Empire Cotton
Growing Corporation, based especially in India and Trinidad. A
general genetic classification and thesis of origin and diffusion was
534 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
presented by Harland (1939), followed by the more definite work of
Hutchinson, Silow, and Stephens (1947). Important contributions
to the origin of New World cotton were made also by the American
Beasley (1940) and the Peruvian Boza Barducci. The result has
been to reduce very greatly the number of species of cotton, and to
discard numerous criteria previously used in classifying them. The
valid phenotypic distinctions are so different from those applied by
prior taxonomic studies that the earUer published determinations and
herbarium labels can be accepted only after reexamination. I know
no genus of cultivated plants in which the species and forms are as
commonly mistaken, yet no genus is now more satisfactorily known as
to origin and differentiation.
The distinction between annual herbaceous and perennial woody
cottons now appears to be minor. Both in the New and the Old
World the cottons grown before the industrial revolution were mainly
perennials, annual forms making their appearance where seasons did
not admit of perennial habit. In higher latitudes, with long summer
days, an annual, more herbaceous form tended to replace the perennial
form. Where winter cold was encountered, only the annual forms, it
appears, could exist. In the polar parts of the range, therefore, annual
forms should have prevailed, and it is from such margins probably that
our sea island and upland cottons were selected. Early historical refer-
ences to annual cottons in the New World are curiously wanting.
Oviedo has a somewhat obscure statement that for best results annual
planting and harvesting was practiced on the Caribbean mainland.
For tropical latitudes old historical statements referring to cotton
as growing on trees are likely to mean precisely that. Soares de Souza
even speaks of cotton orchards in Bahia. In older writings shrubby
habit may be referred to by comparison with the growth of quince or
elder.
Geographically, there are two large species of New World cultivated
cottons: Gossypium barbadense, and G. hirsutum. Genetically, there
is a third, G. tomentosum, endemic to Hawaii, which is "genetically
further removed from G. hirsutum than G. hirsutum is from G. barba-
dense" (Hutchinson et al., 1947, p. 99).
There is no technical difficulty about crossing the barbadense and
hirsutum groups, but natural crosses are rare and do not persist.
Harland calls attention to the custom followed by Indians on the
Caribbean mainland, that of mixed planting of barbadense and pur-
purascens, adding that where these grow "side by side in cultivation
in approximately equal numbers, there is little evidence of connecting
forms." Such chance hybrids do not appear to have the capacity of
competing with the plants of either species and shortly are ehminated.
The division between the two groups is clear and ancient.
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 535
With regard to barbadense the situation has been well clarified.
Here belong Peruvian, some woody Brazilian cottons, and the annual
sea island and Egyptian cottons. Its aboriginal range included the
West Indies, the Caribbean mainland, Coastal Peru, and the Brazilian
lowlands. Information is still needed as to what cotton was grown
in the extratropical parts of South America. In its most ordinary
form, that of a vigorously branching shrub, barbadense is restricted to
low latitudes (short-day habit). How and where the long-day
(annual) forms, such as sea island, were established, are not known.
Was there an annual barbadense in southern South America and
another in the West Indies? Harland favors the Cauca Valley as
place of origin, because of the massing of dominant genes which he
noted there, Hutchinson et al. (1947), on the basis of further collec-
tions, emphasize the great variability of barbadense forms for the west
coast area, and hold its variety brasiliense to have been developed by
the inhabitants of moist forests in Brazil. Prehistorically, the barba-
dense complex appears to have been almost wholly South American,
meeting the North American hirsutum complex only in lower Central
America and in the West Indies.
O. hirsutum in the large sense extended aboriginally from the Colo-
rado Plateau at the north (archeologic) southward along the Pacific
coast to the Tumbes area of Peru (Boza), across the West Indies and
along the northern shores of South America into northeast Brazil
(Hutchinson et al., 1947). Its major area was Middle America, both
mainland and island, and its South American penetration appears to
have been principally from the northern shores southward, and
coastwise.
Two main varieties of G. hirsutum appear to be well recognized:
var. punctatum, and var. marie-galante (var. purpurascens of Harland)
.
The former is chiefly Mexican and Central American, the latter north-
ern South American. The only area in which both are widely associ-
ated is in the West Indies. The punctatum variety is usually a woody
perennial of markedly bushy habit, branching from the base, with the
smaU boUs setting in the dry season. The forms known to me are
markedly xerophytic in habit, the dooryard cottons of Mexico and
Guatemala, but Hutchinson reports also a mesophytic type in Central
America. The lint most commonly adheres to the seed, but there
are tufted and naked seeded forms. The variety marie-galante, re-
stricted to lower latitudes, is markedly photoperiodic, flowering only
during the shorter days, and in growth is the largest of the cottons,
often a small tree, with one branching trunk. The third recognized
variety of 0. hirsutum is annual, herbaceous, and has become the
great upland cotton of modern commerce. It is probably the latest
of the cotton cultigens; older historical references to it are nearly
536 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
lacking. Apparently it came from the highlands of southern Mexico,
but how and when remains uncertain.
The genus is widely distributed about the dry tropical margins of
the world, its sections morphologically, cytologically, and geographi-
cally clearly distinct, an indication of their geologic antiquity. All
the certainly wild species are diploids and lintless, and all the Ameri-
can wild ones form a single cytologic group. The Old World has
two lint-bearing cultivated diploid species, for which Hutchinson et al.
(1947, pp. 65-70) have developed the argument that these were formed
as fiber plants by the intervention of man.
The New World lint-bearing cottons (including the Hawaiian Q.
tomentosum) are tetraploids and are the only tetraploids in the genus.
Moreover they are allotetraploids, consisting of the genom common
to all American species, plus the genom of the Old World cultivated
species. They are, therefore, of hybrid origin, probably constituted
by the fertilizing of hnt-bearing Old World female parents by a wild
New World male plant. This male parent may well have been 6r.
raimondii of North Perd, which species has a restricted range along
arroyos in the Pacific base of the Andes and extending out across the
coast plain, roughly the area occupied by the Mochica and Chiiou
cultures. It is a vigorous, handsomely flowering slirub with larger
flowers than any other wild Oossypium, and it looks more like the
domesticated cottons than any of the wild species, is unique in having
seed hairs, and is at home in the middle of one of the major archeo-
logic centers of the New World, an area of remarkable diversity of
cultivated plants and wild relatives. (Reference again is made to the
excellent monograph of Boza Barducci and Madoo, 1941.)
There are further interesting occurrences of tetrapoid cottons in
the Pacific Islands. A supposedly endemic cotton in Tahiti and other
Polynesian Islands has been found by Hutchinson et al. (1947, p. 43)
to be indistinguishable from the xerophytic "algodon brujo" of Puerto
Rico, a form of the punctatum variety. The endemic cotton of the
Galapagos has been reduced to a variety of O. barbadense. The
shrubby, endemic cotton of the Hawaiian Islands remains as a tetra-
poid species, having the genom of the New World cottons and the
one of the Old World cultivated cottons. It may be an early divergent
from the ancestral hybrid cotton of the South American mainland,
carried to Hawaii before the barbadense and hirsutum species formed.
No tetraploid cottons exist anjrwhere else in the world, and the whole
lot has a common origin. How then, may we explain the connection
between Peru, the Marquesas, and Fiji, with no such cottons existing
west of Fiji?
The situation is complicated stiQ further by the discovery that in all
26 chromosome cottons there is one Asiatic and one New World
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 537
genome. The 26 chromosome group is therefore considered as having
arisen by the combination of a 13-chromosome Asiatic with a 13-
chromosome American ancestor. No 26-cliromosome species being on
the continents of the Old World, the following, therefore, appear to be
implicit: (a) The migration of an Asiatic cotton to the New World,
(b) the forming of a new (26-chromosome) group in the New World,
(c) the extinction of the immigrant Asiatic parent (there being no 13
diploid Gossypium of the Asiatic forms in the New World), and (d)
finally the dispersal of the new group most of the way west across the
Pacific Ocean. Harland (1939) offers an alternative explanation, name-
ly that a land bridge connected America and Asia in low latitudes and
that Asiatic and American 13-chromosome Gossypiums there met and
mingled. The island species therefore would have been left marooned
with the coUapse of the bridge. Structural geologists have combatted
with growing success the readiness of biologists to construct land
bridges whenever a troublesome biotic distribution was encountered.
A land bridge across the mid-Pacific is one of the unlikeliest things of
all unlikely things to have happened in the crustal history of the earth.
The land bridge thesis also involves a respectable geological age for the
tetraploid cottons far antedating the origins of agriculture and even
of man.
The question is raised, therefore, whether 26-chromosome cottons
(excepting hirsutum) can be considered as truly wild species, the cul-
tivated plants then being simply improved wild ones. There is no
question that the cultivated cottons also *'grov/ wUd" in the New
World. So do limes and oranges. The distinction between originally
Wild and escaped forms is difficult to establish and has received pitifully
little attention from systematists in the field. The usual notations on
"wild cotton" are from places where escape is to be expected. Having
diagrammed the gene composition of all American and Pacific Island
tetraploid species, and noted the high incidence of recessives through-
out, Harland states "there is no definite 'wild type' in any of the
species" (1939, pp. 172-173). For the present, therefore, the evidence
favors considering the American tetraploid cottons as cultigens,
and probably also those of the Pacific Islands, even though forms are
known that have only short seed hairs.
The cotton genes and clu'omosomes in their geographic distribution
pomt to a trans-Pacific passage from west to east by an Asiatic parent,
and an mcompleted return movement of the tetraploid progeny.
This is a remarkable dual task to assign to birds, which do not eat
Gossypium seeds, or to the shght currents of the tropical Pacific, with
Gossypium being most unsuited to dispersal by floating. A dispersal
by land around the North Pacific may have taken place in that remote
time when^the^ genus originated. (The thesis of continental drift
538 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
would provide an avenue from Africa to South America that obviates
the problem of a migration through high latitudes.) Neither the way
of Alaska nor continental drift could apply to the much later time
when the tetraploid group originated. Nor does such a hypothesis
help to explain the occurrence of cottons with strong American
parentage, ranging from the Galapagos to Fiji, Perforce then we
must consider human agencies in the geographic distribution of the
Gossypium genus. The problem relates entirely to the hnt-bearing
forms useful to man. At the present state of evidence (and the
evidence is varied and much of it precise) there are fewest difficulties
in the human explanation. The trial hypothesis then would be that
a hnt-bearing Oriental cotton {Q. arboreum ?) was brought from
southeastern Asia to the New World (Peril ?). There hybridization
took place with an American cotton {G. raimondii ?) and the tetra-
ploid series was formed. However, J. O. Beasley (1942, pp. 44-48)
comes to the conclusion that the behavior at meiosis "sharply sup-
ports the idea that all the natural tetraploid (i. e., 26-chromosome)
Gossypium species came from one original tetraploid plant."
The immediately preceding paragraphs were written before the
publication of the Evolution of Gossypium, in which Hutchinson and
his associates present an exceedingly strong case for the origin of all
lint-bearing Gossypium species at the hands of agricultural folk, and
for the introduction by such folk of an Asiatic cotton cross the Pacific
into the New World. A new hybrid formed, probably in North Peru,
and became differentiated into a South American species (G. barbad-
ense) and a Middle American one (G. hirsutum). Late archeologic
finds have established the presence of cotton in the lowest agricultural
(preceramic) horizons of desert Peru and Chile. (See Hutchinson,
Silow, and Stephens, 1947.)
MISCELLANEOUS PLANTS
Cacao (Theobroma cacao) was a cultivated tree of the Northern
Hemisphere, grown throughout the tierra caliente of the Pacific Coast
from the Province of Nicoya (Costa Rica) to the Rio Grande of
Tepic. On the Atlantic side it had a similar latitudinal extent, but its
cultivation was in fewer localities and in general less significant.
Oviedo's lengthy account of cacao begins with the statement that it
was not a tree of the West Indian islands but of the "Tierra Firme,"
especially of New Spain and of Nicaragua. He describes the manner of
its preparation among the Chorotegan Indians of Nicoya, but
apparently had not seen it south thereof, among the tribes of Chibchan
speech. His most detailed account of native life is for the Province
of Cueva (Panamd), yet he made no mention there of cacao. From
the Chorotega northward cacao was everywhere an important element
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 539
in native culture. Southward and eastward, however, it was used
little or not at all. This sharp break has nothing to do with climate,
nor probably with the native range of the tree.
Selection by aboriginal cultivators resulted in improved types, with
fine-flavored, tannin-poor seeds, yielding the fine criollo races of the
commercial plantations. In addition there was formed in Nicaragua
the lagarto cacao, so-called because the long, pointed, rough-skinned
pods resemble the body of an alligator. This variety, which seems to
be a cultigen, carries the botanical name pentagona. Its distribution
coincides roughly with the old Chorotegan land. There is disagree-
ment as to whether the famous Soconusco cacao is botanically distinct.
The best present opinion is that all cultivated cacao is of one species.
The white-seeded pataste {Theohroma bicolor) belongs to Central
America and South Mexico, but is probably not to be considered as a
cultivated species.
Cacao is the only crop grown between Peru and Sonora for which
irrigation is certainly known to have been employed. The principal
centers of cultivation lay on the Pacific slope, commonly in small
vaUeys and on cones at the foot slopes of the mountains. Most of
these old cacao areas have a limited period of summer rainfall, but the
trees require wetting at intervals through most of the year. Charac-
teristically, therefore, water was carried by smaU ditches through the
groves. In general the stubby cacao trees were provided with a
canopy of partial shade by interplanting a somewhat taller tree,
usually a feathery leafed leguminous tree, such as a Oliricidia (madre
de cacao) . Both inigation and canopy planting were artifices to simu-
late the natural habitat of the cacao tree.
In northern South America cacao cultivation was probably intro-
duced by the Spaniards, as the criollo cacao of Venezuela, traced to
Franciscan monks who brought seed from Nicoya. Possibly, however,
a kind of cacao was grown in the Merida area of Venezuela before the
Conquest. In modern plantations of the West Indies and Venezuela
an ordinary or forastero cacao is widely grown, often called
'calabacillo" from the gourdlike shape of its pods. The botanical
designation is leiocarpa; it is possibly a species but more probably only
a variety (freely cross-fertihzing with criollo types) . This calabacillo
cacao has closely related and perhaps truly wild forms widely spread
throughout northern South America.
Little is laiown of the wild cacao and the manner of its domestica-
tion. I have not been able to find any satisfactory record of wild
cacao in Mexico or Central America or of the distinction between
such trees and the criollo and lagarto forms. It seems impossible
to say at present whether the latter had a wild local ancestor or whether
they were derived from wild forms in northern South America. The
540 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
calabacUlo of South America seems to be more primitive and less
specialized than the northern forms. Yet if we suppose that the
Central American cacaos were introduced there, we lack all knowledge
of a culture that might have brought them from South America.
However, in addition to the apparent primitiveness of cacao in north-
ern South America we must regard the favorable chmatic conditions
widely prevalent there and lacking in Central America. These
include, in association, the following: lack of marked diy season,
moderate rainfall, little wind, lack of low humidity, tropical tempera-
ture values with minimal seasonal and daily range. The habits of
the cacao would seem to point to a near-equatorial origin, of less
rainfall than is proper to the tropical rain forest. (Good systematic
notes on the species are by Kaden, 1935, and Pittier, 1935.)
Coca {Erythroxylon coca).—The use of masticatories was very wide-
spread in western and northwestern South America, and it is not
possible to distinguish everywhere between the cultivated coca and
other species of the genus or plants of other genera, chewed similarly.
The use of lime to activate the leaves chewed was general, but in the
north precise data on what was chewed are lacking, and in part
information about cultivation. It would seem, however, that the use
of coca extended through the northern Andes and their adjacent low-
lands. Peter Martyr (Anghiera, 1912, Decade 8, bk. 6) cites Domini-
can monks for an account of growing and chewing what probably was
a coca in the Cuman^ region of Venezuela. Oviedo described culti-
vation and chewing of a coca in the country behind Lake Maracaibo,
and again its use in old Nicaragua.
An especially important statement on coca is from the pen of the
Oidor Juan de Matienzo, about 1567 (1910, chs. 44-51), Beginning
his account in Colombia, he speaks of a ''coca menuda"in Antioquia,
of other plants thus used in the Province of Arma, and in the Prov-
inces of Quimbaya and Anzerma of "arbores medianos tiemos,"
which always are very green, from which they cut twigs that were
chewed against fatigue. In the pueblos subject to Call and Popaydn
the coca menuda was used, together with a lime preparation that
was kept in small calabashes just as was done, he said, from Venezuela
to Quito and Los Charcas (Sucre). (Coca is still cultivated in Indian
villages in the Province of Popaydn, but otherwise appears to have
faded out in the north of South America.) Referring to the area of
Inca domination, Matienzo continues with a statement of the cul-
tivation of the plant as carried on especially in the warm vaUey of the
Andes from Guamanga to the vicinity of Sucre:
It is the money of the Indians, and with it they carry on business among them-
selves; and to ask there should be no coca is to desire that Peru should cease to
be and the country given up. [At the time of writing the restriction of use under
Vol.6] CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 541
the Inca Emperors had given way to a general addiction to coca chewing by the
Indians.] Ordinarily it is planted in the same montana in which the forests
had been cut down and burned, by sowing at first in nursery plats after the manner
of lettuce beds for the purpose of transplanting, these beds being called colchas
. .
.
Here they remain for a year or a year and a half, and in some parts it is
better to leave them two years . . . The leaves are gathered three times a year
or four times in fourteen months and each harvest is called a mita ... At each
harvest it is necessary to cultivate the soil which (?) is called cora for it must
always be kept clean ... In order that the coca after picking be not spoiled
it must be carried to the sierra without delay.
He emphasized that coca continued to be grown in the plantations
that had been made for the Inca Emperor, but that a planting boom
under the Spaniards had spread to numerous new areas.
The Inca rule, puritanical in the handling of its subjects, restricted
cultivation to a limited number of carefully managed tracts in the
eastern yungas. Before its time perhaps no such stringent rules
governed production and use. That this stimulant and narcotic was
anciently prized is shown by the bags filled with coca leaves found in
the burials of Coastal Peru and by effigy pottery of Nasca and Mochica
origin (Yacovleff and Herrera, 1934-35, 3 : 297). The old use of coca
in the coast also indicates an early trans-Andean trade. The situa-
tion in aboriginal Colombia also suggests an old and widespread habit
of chewing narcotics with the aid of lime.
The habitat of the coca plant is in Andean valleys of the upper
tierra caliente, in short-day latitudes. Its ecology appears quite
similar to that of cacao, yet culturally the two scarcely overlap.
The culture of the masticatories seems to have held a great exclusive
terrain in the west and northwest of South America, adjoining that
of cacao at the north as it did that of smoking at the east and south.
Bixa orellana takes its generic name from Arawak or Carib. In
Central America the Nahua name "achiote" prevails. Its northern
area of cultivation coincided well with that of cacao, and here it had
an important use in the coloring of drink (chocolate) and food
(tamales). Oviedo gives as a reason the Indian liking for blood color;
its use in food and drinlv may at least have had a ritualistic origin.
Southward into South America its use was chiefly for face and body
painting, which gave satisfaction not only for ceremony and war, but
was a protection against insects. No information is at hand as to
the distinction between its wild range and the extension by cultivation.
Genipa americana, possibly including other species, is distributed
pretty well through the Tropics of America, in part cultivated and in
part wild. The fruits are edible and have been used for making an
intoxicating drinlv. Their greatest use, however, was for dyeing the
skin black. It is probable that the distribution both of bixa and
genipa was carried into numerous areas beyond their wild range for
542 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
body painting. Both were used also in dyeing textiles. "Genipapo"
is the vernacular Brazilian term derived from the Tupi; the West
Indian name is "jagua" or "xagua" (descriptive chapters under this
name by Oviedo and Cobo).
Indigo was produced from Indigqfera suffruticosa, the common anil
of Central America. It appears to have been the main source of blue
dyes in native weaving. All the blues in Paracas textiles have been
referred to this plant (Yacovleff and MueUe, 1934, 3:156-159). It
was grown probably as far south as the tJrubamba Valley.
The cultivation of an Opuntia cactus for the feeding of cochineal-
yielding insects apparently was also spread from Mexico to southern
Peru. In the valley of Guamanga this practice is said to have been
followed with much care (ibid.).
Crescentia cujete, the more southerly of the two calabash trees, has
a distribution from the Antilles to southern Brazil, over nearly 50
degrees of latitude. It was known to the Spaniards about the Carib-
bean as "hibiiera" or "higiiera." It is considered by Hartman (1910)
as a tree definitely taken under cultivation by the Indians for its
excellent gourds.
The pepper tree of Peru (Schinus molle) was planted in the Inca
lands along roads and in towns. It was used in making a strong
chicha, for embalming and medicinal purposes. The spread of the
Inca state apparently caused the diffusion of this tree to areas where
it was not native, such as in central Chile (Latcham, 1936 b, p. 53).
The other commonest shade tree of Andean lands is a single species
of willow (Salix humboldtiana) which was noted by early Spanish
conquerors from Colombia to Chile, planted about the fields and
settlements, and probably carried southward from northwest South
America.
In varying degrees, Indian settlements used enclosures, ranging
from the formidable stockades surrounding compounds among the
Chibcha, to living fences protecting garden plots. Various plants
were used for such purposes, especially if they had some additional
utility. Here may be mentioned Yucca elephantipes in Central
America, the flowers of which are an important food and which is
said to be unloiown wild. From Mexico to northern South America
species of terrestrial Bromelia {B. pinguin and B. karatas) are much
planted for their spiny leaves, strong fiber, and abundant acid fruits.
In the lowlands of Colombia and Ecuador the guadua {Ouadua angusti-
jolia), a giant American bamboo, was used for stockades and con-
struction. Possibly some of the great clumps of it that are to be
seen in these lowlands, often far removed from each other, date back
to Indian plantings. This giant grass, except for food, was almost
as varied in its uses as is bamboo in the Orient, and attracted the
Vol.61 CULTIVATED PLANTS—SAUER 543
attention of the early Spanish recorders. Curiously, it seems not to
have been carried beyond northwestern South America.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acosta, 1590; Ames, 1939; Anderson, 1943; Anderson and Cutler, 1942; Anghi-
era, 1912; Avery (see Goodspeed and Avery, 1939); Beasley, 1942; Bois, 1927-28;
Boza Barducci and Madoo, 1941; Bukasov, 1930, 1933; Cameron (see Mangelsdorf
and Cameron, 1942); Candolle, 1912; Cieza de Le6n, 1932; Cobo, 1893; Collins,
1930; Cook, 0. F., 1901, 1910, 1925; Cutler (see Anderson and Cutler, 1942);
Ditmers, Ivanov, and Popova, 1937; Engler, 1902, 1920; Friederici, 1926; Garcilaso
de la Vega, 1609 and 1619; Gentry, 1942; Gilmore, 1931; Goodspeed and Avery,
1939; Harland, 1939; Hartman, 1910; Henriquez Urena, 1938; Hernandez, 1942;
Herrera (see Yacovleflf and Herrera, 1934-35), 1921, 1934, 1942; Hoehne' 1937;
Hutchinson, Silow, and Stephens, 1947; Ivanov (see Ditmers, Ivanov, and Popova,'
1937), 1937; Jimenez (see Popenoe and Jimenez, 1921); Jimenez de la Espada,
1881-97; Kaden, 1935; Latcham, 1936 b; Lenz, 1904-10; Mackie, 1943; Madoo
(see Boza Barducci and Madoo, 1941) ; Maldonado (see Valdizian and Maldonado,
1922); Mangelsdorf and Cameron, 1942; Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939; Martyr
(see Anghiera, 1912); Matienzo, 1910; Muelle (see Yacovleflf and Muelle, 1934);
Oviedo y Vald^s, 1851-55; Pachano (see Popenoe and Pachano, 1922); Parodi,
1935; Pittier, 1935; Poma de Ayala, 1936, 1939; Popenoe, 1921, 1924; Popenoe
and Jimenez, 1921; Popenoe and Pachano, 1922; Popova (see Ditmers, Ivanov,
and Popova, 1937); Reeves (see Mangelsdorf and Reeves, 1939); Safford, 1917 a'
1917 b, 1925; Soares de Souza, 1851; Standley, 1920-26, 1928, 1937-38; Thevet[
1558; Tioutine, 1935; Valdizdn and Maldonado, 1922; Vargas, 1936, 1938; Whit-
ing, 1939; Xesspe (see Poma de Ayala, 1936); Yacovleflf, 1933; Yacovleflf and
Herrera, 1934-35; Yacovleflf and Muelle, 1934.

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO VOLUME 6
ABBREVIATIONS
A. B. C. A. B. C. Quibd6, Colombia.
Abhandl. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg. Abhandlungen zur Anthropologie, Ethnol-
ogie und Urgeschichte. Frankfurt,
Germany.
Abhandl. Math.-Physik. CI. K. Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physi-
Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich. kalischen Classe der Koniglich Bayer-
ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Munich, Germany.
Abhandl. Philos.-Philol. Hi&t. CI. Abhandlungen der Philosophisch-Philo-
Akad. Wissen. Munich, logische und Historische Classe der Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften. Munich,
Germany.
Acta Amer. Acta Americana. Revista de la Sociedad
(Sociedade) Interamericana de Antro-
pologfa y Geografia; Review of the
Inter-American Society of Anthropology
and Geography.
Actas Acad. Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba Actas de la Academia Nacional de Cien-
cias. C6rdoba, Argentina.
Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux Actes de la Soci6t6 Linn^enne de Bordeaux.
Actes Soc. Sci. Chili Actes de la Soci6t6 Scientifique du Chili.
Santiago de Chile.
Agriculture in the Americas Agriculture in the Americas, Office of For-
eign Agricultural Relations, U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture. Washington,
D. C.
Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R. Akademifa Nauk S. S. S. R. Leningrad,
Russia.
Amer. Anthrop. American Anthropologist.
Amer. Antiq. American Antiquity.
Amer. Bib. Soc. American Bible Society. New York, N . Y.
Amer. Comm. Inter. Wild Life Pro- American Committee for International
tect. Spec. Publ. Wild Life Protection. Special Pubhca-
tion.
Amer. Hist. Record American Historical Record. Phila.del-
phia, Pa.
Am^r. Indig. America Indfgena. Mexico, D. F.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop. American Journal of Physical Anthro-
pology.
Amer. Journ. Physiol. American Journal of Physiology. Balti-
more, Md.
Amer. Journ. Sci. American Journal of Science. New Haven,
Conn.
Amer. Journ. Sci. Arts . American Journal of Science and Arts.
545
546 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Amer. Journ. Surg. American Journal of Surgery. New York,
N. Y.
Amer. Journ. Trop. Med. American Journal of Tropical Medicine.
Baltimore, Md.
Amer. Med. Assoc. American Medical Association.
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. . American Museum of Natural History.
New York, N. Y.
Amer. Natur. American Naturalist.
America America, Publicaci6n trimestral del Grupo
America (revista . . . ilustrada de litera-
tura, arte, ciencias). Quito, Ecuador.
An. Acad. Nac. Agron. Vet. Anales de la Academia Nacional de Agro-
nomfa y Veterinarla. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
An. Facul. Med. Anales de la Facultad de Medicin8, Uni-
versidad Mayor de San Marcos. Lima,
Peru.
An. Gimn. Paraguayo Anales del Gimnasio Paraguayo. Asun-
ci6n. Paraguay.
An. Hydrogr. Mar. Chile Anuario Hydrogrdfico de la Marina de
Chile. Santiago de Chile.
An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer. Anales del Institute de Etnograffa Ameri-
cana, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
Mendoza, Argentina.
An. Instr. Pdbl. Estad. Unid. Anales de la Instrucci6n Pdblica en los
Colombia. Estados Unidos de Colombia. Bogota,
Colombia.
An. Med. Int. Madrid Anales de Medicina Interna. Madrid,
Spain.
An. Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat. Anales del Museo Argentine de Ciencias
Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia."
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
An. Mus. La Plata Anales de Museo de La Plata, Universidad
Nacional. La Plata, Argentina.
An. Mus. Nac. Arqueol. Hist. Etnol. . Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueo-
logia, Historia y Etnologfa. Mexico,
D. F.
An. Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires Anales del Museo Nacional de Buenos
Aires. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
An. Mus. Nac. Chile Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia
Natural. Santiago de Chile.
An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia
Aires. Natural de Buenos Aires. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
An. Soc. Cient. Argentina Anales de la Sociedad Cientffica Argentina.
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
An. Soc. Geogr. Hist. Guatemala Anales de la Sociedad de Geograffa e
Historia de Guatemala. Guatemala,
Guatemala.
An. Univ. Cent. Quito Anales de la Universidad Central. Quito,
Ecuador.
An. Univ. Cent. Venezuela. .- Anales de la Universidad Central de Vene-
zuela. Caracas, Venezuela.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 547
An. Univ. Chile Anales de la Universidad de Chile. San-
tiago de Chile.
An. Univ. Narino Anales de la Universidad de Narino.
Pasto, Colombia.
Ann. Acad. Brasil. Seienc. Annaes da Academia Brasileira de Scien-
cias. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Ann. Bibl. Nac. Rio de Janeiro Annaes da Bibliotheca Nacional. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Ann. Carnegie Mus. Pittsburgh Annals of the Carnegie Museum. Pitts-
burgh, Pa.
Ann. Hyg. Publ. MM. L6g. Annales d'HygiSne Publique et de Medi-
cine Legale.
Ann. Ling. Paris Ann^e Linguistique, Sbci6t4 Philologique.
Paris, France.
Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. Annals and Magazine of Natural History.
London, England.
Ann. Med. Hist. Annals of Medical History. New York,
N. Y.
Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden Annuals of the Missouri Botanical Garden.
Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
Ann. Rep. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of
Ethnol. Harvard Univ. Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University. Cambridge, Mass.
Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Insti-
tution. Washington, D. C.
Ann. Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus. Annual Report of the United States Na-
tional Museum, Smithsonian Institu-
tion. Washington, D. C.
Anthrop. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. _ Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History. New
York, N. Y.
Anthrop. Publ. Univ. Pennsylvania Anthropological Publications, The Univer-
Mus. sity Museum, University of Pennsylva-
nia. Philadelphia, Pa.
Anthrop. Rev. Anthropological Review. London, Eng-
land.
Anthropos Anthropos. Revue Internationale d'Eth-
nologie et de Linguistique; Ephemeris
Internationalis Ethnologica et Linguis-
tica; International Zeitschrift ftir V61-
ker- und Sprachenkunde. Salzburg and
Vienna, Austria.
Anz. Akad. Wissen. Wien Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften
in Wien.
Archiv Anthrop. Archiv fur Anthropologie. Brunswick
(Braunschweig), Germany.
Archiv. Antrop. Etnol. Archivio per I'Antropologia e I'Etnologia.
Florence, Italy.
Archiv, Chil. Morf. Archivos Chilenos de Morfologla. Santia-
go de Chile.
Archiv. Med. Leg. Ident. Archivos de Medicina Legal e Identifica-
gao. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
794711—50 36
548 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, Archives do Museu Nacional. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Archiv. Path. Archives of Pathology. Chicago, 111.
Archiv Path. Anat. Phys. Klin. Med. _ Archiv fiir Pathologische Anatomie und
Physiologic und fiir Klinische Medizin.
Berlin, Germany.
Archiv. Path. Lab. Med. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory
Medicine. Chicago, 111.
Archiv Rassen- Gesell.-Biol. Archiv fiir Rassen- und Gesellschafts-
Biologie, einschliesslich Rassen- und
Gesellschaftshygiene. Berlin; Munich.
Arquiv. Inst. Benjamin Baptista Arquivos de Institute Benjamin Baptista.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Arquiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro Arquivos do Museu Nacional. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Art and Archaeology Art and Archaeology; the Arts Throughout
the Ages. Archaeological Institute of
America. Baltimore; Washington,
Assoc. Frang. Avanc. Sci. Association Frangaise pour I'Avancement
des Sciences. Paris, France.
Atti Accad. Med. Roma. Atti della Accademia di Medicina di
Roma. Rome, Italy,
Atti Soc. Rom. Antrop. Atti della Societll Romana di Antropolo-
gia. Rome, Italy.
Ausland Ausland. Stuttgart, Germany.
Azul Azul; Revista de Ciencias y Letras. Azul,
Argentina.
Baessler-Archiv Baessler-Archiv, Beitrage ziir Volkerkunde.
Leipzig and Berlin, Germany.
Behavior Monog. Behavior Monographs. Baltimore, Md.
Bibl. Ling. Amdr. Paris Biblioth^que Linguistique Am&icaine.
Paris, France.
Bibl. Ling. Mus. La Plata Biblioteca Lingiilstica del Museo de La
Plata. La Plata and Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Bibl. Pedag, Brasil. Biblioteca Pedagogica Brasileira. Sao
Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Bibl. Soc. Cient. Paraguay Biblioteca de la Sociedad Cientffica del
Paraguay. Asunci6n, Paraguay.
Bol. Acad. Arg. Let. Boletln de la Academia Argentina de
Letras. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba. Boletfn de la Academia Nacional de Cien-
cias. C6rdoba, Argentina.
Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito Boletfn de la Academia Nacional de His-
toria. Quito, Ecuador,
Bol. Acad. Venezolana Boletfn de la Academia Venezolana.
Caracas, Venezuela.
Bol. Arqueol. Bogotd Boletfn de Arqueologfa. Bogota, Colom-
bia.
Bol. Bibl. Antrop. Amer. Boletfn Bibliogrdfico de Antropologfa
Americana, Institute Panamericano de
Geograffa e Historia. Mexico, D. F.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 549
Bol. Comm. Geogr. Geol. Sao Paulo__ Boletim da Commissao Geographica e
Geologica do Estado de Sao Paulo.
Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto Boletfn de Estudios Hist6ricos. Pasto,
Colombia.
Bol. Fac. Filos. Cidnc. Let. Univ. Sao Boletim do Faculdade de Filosoffa, Cien-
Paulo. cias e Letras, Universidade de Sao Paulo.
Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Bol. Filol. Montevideo Boletfn de Filologia, Secci6n de Filologfa
y Fon6tica Experimental, Instituto de
Estudios Superiores, Universidad de
Montevideo. Montevideo, Uruguay.
Bol. Hist. Antig. Boletfn de Historia y Antigiiedades.
Bogotd, Colombia.
Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino Boletfn del Instituto Geogr^fico Argentino,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bol. Inst. Invest. Hist. Buenos Aires. _ Boletfn del Instituto de Investigaciones
Histdricas. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Bol. Min. Agric. Colon. Bolivia Boletfn del Ministerio de Agricultura y
Colonizaci6n. La Paz, Bolivia.
Bol. Min. Agric. Indiist. Com. Boletim do Minist6rio da Agricultura,
Industria e Com^rcio. Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Bol. Mus. Goeldi Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio
Goeldi de Historia Natural e Ethno-
graphia. Bel6m do Para, Brazil.
Bol. Mus. Hist. Nat. "Javier Prado". Boletfn del Museo de Historia Natural
"Javier Prado," Universidad Mayor de
San Marcos. Lima, Peru.
Bol. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lima Boletfn del Museo de Historia Natural,
Universidad Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima, Peru.
Bol. Mus. Nac. Chile Boletfn del Museo Nacional de Historia
Natural. Santiago de Chile.
Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro Boletim do Museu Nacional de Rio de
Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Bol. Ofic. Nac. Estad. La Paz Boletfn de la Oficina Nacional de Estadfs-
tica. La Paz, Bolivia.
Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n Boletfn de la Sociedad de Biologfa de
Concepci6n. Concepci6n, Chile.
Bol. Soc. Cienc. Nat. Inst. La Salle. _ Boletfn de la Sociedad de Ciencias Natu-
rales del Instituto de la Salle. Bogota,
Colombia.
Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana Estud. Hist. Boletfn de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de
Amer. Estudios Hist6ricos Americanos. Quito,
Ecuador.
Bol. Soc. Geogr. La Paz Boletfn de la Sociedad Geogrdfica de la
Paz. La Paz, Bolivia.
Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima Boletfn de la Sociedad Geogrdfica de
Lima. Lima, Peru.
Bol. Soc. Geogr. Sucre Boletfn de la Sociedad Geogr^fica de
Sucre. Sucre, Bolivia.
Bol. Soc. M6d.-Cir. Mil. Rio de Boletim da Sociedade M^dico-Cirurgica
Janeiro. Militar. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
550 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Bol. Soc. Physis Boletfn de la Sociedad Physis. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Bol. Soc. Venezolana Cienc. Nat. Boletfn de la Sociedad Venezolana de
Ciencias Naturales. Caracas, Vene-
zuela.
Bol, Univ. Madrid Boletln de la Universidad de Madrid.
Madrid, Spain.
Bol. Univ. Nac. Literal Boletfn de la Universidad Nacional del
Literal. Sante Fe, Argentina.
Boll. R. Accad. Med. Roma BoUettino della Reale Accademia Medi-
cina di Roma.
BoU. Soc. Geogr. Italiana BoUettino della Society Geografica Ita-
liana. Rome, Italy.
Bot. Mus. Harvard Univ. Botanical Museum of Harvard University.
Cambridge, Mass.
Brasiliana (Colecao) Brasiliana, Bibliotheca Peda-
g6gica Brasileira. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
British Mus. (Nat. Hist.) British Museum (Natural History). Lon-
don, England.
Bull. Acad. Imp^r. M^d. Bulletin de I'Academia Imperiale de
M6decine. Paris, France.
Bull. Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Bulletin, American Ethnological Society.
New York, N. Y.
Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc. Bulletin, American Geographical Society.
New York, N. Y.
Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bulletin, American Museum of Natural
History. New York, N. Y.
Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Plant Breed. _ Bulletin of Applied Botany, Genetics, and
Plant Breeding. Leningrad.
Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. Bulletin, Bureau of American Ethnology,
Smithsonian Institution. Washington,
D. C.
Bull. Bur. Ethnol. Haiti Bulletin de Bureau d'Ethnologie de la
R^publique d'Haiti. Port-au-Prince,
Haiti.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bulletin, Geological Society of America.
Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool. Bulletin, Harvard Museum of Compara-
tive Zoology. Cambridge, Mass.
Bull. M^m. Soc. Anthrop. Paris Bulletins et M^moires de la Soci6t6
d'Anthropologic de Paris. Paris, France.
Bull. M4m. Soc. Chir. Paris Bulletins et M^moires de Soci6t6 de
Chirurgie de Paris. Paris, France.
Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris Bulletin du Museum d'Histoire Naturelle.
Paris, France.
Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc. Bulletin of the New York Zoological
Society. New York, N. Y.
Bull. Soc. Am4r. Belgique Bulletin de la Soci6t6 des Am^ricanistes
de Belgique. Brussels.
Bull. Soc. Anthrop. BruxeUes Bulletin du Soci6t6 d'Anthropologie de
BruxeUes.
Bull. Soc, Anthrop. Paris Bulletin de la Soci6t4 d'Anthropologie de
Paris. Paris, France.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 551
Bull. Soc. G^ogr. Paris Bulletin de la Soci4t6 de Geographic.
Paris, France.
Bull. Soc. Ling. Paris Bulletin de la Society de Linguistique de
Paris. Paris, France.
Bull. Torr. Bot. Club Bulletin Torrey Botanical Club. New
York, N. Y.
Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. Bulletin, United States National Muse-
um, Smithsonian Institution. Washing-
ton, D. C.
Caldasia Caldasia, Boletfn del Institute de Ciencias
Naturales de la Universidad Nacional
de Colombia. Bogotd, Colombia.
Calif. State Journ. Med. California State Journal of Medicine.
Cambridge Nat. Hist. Cambridge Natural History. London,
England.
Carnegie Inst. Washington Carnegie Institution of Washington. Wash-
ington, D. C.
Col. Doc. In6d. Hist. Espana Colecci6n de Documentos In^ditos para
la Historia de Espana. Madrid, Spain.
Col. Estud. Indig. Coleccidn de Estudios Indigenistas, Insti-
tuto de Filologia, Facultad de Filosoffa
y Letras, Universidad Nacional. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Col. Hist. Chile Coleccidn de Historiadores de Chile y de
Documentos d la Historia Nacional.
Santiago de Chile.
Coll. Ling. Amer.
, Collection Linguistique Am^ricaine. Paris,
France.
Coll. Ling. Paris Collection Linguistique, Society de Lin-
guistique de Paris. Paris, France.
Com. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Comunicaciones del Museo Nacional de
Aires. Historia Natural de Buenos Aires.
Comp. Ethnogr. Stud. Comparative Ethnographical Studies.
Gothenburg (Goteborg), Sweden.
Compt.-Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris Comptes-Rendus, Acad^mie des Sciences.
Paris, France.
Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. Comptes Rendus, Society de Biologie.
Paris, France.
Congr. Cient. Gen. Chil. Congreso Cientifico General Chileno.
Congr. Int. Amer. Congreso Internacional de Americanistas;
Congrfes International des Am^ricanis-
tes; International Congress of Ameri-
canists, etc.
Congr. Int. Anthrop. Arch^ol. Pre- Congrfis International d'Anthropologie et
hist. d'Archeologie Prehistoriques; Interna-
tional Congress of Anthropology and
Prehistoric Archaeology, etc.
Congr. Int. Sci. Anthrop. Ethnol. Congr&s International de Sciences Anthro-
pologiques et Ethnologiques.
Contrib. Mus. Amer. Ind. Contributions of the Museum of the
American Indian, Heye Foundation.
New York, N. Y.
552 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb. Contributions from the United States
National Herbarium. Washington, D. C.
Curses Confer. Cursos y Conferencias, Revista del
Colegio Libre de Estudios Superiores.
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
De Re Indica De Re Indica, 6rgano de la Sociedad
Venezolano de Americanistas. Caracas,
Venezuela.
Denk. Math.-Phys. CI. K. Bayer. Denkschriften, Mathematisch-Physikali-
Akad. Wissen. Munich. sche Classe, K. Bayerische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Munich.
Denk. Philos.-Hist. Kl. K. Akad. Denkschriften der Philosophisch-Histori-
Wissen. Vienna. sche Klasse der K. Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, Vienna.
Dent. Cosmos Dental Cosmos. Philadelphia, Pa.
Diana Rev. Mens. Ilus. Buenos Diana, Revista Mensual Ilustrada.
Aires. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Early Man Early Man, as depicted by leading au-
thorities at the International Sympo-
sium, The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia. Philadelphia; London.
El Mon. Educ. Comiin. Buenos El Monitor de la Educaci6n Comdn,
Aires. 6rgano del Consejo Nacional de Educa-
ci6n. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ethnol. Abt. Konig. Mus. Ethnologische Abteilung des Koniglichen
Museums. Berlin, Germany.
Ethnol. Stud. Etnologiska Studier; Ethnological Studies.
Gothenburg (Goteborg), Sweden.
Ethnos Ethnos. Mexico City, Mexico (to 1925);
Stockholm, Sweden (1936- ).
Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Mem. . Field Museum of Natural History, An-
thropological Memoirs. Chicago, lU.
Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Ser. _ _ Field Museum of Natural History, An-
thropological Series. Chicago, 111.
Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoo-
logical Series. Chicago, 111.
Gaea Gaea, Anales de la Sociedad Argentina de
Estudios Geogrdficos. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Generos Generos, 6rgano de la Biblioteca Nacional.
Bogotd, Colombia.
Genetica Genetica, Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor
Erfelijkheids- en Afstammingsleer. 'S
Gravenhage (The Hague).
Genetics Genetics, Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Geogr. Journ. The Geographical Journal, Royal Geo-
graphical Society. London.
Geogr. Rev. Geographical Review, American Geo-
graphical Society. New York, N. Y.
Geogr. Zeit. .., ,, Geographische Zeitschrift. Leipzig, Ger-
manv.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 553
Geol. Soc. Amer. Geological Society of America. New
York, N. Y.
Globus Globus. Brunswick (Braunschweig)
,
Germany.
Goteborgs Kungl. Vet. Vitt. Handl. _ Goteborgs kungl. vetenskaps-och vitter-
hets-samhalles Handlingar. Gothen-
burg (Goteborg), Sweden.
Harvard Univ. Press. Harvard University Press. Cambridge,
Mass.
Hilgardia Hilgardia, California Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. Berkeley, Calif.
Human Biol. Human Biology; a Record of Research.
Baltimore, Md.
Humanior Humanior, Biblioteca del Americanista
Moderno. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Humaniora, Acta Acad. Aboensis Humaniora, Acta Academiae Aboensis,
Abo Akademi. Abo, Finland.
Hakluyt The Hakluyt Society. London, England.
n Nazionale II Nazionale, Revista di Centro ItaHano
di Studi Americani. Rome; Turin.
Inca Inca, Revista de Estudios Antropol6gicos,
6rgano del Museo de Arqueologfa de la
Universidad Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima, Peru.
Ind. Notes Indian Notes, Museum of the American
Indian, Heye Foundation. New York,
N. Y.
Ind. Notes Monogr. Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum
of the American Indian, Heye Founda-
tion. New York, N. Y.
Inst. Biol. Univ. Aut6. Mdxico Institute de Biologla, Universidad Aut6-
noma de M6xico.
Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn Institute de Etnologfa de la Universidad
Nacional. Tucumd.n, Argentina.
Inst. Int. Anthrop. Institut International d'Anthropologic.
Paris, France.
Inst. Panamer. Geogr. Hist. Institute Panamericano de Geografia e
Historia. Mexico, D. F.
Int. Archiv Ethnogr. International Archiv fur Ethnographic.
Leyden, Holland.
Int. Journ. Amer. Ling. International Journal of American Lin-
guistics. New York; Baltimore.
Jahresber. Geogr. Gesell. Bern Jahresbericht der Geographischen Gesell-
schaft zu Bern. Bern, Switzerland.
Jounr. Allied Dent. Soc. The Journal of the Allied Dental Societies.
New York, N. Y.
Journ. Amer. Dent. Assoc. Journal of the American Dental Associa-
tion. Chicago, 111.
Journ. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion. Chicago; Baltimore.
Journ. Amer. Folklore Journal of American Folklore. Boston,
Mass.; New York, N. Y.; Lancaster, Pa.
554 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc. Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion.
Journ. Amer. Stat. Assoc. Journal of the American Statistical Asso-
ciation. Boston, Mass.
Journ. Anat. Physiol. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology.
Cambridge and London, England.
Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ire- Journal of the Anthropological Institute of
land. Great Britain and Ireland. London,
England.
Journ. Anthrop. Soc. London Journal of the Anthropological Society of
London. London, England.
Journ. Clfn. Journal dos CUnicos.
Journ. Ethnol. Soc. London Journal of the Ethnological Society of
London. London, England.
Journ. Genet Journal of Genetics. Cambridge, Eng-
land.
Journ. Hered. Journal of Heredity. Washington, D. C.
Journ. Immunol. Journal of Immunology, Society for Serol-
ogy and Haematology, American Asso-
ciation of Immunologists. Baltimore,
Md.
Journ. Inst. Jamaica Journal of the Institute of Jamaica.
Kingston, Jamaica.
Journ. Mamm. Journal of Mammalogy. Baltimore, Md.
Journ. N. Y. Bot. Garden Journal of the New York Botanical
Garden. New York, N. Y.
Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Ireland. Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.
London, England.
Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society.
London, England.
Journ. Soc. Am6r, Paris Journal de la Soci6t6 des Am^ricanistes de
Paris. Paris, France.
Journ. Washington Acad. Sci. Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences.
Kosmos Kosmos, Gesellschaft der Naturfreunde.
Stuttgart.
La Brasa La Brasa, Peri6dico Mensual de Letras y
Artes. Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
L'Anthrop. L'Anthropologie. Paris, France.
Lasso Lasso, Deutsch-Sudamerikanische Monat-
schrift. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Letras Letras, 6rgano de la Facultad de Filosoffa,
Historia y Letras, Universidad Mayor
de San Marcos. Lima, Peru.
Man Man, Royal Anthropological Institute of
Great Britain and Ireland. London,
England.
Mem. Amer. Anthrop. Assoc. Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association.
Mem. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of
Arts and Sciences. New Haven, Conn.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 555
Mem. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool. __ Memoirs, Harvard Museum of Compara-
tive Zoology. Cambridge, Mass.
M€m. Inst. Ethnol. Paris M^moires, Institut d'Ethnologie, Univer-
sity de Paris. Paris, France.
Mem. Jardfn Zool. La Plata Memorias del Jardfn Zool6gico. La Plata,
Argentina.
Mem. Mus. Parand Memorias del Museo de Parand. Parand,
Argentina.
Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sci-
ences. Washington, D. C.
M6m. Soc. Anthrop. Paris M6moires de la Soci4t6 d' Anthropologic de
Paris. Paris, France.
M6m, Soc. Ling. Paris M6moires de la Soci6t6 de Linguistique de
Paris, Paris, France.
Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien Mitteilungen der Anthropologische Gesell-
schaft in Wien. Wien (Vienna), Aus-
tria.
Mitt. Verhandl. Internat. Wiss. Mittheilungen und Verhandlungen d. In-
Lepra-Conf. ternationale Wissenschaftliche Lepra-
Conferenz; International Scientific Con-
ference on Leprosy.
Muench. Med. Wochen. Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift.
Munich, Germany.
Mus. Journ. Univ. Pennsylvania Museum Journal, The University Mu-
seum, University of Pennsylvania.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Nat. Geogr. Mag. National Geographic Magazine, National
Geographic Society. Washington, D. C.
Nat. Hist. Natural History, The Magazine of the
American Museum of Natural History.
New York, N. Y.
Naturwiss. Wochen. Naturwissenschaftliche Wochenschrift.
Jena, Germany.
Neue Denkschr. Schweizer. Natur. Neue Denkschriften der Schweizerischen
Gesell. Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Zurich.
New Mexico Anthrop. New Mexico Anthropologist. Albuquer-
que, N. M.
Notas Mus. La Plata Notas del Museo de La Plata, Institute
del Museo de la Universidad Nacional
de La Plata. La Plata, Argentina.
Notas Prelim. Mus. La Plata Notas Preliminares del Museo de La Plata,
Universidad Nacional. La Plata, Ar-
gentina.
N. Y. Acad. Sci. New York Academy of Sciences. New
York, N. Y.
Pacif. Dent. Gaz. Pacific Dental Gazette. San Francisco,
Calif.
Pap. Michigan Acad. Sci. Arts Let. _. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sci-
ence, Arts and Letters. New York,
N. Y.
Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Amer-
Ethnol. Harvard Univ. ican Archaeology and Ethnology, Har-
vard University. Cambridge, Mass.
556 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Petermanns Mitt. Petermanns Mitteilungen, Gotha, Ger-
many.
Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London.
Petite Biblio. Am6r. Petite Bibliothlque Am^ricaine. Paris,
France.
Physis Physis, Revista de la Sociedad Argentina
de Ciencias Naturales. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Primitive Man Primitive Man, Quarterly Bulletin of the
Catholic Anthropological Conference.
Washington, D. C.
Proc. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia _ Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. Philadelphia,
Pa.
Proc. Amer. Assoc. Advance. Sci. Proceedings of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society. Philadelphia, Pa,
Proc. Eighth Amer. Sci. Congr. Proceedings of the Eighth American Sci-
entific Congress. Washington, D. C.
Proc. Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr. Proceedings of the Pan-Americpn Scientific
Congress.
Proc. Roy. Geogr. Soc. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical
Society. London, England.
Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Medicine. London, England.
Proc. Second Conv. Inter-Amer. Bibl. Proceedings of the Second Convention of
Libr. Assoc. the Inter-American Bibliographical and
Library Association.
Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. Proceedings of the Society for Experi-
mental Biology and Medicine. New
York, N. Y.
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. Proceedings of the United States National
Museum. Washington, D. C.
Proc. Washington Acad. Sci. Proceedings of the Washington Academy
of Sciences.
Proc. Zool. Soc. London Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London.
Przeglad Antropologiczny Przeglad Antropologiczny, Polskie
Towarzystwo Antropologiczne, Posen
Universytit (Zaklad Antropologji)
.
Posen.
Publ. Fac. Cienc. Univ. Nac. Litoral, Publicaciones de la Facultad de Ciencias
Ser. T6c.-Cient. de la Universidad Nacional del Litoral,
Serie T6cnico-Cientffico. Rosario, Ar-
gentina.
Publ. Inst. Fisiog. Geol. Publicaciones del Instituto de Fisiograffa
y Geologia. Rosario, Argentina.
Publ. Inst. Invest. Hist. Publicaciones del Instituto de Investi-
gaciones Hist6ricas. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 557
Publ. Mus, Antrop. Etnogr. Fac. Publicacionea del Museo Antropol6gico y
Filos. Letras. Etnogrdfico de la Facultad de Filosoffa
y Letras, Universidad de La Plata.
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Publ. Mus. Antrop. Lima Publicaciones del Museo de Antropologfa.
Lima, Peru.
Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop. Chile Publicaciones del Museo de Etnologfa y
Antropologla de Chile. Santiago de
Chile.
Publ. Real Acad. Hist. Madrid Publicaciones de la Real Academia de la
Historia. Madrid, Spain.
Publ, School Amer. Research, Publication of the School of American
Archaeol. Inst. Amer. Research, Archaeological Institute of
America. Santa Fe, N. M.
Publ. Secc. Antrop. Fac. Filos. Let. __ Publicationes de la Secci6n Antropol6gica
de la Facultad de Filosoffa y Letras.
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Publ. Secc. Arqueol. Min. Educ. Publicaciones de la Secci6n de Arqueologla,
Nac. Colombia. Ministerio de Educaci6n Nacional.
Bogotd, Colombia.
Publ. Univ. Nac. Tucum^n Publicaciones de la Universidad Nacional
de Tucum^n. Tucumdn, Argentina.
Quart. Rev. Biol. Quarterly Review of Biology. Baltimore,
Md.
Rel. Geogr. Indias Relaciones Geogrdficas de Indias (Pub-
lished by Marcos Jimenez de la Espada).
Madrid, Spain.
Rel. Soc. Argentina Antrop. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de
Antropologia. Buenos Aires, Argen-
tina.
Rep. British Assoc. Advance. Science. Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Rep. Hist. Medellln Repertorio Historico, 6rgano de la Aca-
demia Antioquena de Historia. Medellm,
Colombia.
Rev. Acad. Colombia Cienc. Exact. Revista de la Academia Colombia de
Fis. Natur. Ciencias Exactas, Ffsicas y Naturales.
Bogotd, Colombia.
Rev. Amer. Rio de Janeiro Revista Americana- Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Rev. Anthrop. Paris Revue d'Anthropologic. Paris, France.
Rev. Archiv. Santiago del Estero Revista del Archive de Santiago del Es-
tero. Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
Rev. Argentina Agron. Revista Argentina de Agronomla. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Argentina Paleon. Antrop. Revista Argentina de Paleontologfa y An-
Ameghinia. tropologfa Ameghinia. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Rev. Arqueol. Lima Revista de Arqueologfa. Lima, Perd.
Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo Revista do Arquivo Municipal. SSo
Paulo, Brazil.
Rev. Bibl. Chilena Extran. Revista de Bibliografia Chilena y Extran-
jera. Santiago de Chile.
558 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Rev. Bolivia Revista de Bolivia. La Paz, Bolivia.
Rev. Brasil Revista Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro.
Rev. Centr. Estud. Hist. Geogr. Revista del Centro de Estudios Hist6rico3
Cuenca. y Geogrdficos de Cuenca. Cuenca,
Ecuador.
Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr. Revista Chilena de Historia y Geografla.
Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural.
Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Col. Nac. Benigno Malo Revista del Colegio Nacional Benigno
Malo. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Rev. Crina. Polio. Cient. Revista de Criminologia y Policia Cientf-
fica. Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Derecho Hist. Let. Revista de Derecho, Historia y Letras.
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Entom. Sao Paulo Revista de Entomologia. Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Rev. Ethnogr. Paris Revue d'Ethnographic. Paris, France.
Rev. Exp. Antrop. Brasil Revista da Exposigao Antropologica Bra-
sileira. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Fac. Flum. Med. Revista da Faculdade Fluminense de
Medicina. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. G6n. Bot. Revue Gen^rale de Botanique. Paris,
France.
Rev. Geogr. Amer. Revista Geogrdfica Americana. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Hist. Colombia Revista de Historia, Centro de Historia
de Pasto. Pasto, Colombia.
Rev. Hist. Lima Revista Hist6rica, 6rgano del Institute
Hist6rico del Perd. Lima, Perd.
Rev. Imig. Col. Rio de Janeiro Revista de Imigragao e Colonizagao. Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucu- Revista del Institute de Antropologfa de
mdn. la Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn.
Tucumdn, Argentina.
Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Cuzco ^ Revista del Institute Arqueol6gico del
Cuzco. Cuzco, Perd.
Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Hist. Geogr. Per- Revista do Institute Arqueol6gice, His-
nambucano. tdrico e Geogrdfico Pernambucano (also
Institute Archeol6gice, Hist6rico e Geo-
grdphico Pernambucano). Pernambuce
and Recife, Brazil.
Rev. Inst. Bact. Chile Revista del Institute Bacteriol6gice de
Chile. Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Inst. Ceard Revista do Institute de Cearfi. Fortaleza,
Ceard, Brazil.
Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac. Begets Revista del Institute Etnol6gico Nacional
Begetd, Colombia.
Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucu- Revista del Institute de Etnelogia de la
mdn. Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn.
Tucumdn, Argentina.
Vol. &] BIBLIOGRAPHY 559
Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil Revista do Institute Hist6rico e Geo-
grdphico Brasileiro (also Revista trimen-
sal do Institute Hist6rico e Geographico
do Brasil).
Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Rio Grande Revista do Institute Hist6rico e Geo-
do Sul. grMco do Rio Grande do Sul. P6rto
Alegre, Brazil.
Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Sao Paulo Revista do Institute Hist6rice e Geo-
graphico de Sao Paulo. Sao Paulo,
Brazil,
Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Uruguay Revista del Institute Hist6rice y Gee-
grdfice del Uruguay. Montevideo, Uru-
guay.
Rev. Jardin Botdn. Asunci6n Revista del Jardin Botdnice. Asuncion,
Paraguay.
Rev. Jardin Zoel. Buenos Aires Revista del Jardin Zool6gico. Buenos
Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Ling. Phil. Cemp. Revue de Linguistique et de Philolegie
Compar^e. Paris, France.
Rev. M4d. Barcelona Revista M^dica de Barcelona. Barcelona,
Spain.
Rev. M6d. Chile Revista M4dica de Chile, Seciedad M6dica.
Santiago de Chile.
Rev. M6d Peruana Revista M^dica Peruana. Lima, Peru.
Rev. Men. Sec. Sec. Geogr. Lisboa, Revista Mensual de Secgao da Seciedade
Brazil. de Geographia de Lisboa, Brazil. Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Men. Sec. Geogr. Rio de Janeiro. Revista Mensual da Seciedade de Geo-
grafia de Rio de Janeiro. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Mex. Sec. Revista Mexicana de Socielogia, Institute
de Investigaciones Seciales de la Univer-
sidad Nacional Aut6nema. Mexico,
D. F.
Rev. Mis. Colombia Revista de Misiones. Bogota, Colombia.
Rev. Mug. Arch. Pub. Rio Grande de Revista de Museu e Archive publico de
Sul. Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre.
Rev. Mus. Hist. Nac. Chile Revista del Museo Hist6rice Nacional de
Chile. Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Mus. La Plata Revista del Museo de La Plata. La
Plata, Argentina.
Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima Revista del Museo Nacional de Lima.
Lima, Peru.
Rev. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro Revista do Museu Nacional. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Mus. Paul. Revista de Museu Paulista. Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Rev. Paraguaya Revista Paraguaya. Asunci6n, Paraguay.
Rev. Philel. Hist. Rio de Janeiro Revista de Philelogia e de Histeria, Ar-
chive de Estudes sebre Philolegia,
Histeria, Ethnographfa, felclore e critica
literaria. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Popaydn Revista Popaydn. Pepaydn, Colombia.
560 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BuU. 143
Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exact. Ffs. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias
Nat. Madrid. Exactas, Flsicas y Naturales de Madrid.
Rev. Rio de la Plata Revista del Rio de la Plata, Pori6dico
Mensual de Historia y Literatura de
America. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Serv. Patr. Hist. Art. Nac. Revista do Servigo do Patrimonio His-
torico e Artistico Nacional, Minist^rio
da Educagao e Saude. Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
Rev. Soc. "Araigos Arqueol." Revista de la Sociedad "Amigos de la
Arqueologia." Montevideo, Uruguay.
Rev. Soc. Argent. Cienc. Nat. Revista de Sociedad Argentina de Ciencas
Naturales. Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay Revista de la Sociedad Cientifica del
Paraguay. Asunci6n, Paraguay.
Rev. Sud-Amer. Cienc. Med. Farm. _ Revista Sud-Americana de Ciencias Medi-
cas y Farmaceuticas. Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Rev. Sudamer. Morfol. Revista Sudamericana de Morfologfa.
Concepcidn, Chile.
Rev. Trim. Inst. Ceard Revista Trimensal do Instituto do Ceard..
Fortaleza, Ceard, Brazil.
Rev. Trim. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil.. Revista Trimensal do Instituto Hist6rico
e Geogrdphico Brasileiro (or do Brasil).
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Rev. Trim. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Revista Trimensal do Instituto Hist6rico,
Ethnogr. Brasil. Geogrdphico e Ethnographico do Brasil.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rev. Univ. Arequipa Revista da la Universidad de Arequipa.
Arequipa, Peru.
Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires Revista de la Universidad de Buenos
Aires.
Rev. Univ. Cat. Bolivariana Revista de la Universidad Cat61ica
Bolivariana. Medellln, Colombia.
Rev. Univ. Cat. Chile Revista Universitaria, Universidad
Cat61ica de Chile. Santiago de Chile.
Rev. Univ. Cat. Peru Revista de la Universidad Cat61ica del
Peru. Lima, Peru.
Rev. Univ. Cuzco Revista Universitaria, 6rgano de la Uni-
versidad Nacional de Cuzco. Cuzco,
Peru.
Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba Revista de la Universidad Nacional de
C6rdoba. C6rdoba, Argentina.
Rev. Univ. Rio de Janeiro Revista da Universidade do Rio de Janeiro.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Riv. Antrop. Rivista di Antropologia, Society Romana
di Antropologia. Rome, Italy.
Secret. Agric. Indust. Comer. Secretaria de Agricultura, Industria e
Comercio. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Sitzung. Akad. Wissen. Wien Sitzungberichte der Kais. Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Wien. Math.-Natur-
wisse. Kl.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 561
Sitzung. Antrop. Gesell. Wien. Sitzungsberichte der Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft in Wien.
Sitzung. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Natur-
Berlin. forschender Freunde zu Berlin.
Sitzung. Math.-Physik. CI. K. Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. Bayerischen
Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Miin-
chen. Math.-phys. ICl.
Sitzung. Philos.-Histor. Kl. K. Akad. Sitzungsberichte der Fhilosophisch-His-
Wissen. Vienna. torische Klasse, K. Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Vienna.
Smithsonian Misc. Coll. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
Smithsonian Institution. Washington,
D. C.
Smithsonian Scient. Ser. Smithsonian Scientific Series. New York,
N. Y.
Soc. Blbl. Britdnica Extran. Sociedad Blblica Britdnica y Extranjera.
London, England.
Soc. Chi I. Tisiol. Sociedad Chilena de Tisiologfa. Santiago
de Chile.
Sphinx Sphinx, Revista Bimestral del Institute
Superior de Lingiiistica y Filologla de
la Universidad Mayor de San Marcos.
Lima, Peril.
Tag. Deutschen Anthrop. Gesell. Tagungsberichte der Deutschen Anthro-
pologischen Gesellschaft. Halle, Ger-
many.
Terre et Vie La Terre et la Vie, Revue d'Histoire
Naturelle. Paris, France.
Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Transactions of the American Ethnological
Society. New York, N. Y.
Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. Transactions of the American Philosophi-
cal Society. Philadelphia, Pa.
Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy
of Arts and Sciences. New Haven,
Conn.
Trans. Ethnol. Soc. London Transactions of the Ethnological Society
of London. London, England.
Trav. M6m. Inst. Ethnol. Univ. Travaux et M^moires de I'lnstitut d'Eth-
Paris. nologie. University de Paris. Paris,
France.
Treb. Soc. Biol. Barcelona Treballs de la Societat de Biologia.
Barcelona, Spain.
Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Archaeol. University of California Publications in
Ethnol. American Archaeology and Ethnology.
Berkeley, Calif.
Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft
Ethnol. Urg. ftir Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Urgeschichte. Berlin, Germany.
Verhandl. Deutscher Wiss. Ver. Verhandlunger des Deutscher Wissen-
Santiago. schaftlicher verein zu Santiago de
Chile.
Verhandl. Schweiz. Natur. Gesell. Verhandlungen der Schweizerischen
Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Zurich.
562 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Viertel. Naturf. Gesell. Zurich Vierteljahrschrift der Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft in Zurich.
Viking Fund Publ. Anthrop. Viking Fund Publications in Anthro-
pology. New York, N, Y.
Ymer Ymer. Stockholm, Sweden.
Zeit. Ethnol. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologic. Berlin, Ger-
many.
Zeit. Ford. Brasil. Zeitschrift zur Forderung der Brasilkunde.
Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Zeit. Franz. Sprache Litt. Zeitschrift fiir Franzosische Sprache und
Litteratur. Oppeln; Leipzig.
Zeit. Gesell. Erd. Berlin Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fiir Erdkunde
zu Berlin. Berlin, Germany.
Zeit. Morph. Anthrop. Zeitschrift ftir Morphologie und Anthro-
pologic. Stuttgart.
Zeit. Rassenk. Zeitschrift fiir Rassenkunde.
Zeit. Rassenphysiol. Munich Zeitschrift fiir Rassenphysiologie, Mittei-
lungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fiir
Blutgruppenforschung. Munich.
Zool. Gart. Der Zoolischer Garten. Leipzig, Ger-
many.
Zoologica Zoologica, Scientific Contributions of the
New York Zoological Society. New
York, N. Y.
Abbeville, Clatjde d'. See GARcfA, R., 1927.
Abel, Wolfgang,
1934. Hand- und Fingerabdriicke von Feuerlandern. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop.
34.
Abeeu, Joao Capistrano de.
1895. Os Bacaeris. Rev. Brasil., 1st anno, No. 3, pp. 209-228, No. 4,
pp. 43-50, 234-243. {Reprinted in "Ensaios e estudos," 3a Serie,
Rio de Janeiro, 1938.)
1914. Ra-txa hu-ni-ku-i, a lingua dos caxinauds do rio Ibuagu, affluente do
Maru (prefeitura de Tarauacd). Rio de Janeiro.
1938 a. Os Bacaeris. In "Ensaios e estudos (critica e historia)," 3a Serie,
pp. 217-274. Rio de Janeiro.
1938 b. Os Caxinauds. In "Ensaios e estudos (critica e historia)," 3a Serie,
pp. 275-357. Rio de Janeiro.
ACOSTA OrTEGON, JoAQTjfN.
1938. ... El idioma chibcha, aborigen de Cundinamarca. Bogotd.
AcosTA, Joseph de {also Acosta, Jos:^ de).
1590. Historia natural y moral de las Indias. (1st Sp. ed.) Seville. (Other
eds.: 1792; Mexico, 1940.)
1880. The natural and moral history of the Indies. London.
ActjSa, Crist6bal de.
1641, Nuevo descubrimiento del gran rio de las Amazonas por el padre
Christoval de Acuna . . . Al qual fue, y se hizo por orden de Su
Magestad, el ano de 1639. Por La Provincia de Quito en los reynos
del Peril . . , Impr. del reyno. Madrid. (Other ed., edited by
Clements R. Markham, Hakluyt Soc, 1859.)
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 563
ActrfjA, Crist6bal de—Continued
1891. Nuevo descubrimiento del gran rio de las Amazonas . . . Colecci6n
de libros que tratan de America, raros o curiosos, vol. 2. Madrid.
Adam, Lucien.
1878. Exaxnen grammatical compare de seize langues am^ricaines. Extrait
du Compte rendu destravaux du Congr. Int. Am6r., sess. 2, Luxem-
bourg, 1877, vol. 2, pp. 161-244. Paris.
1879. Du parler des hommes et du parler des femmes dans la langue caraibe.
Extrait des m^moires de I'Acad^mie de Stanislas pour 1878. Paris.
1885. Grammaire de la langue jfigane. Paris.
1890 a. Trois families linguistiques des bassins de I'Amazone et de I'Or^-
noque. Congr. Int. Am6r., Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888, pp. 489-497.
1890 b. Arte de la lengua de los indios antis o campas, varias preguntas,
advertencias y Doctrina Cristiana, conforme al manuscrito original
hallado en la ciudad Toled por Charles Leclerc con un vocabulario
metodico i una introduccion comparativa por Lucien Adam.
Bibl. Ling. Ana6r. Paris, vol. 13.
1891. Langue mosquito; grammaire, vocabulaire, textes. Bibl. Ling. Am^r.
Paris, vol. 14.
1892. De I'infixation dans la langue mosquito. Congr. Int. Am6r. Sess. 8,
Paris, 1890, pp. 588-589.
1893. Mat^riaux pour servir k I'^tablissement d'une grammaire compar^e des
dialectes de la famille caribe. Bibl. Ling. Am6r. Paris, vol. 17.
1896. Mat^riaux pour servir k I'^tablissement d'une grammaire compar^e des
dialectes de la famille Tupi. Bibl. Ling. Am6r. Paris, vol. 18.
1897 a. Mat(5riaux pour servir d I'^tablissement d'une grammaire compar^e
des dialectes de la famille Kariri. Bibl. Ling. Am^r. Paris, vol. 20.
1897 b. Esquisse grammaticale et vocabulaire de la langue guaraouno.
Congr. Int. Am^r., Sess. 11, Mexico, 1895, pp. 479-489.
1897-98. Pronoms et indices personnels de I'ltonama. Journ. Soc. Am^r.
Paris, vol. 2, pp. 48-52.
1899. Materiaux pour servir A l'6tablissement d'une grammaire comparle des
dialectes de la famille Guaicurii (Abipone, Mocovf, Toba, Mbaya).
Bibl. Ling. Am6r. Paris, vol. 23.
1902. Le parler des Caingangs. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 12, Paris, 1900,
pp. 317-330.
1905. Grammaire de I'Accawai. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 2,
pp. 43-90, 209-240.
1906. Le Caraibe du Honduras et le Caraibe des lies. 14tli Amerikanisten-
Kongress, Stuttgart, 1904, vol. 2, pp. 357-371.
See also Cr^vaux, J. N., Sagot, P., and Adam, Lucien; and Cueva,
R. P. de la, 1893.
Adam, Lucien, and Henry, Victor, Eds.
1880. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua chiquita con algunos textos traducidos
y explicados compuestos sobre manuscritos in^ditos del XVIII"
siglo. Bibl. Ling. Am^r. Paris, vol. 6.
Adam, Lucien, and Leclerc, Charles.
1880. Arte de la lengua de los Indios Baures de la Provincia de los Moxos
conforme al manuscrito original del P. Antonio Magio. Bibl. Ling.
Am4r, Paris, vol. 7.
See also Magio.P. A., 1880; and Breton, 1877.
794711—50 37
564 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Adelung, Johann Christopher.
1806-17. Mithridates oder AUgemeine sprachenkunde, mit dem Vater Unser
als sprachprobe in beynahe funf hundert Sprachen und Mundar-
ten. Vol. 3 (of 4 vols.). Berlin. (Some additions made by
Johann Severin Vater.)
Adelung and Vater. See Adelung, Johann Christopher, 1806-17.
Agassiz, Alexander. See Allen, J. A., 1876; Garman, S. W., 1875.
Agassiz, Professor and Mrs. Louis.
1869. A journey in Brazil. Boston.
Aguero, Miguel C.
1929. La influencia del "keshua" en la Argentina. Ensayos. 1" ann^e.
No. 5, pp. 1-3, November. Tucumdn.
Aguilar, Juan de.
1939. Arte de la lengua quichua general de indios del Perii. Universidad
Nacional de Tucumdn, Departamento de investigaciones regionales,
Publicaciones especiales del Institute de Antropologfa, No. 1.
Tucumdn.
Aguirre, Juan Francisco.
1898. Etnografla del Chaco, manuscrito del capitfin de fragata D. Juan
Francisco Aguirre (1793). Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 19,
pp. 493-510.
Ahlbrinck, W., and Vinken, M. Aurelius.
1923-24. Zur Lautlehre des Karaibischen. Anthropos, vols. 18-19, pp. 951-
957. St.-Gabriel-Modling bei Wien.
AicHEL, Otto.
1914. Die Bedeutung des Atlas fiir die Anthropologie unter Beriicksichtigung
des Fundes vom Monte Hermoso. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 46, pp. 187-
190.
1925. Osterinselpalaeolithen in prahistorischen Grabern Chiles. Proc. 21st
Int. Congr. Amer., Goteborg, 1924, pt. 2, pp. 267-269.
1929. Zur Frage des Alters der Besiedelung Amerikas. Tag. Deutschen.
Anthrop. Gesell., 50-Vers., Hamburg, pp. 49-51.
1932 a. Ergebnisse einer Forchungsreise nach Chile-Bolivien. 2. Die
kiinstliche Schadeldeformation. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop., vol. 31,
pp. 3-62.
1932 b. Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise nach Chile-Bolivien. 4. Epican-
thus, Mongolenfalte, Negerfalte, Hottentottenfalte, Indianerfalte.
Zeit.^Morph. Anthrop., vol. 31, pp. 123-166.
Albagli, B.
1939. O metabolismo bdsico em fungao da alimentaeao e do clima. Thesis.
Rio de Janeiro.
1940. Experiencias brasileiras sobre metabolismo bdsico de individuos
normals em fungao do clima. Cultura M^dica, anno 2, No. 1.
Albagli, B., and others.
1940. Metabolismo bdsico em fungao do clima. Cultura M6dica, anno 2,
No. 1.
Albis, Manuel MarIa.
1855. Los indios del Andaquf. Memorias de un viajero. Popaydn.
1860-61. The Indians of Andaqui, New-Granada. Notes of a traveller.
Trans, by J. S. Thrasher. Bull. Amer. Ethnol. Soc, vol. 1,
pp. 53-72.
1934. Los Indios del Andaquf. Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol. 6, Nos, 61
and 62, pp. 8-26.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 565
Albisetti, Cesak. See Colbacchini, Antonio, and Albisetti, Cesar.
Albuquerque, Severiano Godofredo d'.
1916. Relat6rio dos servigos executados em Campos Novos da Serra do
Norte. Comissao das linhas telegrdficas estrat^gicas de Mato
Grosso ao Amazonas, Publicagao No, 37, pp. 135-147. Rio de Janeiro
Alemany, AoUSTfN.
1906 a. Castellano-piro; vocabulario de bolsillo. Lima.
1906 b. Castellano-shipibo; vocabulario de bolsillo. Lima.
Alemany y Bolufer, Jos£.
1929 a. Gramdtica de la lengua achagua. Bol. Univ. Madrid, 1'" ann^e,
No. 4, juillet 1929 (tirage h part: 38 p.).
1929 b. Acerca de una particularidad de la lengua achagua. Investigaciones
y Progreso, 3« ann^e. No. 10, 1"> octobre 1929, pp. 88-89. Madrid.
Allen, Glover Morrill.
1911. Mammals of the West Indies. Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool.,
vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 175-263.
1920. Dogs of the American aborigines. Bull, Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool.,
vol. 63, No. 9, pp. 431-517.
1939. Bats. Harvard Univ. Press.
1942. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the western hemisphere with the
marine species of all oceans. Amer. Comm. Inter. Wild Life Protect.,
Spec. Publ. 11, with collaboration of Francis Harper and John Eric
Hill.
See also Tozzer, A. M., and Allen, G. M.
Allen, Joel Asaph.
1876. Exploration of Lake Titicaca, by Alexander Agassiz and S. W. Garman.
III. List of mammals and birds of Lake Titicaca, with field notes
by Mr. Garman. Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 3, No. 15,
pp. 349-359.
1904. Mammals from the District of Santa Marta, Colombia, collected by
Mr. Herbert H. Smith, with field notes by Mr. Smith. Bull. Amer.
Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 20, art. 35, pp. 407-468, Nov. 28, 1904.
Allen, William Ray. See Eigenmann, C. H., and Allen, W. R,
Almeida, Hermenegildo Ant. Barboza d'.
1846. Viagem ks vilas de Caravelas, Vigosa, Pto. Alegre de Mucurf e os
rios Mucurf e Peruhipe. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 8,
pp. 451-452.
Almeida, Wenceslau de.
1931. O vocabulo "Parahyba." Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 17, 1* parte, pp.
499-514.
Aloja, Ada d'.
1939 a. Informe sobre la investigaci6n antropol6gico-demogrdfica que realizd
la dra. Ada d'Aloja en Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras y El
Salvador. Inst. Panamer. Geogr. Hist., Publ. No. 39,
1939 b. Sobre la variabiUdad de algunos cardcteres antropom^tricos observa-
dos en grupos de indigenas centroamericanos. Inst. Panamer.
Geogr. Hist. Publ. No. 43. (Mimeographed.)
Alonso Criado, D. Matias. See Cominges, D. Juan, 1892.
Altieri, Radam^s a.
1939 a. La gramd,tica yunga de F. de la Carrera. Publ. Univ. Nac. Tucu-
m^n, No. 257.
566 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Altieri, Radam^s a.—Continued
1939 b. T^rminos de parentesco en la familia Yunga. Rev. Inst. Antrop.
Univ. Nac. Tucuindn, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-11. (Reprinted sepa-
rately: Publ. 258, Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn.
See also Carrera, Fernando de la, 1939.
Alvarado, Lisandro.
1919 a. Observaciones sobre el Caribe hablado en los Llanos de Barcelona.
Caracas.
1919 b. Voces indfgenas de Venezuela. Cultura Venezolana, 2" ann6e,
vol. 3, pp. 22-26. Caracas.
1921. Glosario de voces indfgenas de Venezuela. Ediciones "Victoria,"
Manrique y Ramirez Angel. Caracas.
Alvial Ibarra, Blanca.
1940. Contribuciones al estudio de la Antropologfa Chilena. X. Observa-
ciones somatol6gica3 acerca de la Menarquia. Bol. Soc. Biol., vol.
14, No. 2, die, pp. 79-101.
Amador de los Rios, Jose. See Ovibdo y Vald^s, G. F. de, 1851-55.
Amaral, Amadeu.
1920. O dialecto caipira. Sao Paulo.
Amberga, Fr. Jer6nimo de.
1914. Estudio y ensenanza del Mapuche en la era colonial. Rev. Chilena
Hist. Geogr., vol. 11, pp. 420-424.
Ambrosetti, Juan Bautista.
1894. Materiales para el estudio de las lenguas del grupo Kaingangue (alto
Parand). Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba, vol. 14, pp. 331-380.
1895 a. Los indios Caingud del alto Parand (Misiones). Bol. Inst. Geogr.
Argentino, vol. 15, pp. 661-744.
1895 b. Los indios Kaingdngues de San Pedro (Misiones) con un vocabu-
lario • . . Rev. Jardin Zool. Buenos Aires, vol. 11, ent. 10,
pp. 305-387.
1913. Nuevos restos del hombre f6sil Argentino. (Presentaci6n de dos
crdneos del hombre de Guerrero, Provincia de Buenos Aires). Int.
Cong. Amer., Proc. 18th sess, London, 1912, pt. 1, pp. 5-8.
Ameghino, Carlos.
1913. Vocabulario Tehuelche, Tehues, Pampa, Araucano. Ms. publ. in part
in Lehmann-Nitsche, El grupo lingiiitsico Tschon de los territories
magalMnicos. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 22 (ser. 2, vol. 9), pp.
217-276.
Ameghino, Florentino.
1880-81. La antigiiedad del hombre en el Plata. 2 vols. Paris and Buenos
Aires.
1909. Le Diprothomo platensis, un precurseur de I'homme du pliocene
inf^rieur de Buenos Aires. An. Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires, ser. 3,
vol. 12, pp. 107-210.
1910. Geologia, paleogeografia y antropologia de la Repdblica Argentina.
La Naci6n, ndmero extr., Buenos Aires, May 25.
1913-36. Obras completas y correspondencia cientffica de Florentino Ame-
ghino (A. J. Torcelli, ed.). Vols. 1-24. La Plata.
1923. Le Diprothomo d'aprfes Schwalbe et d'aprfes moi. An. Mus. Nac.
Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 31, pp. 1-24,
Ames, Oakes.
1939. Economic annuals and human cultures. Bot. Mus. Harvard Univ.
Amorim, Antonio Brandao, de. See Brandao de Amorim, Antonio.
Vol. G] BIBLIOGRAPHY 567
Amunategui y Solar, Domingo.
1909. Las encomiendas de indijenas en Chile, memoria historica presentada
a la Universidad de Chile, en cumplimiento del artfculo 22 de la lei
de 9 de enero de 1879. Santiago.
Anchorena, Jose Dionisio.
1874. Gramdtica quechua 6 del idioma del imperio de Ids incas . . . Lima.
Anderson, Edgar.
1943. Races of Zea Mays II: A general survey of the problem. Acta Amer.,
vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 58-68.
Anderson, Edgar, and Cutler, Hugh.
1942. Races of Zea Mays I: Their recognition and classification. Ann.
Missouri Bot. Garden, vol. 29, pp. 69-88.
Andrade Lima Junior, [Miguel Ignacio de]. See Lima Junior, Andradb.
Anghiera, Pietro Martire d' (Peter Martyr).
1912. De orbe novo decades: The Eight Decades of Peter Martyr d'Anghiera.
Trans, from the Latin with notes and introd. by Francis Augustus
MacNutt. 2 vols. New York. (First decade originally published
in 1511.)
Anonymous.
1852. Vocabulario de lingua Bugre. Rev. Inst. Hist.-geogr. Brasil., vol.
15, pp. 60-75.
1876. Pequeno manual del misionero, etc. Grammar and phrases. Buenos
Aires.
1879. Ex-pretre missionaire de la Nouvelle Grenade. Notice sur plusieurs
langues de la Nouvelle Grenade. Rev. Ling. Phil. Comp., vol. 13,
pp. 267-274.
1882. Vocabulario dos Botucudos da provincia de Minas Gerais. Rev.
Exp. Antrop. Brasil., p. 13.
1897. Relaci6n de la tierra de Jaen. Rel. Geogr. Indias, vol. 4.
1902. Los salvajes de San Gabdn. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 11.
1905. Franciscanos de los Colegios de Propaganda Fide del Peru. Vocabu-
lario PoHglota Incaico. Lima.
1908. Elementos de gramdtica e diciondrio da Ifngua dos Boror6s-Coroados
de Mato Grosso, pela Missao Salesiana. Cuiabd, Brazil.
1909, Vocabulario de la lengua general de los Indies del Putumayo y Caquetd.
Introducci6n por Jimenez de la Espada. Madrid.
1914. Vocabulario de las voces mds usuales de Aymara, Castellano y Quichua.
Ultima edici6n. Cochabamba.
1917. Catecismo en Quechua Huanca. Lima.
1918 a. Catecismo Catio-Espanol para uso de las misioneras de Maria Im-
maculada y Santa Catalina de Sena y sus ne6fitos y catecdmenos.
Revista departamental de instrucci6n piiblica, 2« serie. No. 16,
Decembre 1918, pp. 49^513. Medellfn.
1918 b. Doctrina cristiana en idioma jfbaro. Lima.
1918-19. Quechuismos en Colombia. Archivo historial, 6rgano del Centre
de estudios hist6ricos, vol. 1, pp. 221-222. Manizales, Colombia.
1919 a. A Missao salesiana. Nogoes de catecismo em lingua Bor6ro (Colonia
S. Coragao). Cuyabd.
1919 b. Thamet ta is Jesu Cristo tha tes San Marcos le lesainek papel.
St. Mark's gospel in Vejoz. Tentative edition. British and
Foreign Bible Society. London.
56S SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS tB. A. E. Bull. 143
Anonymous—Continued
1919 c. Dialecto Chinchaysuyo. Primer suplemento d la Gramdtica Qui-
chua, con pr61ogo de N. S. Vara Cadillo. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 6,
No. 3, pp. 207-246.
1919 d. Vocabulario castellano-quechua y quechua-castellano de Ayacucho,
Huancavelica y Apurimac, tornado del poHglota incaico. Segunda
edici6n, corregida y aumentada. Lima.
1919 e. Vocabularios arhuaco, guitoto y coreguaje. Archivo historial,
6rgano de Centro de estudios hist6ricos, l'* annde, No. 11, juin
1919, pp. 543-545. Manizales, Colombia.
1921. El evangelio de Jesus Christo scgiin San Lucas en Aymard y Espanol.
Soc. Bibl. Britdnica Extran.
1924. Diccionario jibaro-castellano y castellano-jibaro, compilado por los
Misioneros Salesianos del Vicariato de M^ndez y Gualaquiza. Bol.
Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 9, pp. 1-67.
1925. CatecJsmo menor traducido del espanol d lengua quichua y aprobado
por el Concilio provincial de Lima en 1773 para que por 6\ se ensene
d los ninos, 6 indios. Rev. Archiv. Santiago del Estero, vol. 2,
No. 4, avril-mai-juin, pp. 129-130.
1926-27. La catequizaci6n de los Tunebos. Revista de misiones, 2* ann6e,
pp. 405-407. Bogotd.
1927 a. O homem fossil de Lagoa Santa. Rev. Mus. Arch. Pub. Rio Grande
do Sul., No. 19.
1927 b. Gramdtica del idioma de Ayacucho, arreglada por el R. P. Fr. F. Ma.
R., O. F. M. Tip. diocesana. Ayacucho.
1928 a. Lenguas de America. Manuscritos de la Real Biblioteca, vol. 1,
Catdlogo de la Real Biblioteca, vol. 6, pp. IV-454. Madrid.
1928 b. Breve vocabulario de las principales lenguas que se hablan en los
diferentes pueblos y jibarfas de la prefectura apost61ica de Canelos
y Macas. El Oriente Dominicano-Canelos, 1" annee, No. 3,
f^vrier.
1928 c. Catdlogo de las voces usuales de aimard con la correspondencia en
castellano y quechua. Paris.
1929. As linguas indigenas da America. Sao Paulo.
1930 a. Vocabulario castellano-huitoto. Revista de misiones, 6« ann^e,
pp. 238-240, 287, 336, 384, 431-432, 480, 571. Bogotd,
1930 b. Pequefio ensayo poHgloto para las conversaciones mds fdciles en
quichua y shimigae. El Oriente Dominicano, vol. 3, pp. 40-42.
Quito.
1930 c. Thathamet-Hi. Oraci6n comun. (Portions of the Book of Common
Prayer in the Mataco language.) Society for promoting Christian
knowledge, vol 3. London.
1930 d. A connexSo linguistica basco-amerlcana. Sdo Paulo.
1931. Thatenkai Dios thamtes. Paraphrases of well-known English hymns in
the Mataco language as spoken by a tribe of Indians living in that
part of the Gran Chaco which is under the rule of the Argentine
Republic. The Religious Tract Society. London.
1932. La escritura del alfabeto de las lenguas aborigenes del Peru. Ministerio
de Instrucci6n Piiblica del Peril. Lima.
1933 a. Toba grammatical notes. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn.
1933 b. Primer libro de lectura mataco. Misi6n chaquena. Algarrobal,
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 569
Anonymous—Continued
1933 c. Las cartas de San Juan. Idioma Vejoz. Imprentado en Mi&i6n
chaquena. Embarcaci6n.
1933 d. El Padre nuestro en machiguenga. Misiones Doxninicanas del Perd,
vol. 15, p. 36. Lima.
1934. Las investigaciones lingiiisticas y etnogrdficas en la Misi6n del Caquetd.
Introducci6n y bibliografia. Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol. 5, No.
55, avril 1934, pp. 193-213.
1936. (Clainores ayacuchanos). Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 10, pp. 212-216.
1937. O tupf na geografia nacional. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 4«
ann^e, vol. 37, pp. 226-274.
1939. Ensayo de aprendizaje de dialectob orientales. El Oriente Dominicano,
vol. 12. Quito.
1941. Manual de piedad para los Internados de las Misiones Salesianas del
Vicariato Apo8t61ico de M^ndez y Gualaquiza. Cuenca.
Anoutchine, D.
1878. Sur la conformation du pt^rion chez diverses races humaines et les
primates. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 3*' ser, vol. 1, pp. 330-333.
Anthony, R., and Rivet, Paul.
1908. fitude anthropologique des races pr^colombiennes de la R^publique
de I'Equateur. Recherches anatomiques sur les ossements (os des
membres) des abris sous roches de Paltacalo. Bull. M6m. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris, S*** series, vol. 9, fasc. 3, pp. 314-430.
Anthony, Harold Elmer.
1925-26. Mammals of Porto Rico, living and extinct. New York Acad.
Sci., Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
vol. 9 (pt. 1, Chiroptera and Insectivora), pp. 1-96, 1925; vol.
9 (pt. 2, Rodentia and Edentata), pp. 97-238, 1926.
Antognoli, Giulio Cesare.
1933-34. Contributo alia conoscenza delle variazioni delle fosse nasali in
relazione alio sviluppo, alle dimensioni ed alia posizione del
turbinato inferiore nell'uomo. Riv. Antrop., vol. 30, pp. 263-
344.
Aparicio, Francisco de.
1932. Contribuci6n al estudio de la arqueologfa del litoral atldntico de la
provincia de Buenos Aires. Bol. Acad. Nac. Cien. C6rdoba, vol. 32,
pp. 1-180.
Arcaya, Pedro m.
1918. Lenguas indfgenas que se hablaron en Venezuela. De Re Indica,
vol. 1, No. 1, September 20, 1918, pp. 4^11.
Archivo Nacional de BogotX, Fondo Curas y Obispos.
n. d. Vol. 44.
Arcila Robledo, Fr. Gregorio.
1940. Vocabulario de los indios Yurumangufes. Voz Franciscana, ano
XVI, No. 179, pp. 341-343. Bogotd.
Arcila Velez, Graciliano.
1943. Grupos sanguineos inter los Indios Pdez. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Bogotd.
Armellada, Cesareo de.
1936. Bellezas del dialecto taurepdn (lengua caribe). Bol. Acad. Venezolana,
39 ann^e, pp. 208-223.
Armellada, Fray C. de, and Matallana, Fray B. de.
1942. Exploraci6n del Paragua. Bol. Soc. Venezolana Cienc. Nat., vol. 8,
No. 53, pp. 61-110.
570 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Armbntia, NicolXs.
1888. Vocabulario de los dialectos Tacana, Araona, Pacaguara, Cavinena y
Moseteno; hablados por loa indios Mosetenes en la orilla del Beni,
por los Tacanas . .
.,
por los Cavinenos . . . por los Pacaguaras
del Beni, Madre de Dios, Manior6, y Madeira, y por los Shipibos
del Ucayali y Guallaga. 1 de Agosto de 1888. La Paz. (Mss. in
small 4'°, VI +, 349 pp., Heissemann, Katelog, 321, No. 931.)
1898. Vocabulario del idoma Schipibo, del Ucayali, que es el mismo que el
Pacaguara del Beni y del Madre de Dios. Este es un dialecto de
la lengua Pane, que es la lengua general del Huallaga, del Ucayali
y de sus afluentes. Bol. Soc. Geogr. La Paz, vol. 1, Ano 1, No. 1,
pp. 43-91.
1902. Tacana: arte, vocabulario, exhortaciones, frases . . ., oraciones y
catecismo, por Antonio Gili; introducci6n y notas por S. A. Lafone-
Quevedo. Bibl. Ling. Mus. La Plata, Secci6n Bolivia, vol. 1,
pt. 1, pp. 1-108, 121-135.
1903. Los indios Mosetenes y su lengua; noticias generates y vocabularios
con introducci6n de S. A. Lafone-Quevedo. Lenguas Americanas,
Secci6n Bolivia. Buenos Aires.
1904. . . . Cavinena o Cavina; arte y vocabulario manu&crito . . . orde-
nado con notas, por Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo. Bibl. Ling.
Mus. La Plata, Seccion Bolivia, vol. 1, pt. 2.
Ashley Montagu, Francis M. See Montagu, M. Francis Ashley.
AsHMEAD, Albert S.
1895 a. Autochthonous syphilis in Bolivia and Peru. Journal of Cutaneous
and Genito-Urinary Diseases, vol. 13, pp. 415-417.
1895 6. Vorkommen von Aussatz in pracolumbischer Zeit in America.
Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 305-306.
1895 c. Photographs of two ancient Peruvian vases, with some particularities
presented by them, and some observations about them. Journal
of Cutaneous and Genito-Urinary Diseases, vol. 13, pp. 465-466.
1895 d. American pathological notes. I. Pre-Columbian surgery. II.
Syphilitic lesion observed in a pre-Columbian skull. University
Medical Magazine, vol. 7, pp. 686-689.
1895 e. Pre-Columbian leprosy. Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc, vol. 24, pp.
622-626, 669-672, 721-723, 753-754, 803-807, 850-853.
1896. Prof. Bandelier's views on Huacos pottery deformations and pre-
Columbian syphilis. Journal of Cutaneous and Genito-Urinary
Diseases, vol. 14, pp. 53-62.
1897 a. The question of pre-Columbian leprosy; photographs of three pre-
Columbian skulls, and some Huacos pottery. Mitteilungen und
Verhandlungen der internationalen wissenschaftlichen Lepra-
Conferenz zu Berlin im October 1897, vol. 1, pp. 71-75.
1897 b. Pre-Columbian leprosy. Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc, vol. 28, pp.
703-704.
1899. No evidence in America of pre-Columbian leprosy. The Canadian
Journal of Medicine and Surgery, vol. 5, pp. 145-162.
1900. Pre-Columbian lupus (uta) and its surgical treatment by amputation
of nose and upper lip, as represented on the Huacos pottery of Peru.
St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. 79, pp. 233-247.
1901. Deformation on American (Incan) pottery not evidence of pre-Colum-
bian leprosy. St. Louis Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. 80, pp.
177-192.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 571
ASTETE Ch., S.
193&-37. Aportes para una gramdtica cjeswa. Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Cuzco,
vol. 1, No. 1, 1936, pp. 80-90; vol. 2, No. 3, 1937, pp. 77-84.
1937 a. Bibliografla; el lenguage peruano, por Pedro M. Benvenutto Murri-
eta. Rev. Inst. Arquel. Cuzco, 2« annee, pp. 86-90.
1937 b. Bibliografla; lenguas indfgenas del territorio argentino, por J.
Imbelloni. Rev. Inst. Arquel. Cuzco, 2« annee, pp. 90-91.
AuB, Joseph Charles, and Du Bois, E. F.
1917. The basal metabolism of old men. Archives of Internal Medicine
(Amer. Med. Assoc), vol. 19, p. 823. Chicago.
Augusta, Feat F^lix Jos6 de. See Felix Jose de Augusta, Fray.
AvELLANEDA, Felix F. See Lafone-Quevedo, S. a., 1927.
Avert, P. See Goodspeed, Thomas Harper, and Avery, P.
Ayllon, Juan H.
1926. Santo Evangelio k'ochunaca. Imprenta de la Misi6n Boliviana de
Santidad "Amigos." Sorata, Bolivia.
Ayrosa, PLfNio Marques da Silva.
1933. Primeiras nogoes de Tupi. Ed, dedicada ao Centro do Professorado
Paulista. Sao Paulo.
1934 a. Diccionario portuguez-brasiliano e brasiliano-portuguez. Reim-
pressao integral da edigao de 1795, seguida da 2» parte, ate hoje
inedita, ordenada e prefaciada por Plinio M. da Silva Ayrosa.
Imprensa official do Estado. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 18, pp. 17-322.
1934 b. Muchirao. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" annee, vol. 2, pp.
49-55.
1934 c. Biboca-Tejupar. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 3,
pp. 27-30.
1934 d. Arapuca. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 4, pp. 47-49.
1934 e. Apicum. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 5, pp. 43-44.
1934 f. Moquem. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 6, pp. 53-55.
1934 g. Beijii. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 7, pp. 17-18.
1935 a. O caderno da Ifngua ou vocabulario portugues-tupf de Frei Joao de
Arronches, 1739. Notas e coment^rios a margem de um manu-
scrito do s^culo XVIII. Imprensa Official do Estado. Sao Paulo.
1935 b. Aipim. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann6e, vol. 8, p. 11-12.
1935 c. Caatinga. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" annee, vol. 9, pp.
37-40.
1935 d. Caipora. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 10, pp.
37-42.
1935 e. Poror6ca. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann^e, vol. 11, pp.
73-75.
1935 f. Pererecar. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, l'* ann4e, vol. 12, pp.
63-65.
1935 g. Caboclo. Rev. Arquiv. Mun, Sao Paulo, 2* ann^e, vol. 13, pp. 67-70.
1935 h. Pururuca, Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann6e, vol. 14, pp.
57-58.
1935 i, Coivara, Rev, Arquiv, Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e, vol, 15, pp, 143-
144,
1935 j, Chu6, Rev, Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e, vol. 17, pp, 241-244.
1935 k. Caipira. Rev, Arquiv, Mun, Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e, vol, 18, pp. 195-
198,
1936 a, Pindahyba, Rev. Arquiv, Mun, Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e, vol. 19, pp,
241-247.
572 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Ayrosa, PlInio Marques da Silva—Continued
1936 b. Caruru. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e, vol. 20, pp.
191-194.
1936 c. Capoeira. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann6e, vol. 22, pp.
335-346.
1936 d. Capao. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2» annee, vol. 24, pp. 131-
136.
1936 6. Bubuia. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 3^ ann^e, vol. 25, pp.
181-186.
1936 f. Aracaty. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 3« ann^e, vol. 26, pp.
87-92.
1937 a. O caderno da lingua ou vocabuldrio portugues-tupi de Frei Joao de
Arronches, 1739. Notas e comentdrios k margem de um manu-
scrito do s6c. XVIII. Rev. Mas. Paul., vol. 21, pp. 49-322.
1937 b. Termos tupfs no portugues do Brasil. Colecao do Departamento de
Cultura, vol. 13. Sao Paulo.
1937 c. Os "Nomes das partes do corpo humano pela lingua do Brasil" de
Pedro de Castilho. Texto tupi-portugues e portugues-tupi do
s^culo XVII. Colegao Departamento de Cultura, vol. 14. Sao
Paulo.
1938. Subsidies para o estudo da influencia do tupi na fonologia portuguesa.
Anais do primeiro Congresso de lingua nacional cantada. Prefei-
tura do municipio de Sao Paulo. Pp. 679-696. Sao Paulo.
1939. Dos indices de relagao determinativa de posse no tupi-guarani. Uni-
versidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de filosofia, ciencias e letras.
Boletim 11 (Etnografia e lingua tupi-guarani. No. 1). Sao Paulo.
1941. Poemas brasilicos do Pe. Crist6vao Valente, S. J. (Notas e tradu-
Qao). Edited by Plinio Ayrosa. Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Faculdade de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Boletim 23 (Etnografia e
lingua tupi-guarani. No. 2). Sao Paulo.
1943. Apontamentos para a bibliografia da lingua tupi-guarani. Universi-
dade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Boletim
33 (Etnografia e lingua tupi-guarani. No. 4). Sao Paulo.
See also Vocabulario na lingua brasilica. 1938.
AzA, JosiS Pfo.
1923. Vocabulario espaiiol-machiguenga. Casa editora "La Opini6n Na-
cional." Lima.
1924 a. Estudio sobre la lengua Machiguenga. Casa editora "La Opini6n
Nacional." Lima.
1924 b. La lengua Machiguenga. Misiones Dominicanas del Peru, vol. 6,
pp. 57-62. Lima.
1924 c. Vocabulario Espanol-Machiguenga. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol.
41, pp. 41-78.
1927. La aglutinaci6n en las lenguas salvajes. Misiones Dominicanas del
Peru, vol. 9, pp. 128-134. Lima.
1928. Vocabulario espanol-huarayo. Lima. (Orig. publ. in Bol. Soc. Geogr.
Lima, vol. 41, trimestre No. 1, pp. 41-78, and No. 2, pp. 117-133,
1924.)
1930 a. Lenguas de civilizados y salvajes. Misiones Dominicanas del Peril,
vol. 12, pp. 193-199. Lima.
1930 b. El gdnero gramatical en las lenguas salvajes. Misiones Dominicanas
del Peru, vol. 12, pp. 214-219.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 573
AzA, Jos£ Pfo—Continued
1930-32, La tribu Huaraya. Misiones Dominicanas del Peru, vol. 12, 1930,
pp. 3-12; vol. 14, 1932, pp. 181-190, 245-253. Lima.
1931. El verbo en las lenguas cultas y en las lenguas de los salvajes. Misiones
Dominicanas del Perd, vol. 13, pp. 26-33. Lima.
1933 a. Doctrina cristiana en machiguenga y espanol. Lima.
1933 b. La tribu Arasairi y su idioma. Misiones Dominicanas del Peru,
vol. 15, pp. 139-144. Lima.
1935. Vocabulario arasairi o mashco. Misiones Dominicanas del Peru,
vol. 17, pp. 190-193. Lima.
1937, Vocabulario espanol-arasairi. Lima.
AZPILCXJETA, TomXs.
1938. Estudio de la lengua quechua. Boletin del clase, 6« ann^e, pp. 151-157.
Lima.
Bacarreza, Z.
1910. Fragmento del Informe de la Provincia de Carangas del Departamento
de Oruro. Bol. Ofic. Nac. Estad. La Paz, vol. 6, pp. 477-480.
Bach, J.
1916. Datos sobre los Indios Terenas de Miranda. An. Soc. Cient. Argen-
tina, vol. 82, pp. 87-94.
Bachiller y Morales, Antonio.
1883. Cuba primitiva.
. . Pp. 135-145, 185-389. Habana.
Balbi, Adriano.
1826. Atlas ethnographique du Globe, ou Classification des peuples anciens
et modernes d'aprSs leurs langues, precede d'un discourse sur I'utilit^
et I'importance de I'^tude des langues appliqu^e k plusieurs branches
des connaissances humaines . . . Paris.
Baldtjs, Herbert.
1927. Os Indios Chamacocos e a sua lingua. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 15, pt.
2, pp. 5-62.
1931. Kaskihd-Vokabular. Anthropos, vol. 26, pp. 545-550.
1932. Beitrage zur Sprachenkunde der Samuko-Gruppe. Anthropos, vol.
27, pp. 361-416.
1935. Sprachproben des Kaingang von Palmas. Anthropos, vol. 30. pp.
191-202.
1937. Tereno-Texte. Anthropos, vol. 32, pp. 528-544.
Ballesteros y Berreta, Antonio. See Pericot y GARcfA, L., 1936.
BalliviXn, Manual V. See Castillio, Joseph, 1906.
Ballou, William H.
1897. A tortoise-shell wild cat. Popular Science Monthly, vol. 51, pp.
507-509, August. New York.
Bancroft, Herbert Howe.
1874^76. The native races of the Pacific States of North America. 5 vols.
(Vol. 3 publ. 1875.) New York.
Bandelier, Adolph F.
1904. Aboriginal trephining in Bolivia. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 6, pp.
440-466, (Also in German in Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kon-
gress, Vierzehnte Tagung, Erste Halfte, Stuttgart, 1904 (1902), pp.
81-89.)
574 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Banks, Joseph.
1896. Journal of the Right Hon. Sir. Joseph Banks . . . during Captain
Cook's first voyage in H. M. S. Endeavour in 1768-71 to Terra del
Fuego, Tahiti, New Zealand, Australia, the Dutch East Indies, etc.;
ed. by Sir Joseph D. Hooker. London.
Baptista, Ctriaco.
1931-32. Worte und texte der Temb^-Indianer. Aufgezeichnet von-
(Temb6) , herausgegeben von Dr. Emil Heinrich Snethlage. Rev.
Inst. Etnol. Univ. Tucumdn, vol. 2, pp. 347-393.
BarbarX, Federico.
1879. Manual 6 vocabulario de la lengua pampa y del estilo familiar. Bue-
nos Aires.
Barbosa de Faria, Joao.
1925. Tupis e Tapuias. Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
63-66.
Barbosa RoDRfcuEs, Joao.
1822. O, Indios Tembe; Mundurucu; A Emancipagao dos Mauhes; Tribu
das Ticunas. Four articles in "Revista da Exposigao Anthropo-
16gica." Rio de Janeiro.
1885. Rio Jauapery. Pacificagao dos Crichands. Rio de Janeiro.
1892-94. Vocabuldrio indlgena com a ortografia correta. Ann. Bibl. Nac,
Rio de Janeiro, vols. 15 and 16.
1898 a. Plantae mattogrossenses ou Relagao de plantas novas colhidas classi-
ficades e desenhadas . . . Rio de Janeiro.
1898 b. Palmae mattogrossenses novae vel minus cognitae quas collegit
descripsit et inconibus illustravit . . . Rio de Janeiro.
Barbour, Thomas.
1914. A contribution to the zoogeography of the West Indies, with especial
reference to amphibians and reptiles. Mem. Harvard Mus. Comp.
Zool., vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 209-359.
Barcatta de Valfloriana, Frei Mansueto.
1918 a. Ensaio de gramdtica Kainjgang. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 10, pp.
528-563.
1918 b. Uma critica ao "Vocabuldrio da lingua dos Kainjgang" do Visconde
de Taunay. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 10, pp. 565-628.
1920. Dicciondrios Kainjgang-Portugudz e Portuguez-Kainjgang. Rev.
Mus. Paul., vol. 12, pp. 1-381.
BXrcena, Alonso de.
MS. Lexica et Precepta in quinque Indorum Linguis. (Written approx.
1590; not known to have been published.)
1893. Arte de la lengua Toba . . . con vocabularios facilitados por los Sres.
Dr. Angel J. Carranza, Pelleschi, y otros, editados y comentados con
un discurso preliminar por Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo. Bibl. Ling.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 2, pt. 1. (The "Discurso Preliminar" reprinted
in Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 5, 1894.)
Barclay, William Singer.
1926. The land of Magellan. New York; London.
Barcroft, J.
1922. The physiology of life in the Andes. Nature, vol. 110, pp. 152-156.
Vol. 6
J
BIBLIOGRAPHY 575
Barcroft, J.; BiNGER, C. A.; Bock, A. V.; Doggart, J. H.; Forbes, H. S.;
Harrop, G.; Meakins, J. C; Redfield, A. C.
1923. Observations upon the effect of high altitude on the physiological
processes of the human body, carried out in the Peruvian Andes,
chiefly at Cerro de Pasco. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, series B,
vol. 211, pp. 351-480.
Barden, Albert A., Jr.
1941. Distribution of the families of birds. Auk (American Ornithologists'
Union), vol. 58, pp. 543-557, October. Boston.
Barranca, Jose S.
1914. Yamiaco. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 30, pp. 5-8.
1915-20. Lingiiistica peruana. Raices kichuas para servir al estudio de este
idioma y de otras lenguas aut6ctonas afines. Bol. Soc. Geogr.
Lima, vol. 31, 1915, pp. 1-32, 122-145, 377-397; vol. 32, 1916,
pp. 238-263, 393-417; vol. 33, 1917, pp. 58-122, 279-294, 378-
394; vol. 34, 1918, pp. 107-120, 148-197; vol. 36, 1920, pp.
157-163.
1922. Ensayo de clasificaci6n y etimologia de los nombres geogrdficos peruanos
(Kichua y Aimara). Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 39, pp. 28-51,
183-208.
Barranca, Sebastian.
1868. OUanta 6 sea La serveridad de un padre y la clemencia de un rey;
drama . . . traducido del quichua al castellano, Lima.
See also Ollanta, 1878.
1876. Fragmentos de una gramdtica para el Cauqui. El Siglo, ano III.
Lima.
Barras de Arag6n, Francisco de las.
1909. Sobre dos momias procedentes de Quillagua. Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat.,
ano XIII, pp. 333-336.
1932. Estudio de los crdneos de Indios Guajiros, existentes en el Museo de
Historia Natural de Caracas (Venezuela). Actas y Memorias
Sociedad Espanola de Antropologia, Etnografia y Prehistoria,
Madrid, vol. 11, Memoria 46, pp. 69-119.
Barrett, S. A.
1925. The Cayapa Indians of Ecuador. Ind. Notes Monogr., No. 40, pts.
1 and 2.
Barrientos, J.
1942. Antropologia constitucional de 116 araucanos de Temuco y sus alre-
dedores. Rev. Mus. Hist. Nac. Chile, vol. 1.
Barros Arana, Diego.
1884-1902. Historia jeneral de Chile. 16 vols. Santiago.
1893. La lingiiistica americana, su historia i su estado actual. Santiago.
Basadre, Jorge.
1939. En torno a la literatura quechua. Sphinx, 3« ann^e, Nos. 4^5, pp,
7-37. Lima.
Basadre, Modesto.
1884. . . . Riquezas peruanas. Colecci6n de articulos descriptivos, escritos
para "La Tribuna," pp. 196-205. Lima.
Bastian, Adolf.
1876. Bericht iiber die sprache welche die Chamies-Angaguedas-Murindoes-
Canasgordas -Rioverdes - Necodades - Caramantas - Tadocitos - Patoes -
Curasambas-Indianer sprachen. . . . Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 7, pp. 359-
377.
576 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Bastian, Adolf—Continued
1878-89. Die Culturlander des alten America. 3 vols. Berlin.
1895. Vorkommen von Aussatz in America zu pracolumbischer. Zeitschrift
fur Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 365-366.
Bastos d'Avila, Jose.
1938 a. Contribuigao ao estudo antropofisico do indio brasileiro. Separata
do Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 13, Nos. 3-4, pp. 1-68.
1938 b. A Anthropologia no Brasil. Zeit. Rassenk., vol. 7, pt. 1, pp. 84-85.
1940 a. Desenvolvimento fisico e antropometria. M6todos e pesquisas de
antropologia fisica. Prefdcio de Roquette Pinto. Rio de Janeiro.
1940 b. O estudo de antropometria na Faculdade Fluminense de Medicina.
Rev. Fac. Flum. Med., ano 5, No. 9.
MS. As principais ragas humanas e a sua representagao no Brasil. (Capitulo
de um livro a ser publicado.)
Bastos d'Avila, Jose, Potjrchet, Maria Julia, and Secco, Abilio.
1937. Os typos de Kretschmer na Infancia Escolar. Brasil-medico, vol. 51,
No. 38, pp. 959-970.
Bates, Henry Walter.
1892. The naturalist on the river Amazons . . . Memoir of author by E.
Clodd. New York. (Reprint of unabridged edition of 1863.)
Bates, Marston.
1944. Notes on a captive Icticyon. Journ. Mamm., vol. 25, No. 2, May, pp.
152-154.
Beasley, James Otis.
1942. Meiotic chromosome behavior in Gossypium. Genetics, vol. 27.
Beauvoir, J. M., and Zeballos, E. S.
1915. Lengua fuegina Shelknam. Rev. Derecho Hist. Let. juillet.
Beddard, Frank Evers.
1902. Mammalia. Cambridge Nat. Hist., vol. 10.
Behn, Franz.
1938. Echinokokken-Statistik des Pathol. Inst. d. Univ. Concepci6n
(Chile) mit besond. Beriicksichtigung eines Falles von todlicher
Piablutung durch Echinococcus hydatidosus. Frankfurter Zeit-
schrift fiir Pathologie, vol. 51, pp. 535-538.
Belaieff, Juan.
1931-34. Vocabulario maccii. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 3, No. 2,
December 1931, pp. 53-67; No. 4, January 1934, pp. 124-130.
1937. El vocabulario chamacoco. Castellano-chamacoco, chamacoco-caste-
llano. Texto chamacoco. Canci6n de la tormenta. Rev. Soc.
Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4, No. 1, May, pp. 10-47.
1940. El Maccd. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4, No. 6.
Bell, Charles Napier.
1862. Remarks on the Mosquito Territory. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 32,
pp. 242-268.
Bellamy, P. F.
1842. A brief account of two Peruvian mummies in the Museum of the Devon
and Cornwall Natural History Society. The Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, 1st ser., vol. 10, pp. 95-100.
Benedict, F. G. See Harris, James Arthur, and Benedict, F. G.; Shattuck,
George C, and Benedict, F. G.; Steggerda, Morris, and Benedict, F. G.;
and Williams, George Dee, and Benedict, F. G.
Benigar, Juan.
1928. ... El problema del hombre americano . . . Bahia Blanca.
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 577
Benvenutto Murrieta, Pedro M. See Astete Ch., S., 1937 a.
Berckenhagen, Hermann.
1894. Grammar of the Miskito language with exercises and yocabulary.
Gustav Winter. Stolpen, Saxony.
1905. English-Miskito-Spanish phrase book. Bethlehem, Pa.
1906. Pocket dictionary. Miskito-English-Spanish and English-Miskito-
Spanish. Bethlehem, Pa.
Berendt, C. H. (Karl Hermann).
1874 a. On a grammar and dictionary of the Carib or Karif language with
some accounts of the people by whom it is spoken. Ann. Rep.
Smithsonian Inst., 1873, pp. 363-364.
1874 b. The Darien language. Paper read before the American Ethno-
logical Society, Nov. 12, 1873. Philadelphia. Excerpt in Amer.
Hist. Record, vol. 3, No. 26, pp. 54-59.
Berengueras, Josifi.
1934. Rudimentos de gramdtica Karibe-Kuna. Panama.
Bernal p., Enrique.
1919. Esbozo de la estructura gramatical de nombres propios y apellidos
chibchas. El Catolicismo, n° du 24 septembre 1919. Bogota.
Bernard de Nantes, R. P. Fr. (Capuchin).
1896. Catecismo da lingua Kariris. Lisbon. (Ed. facsimilar, Leipzig,
1896; orig. ed. Lisbon, 1709.)
BERRfos, Jos6 David.
1919 a. Elementos de gramdtica de la lengua Keshua. 2» edition. Gonzdlez
y Medina, libreros editores. La Paz.
1919 b. Elementos de gramdtica de la lengua Keshua. New York; London.
Bbrtoni, a. DE W.
1924. La raiz de nyu o nu (campo). Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 1, No.
6, octobre, p. 105.
BeRTONI, GuiLIiERMO TeLL.
1924. El indio GuayakJ; una raza interesante y mal conocida. Congr. Int.
Amer., sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 103-110. Rio de
Janeiro.
1926. Fonologla pros6dica y ortogrdfica de la lengua guaranf. Rev. Soc.
Cient. Paraguay, vol. 2, No. 2, septembre, pp. 1-23.
1926- 27. El Indio Guayakf. Bosquejo etnol6gico. Una raza interesante
y mal conocida. Revista Paraguaya, 2» annee, Nos. 5-7,
Asunci6n.
1927. El Indio Guayaki. Bosquejo etnol6gico de una raza interesante y
mal conocida. La Colmena, S. A., 1927. Asunci6n.
1939. Diccionario guayaki-castellano. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4,
No. 5.
Bertoni, Moists Santiago.
1914. Ortografla guaranf. Asunci6n.
1916. Influencia de la lengua guarani en Sud-Am^rica y Antillas. Asunci6n.
1920. La lengua guarani como documento hist6rico. Anales Cientlficos
Paraguayos, series 2, No. 6, pp. 432-464. Puerto Bertoni, Paraguay.
1921. Analogfab lingliisticas caraibes-guaranies y la lengua guarani en
Antillas, Venezuela, Colombia y Centro-America. Anales Cientificos
Paraguayos, vol. 3, No. 1 (30 de Antropologfa) . Puerto Bertoni,
Paraguay.
578 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Bertoni, Mois:6s Santiago—Continued
1922. La civilizaci6n guaranf, parte I; Etnologia. Origen extensi6n y
cultura de la raza Karaf-Guarani y protohist6ria de los Guaranies.
Imprenta y edici6n "Ex sylvis." Puerto Bertoni, Paraguay.
1927 a. La civilizaci6n guarani: Medicina e Higiene. Puerto Bertoni,
Paraguay.
1927 b. Ortografia guarani. Puerto Bertoni, Paraguay.
1932. La lengua guarani como documento hist6rico (estructura, fijeza,
inalterabilidad) , consecuencias para la etimologia. Congr. Int.
Amer., sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 3, pp. 135-150.
Bertonio, Ludovico.
1879 a. Arte y grarndtica de la lengua Aymard . . . Ed. Julio Platzmann.
Leipzig. (Another ed. Rome, 1603.)
1879 b. Vocabulario de la lengua Aymard . . . Publicado de nuevo por.
Julio Platzmann. 2 vols. Leipzig. (Another ed. Julf, Perd,
1612.)
Beuchat, Henri, and Rivet, Paul.
1907. Contribution h I'^tude des langues Colorado et Cayapa. Journ. Soc.
Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 4, pp. 31-70.
1908. La famille linguistique Zaparo. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol.
5, No. 2, pp. 235-249.
1909. La famille linguistique Cahuapana. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 41, pp. 616-634.
1909-10. La langue Jibaro ou Siwora. Anthropos, vol. 4, pp. 805-822,
1053-1064; vol. 5, pp. 1109-1124.
1910. Affinitds des langues du Sud de la Colombie et du Nord de I'Equateur.
Le Mus^on, vol. 11, pp. 33-68, 141-98. Louvain, Belgium.
1911. La famille Betoya ou Tucano. M6m. Soc. Ling. Paris, vol. 17, pp.
117-136, 162-190.
Bezerra, Acrisio.
1940. Caract^res descritivos. Notagao de detalhes somdticos em ficha
biom6trica. Boletim do Instituto de Puericultura, ano 1, No. 2.
Rio de Janeiro.
BlASUTTI, R.
1910. AJcune osservazioni suUa distribuzione geografica dell'indice cefalico e
dei principali tipi cranio-metrici. Archivio per I'Antropologia e la
Etnologia, Societa Italiana di Antropologia, Etnologia e Psicologia
Comparata, vol. 40, pp. 353-371. Florence, Italy.
Bible. New Testament. Mark. Aymara.
1930. Apu Jesucristona suma arunac pa San Marcosana kellkapata. Cas-
tellano aruta aymara aruru kellksuta conjamatejga griego aruna
nayrakata kellatanajga, uqhamarjama asquichata. McKinney, H.
Cromwell, Medina, Angel, and Penaranda, Nestor, translators.
Sociedad Bfblica Americana y Sociedad Biblica Britd,nica y Extran-
jera (American Bible Society, and British and Foreign Bible Society).
New York.
BlBOLOTTI, BenIGNO.
1917. Moseteno vocabulary and treatises, . . . with an introduction by
Rudolph SchuUer. Northwestern University. Evanston and Chi-
cago.
Bier, O. G.
1932. Action anticoagulante et fibrinolytique de I'extrait des glandes sali-
vaires d'une chauvesouris hemolophage (Desmodus rufus). Compt.
Rend. Soc. Biol., vol. 110, pp. 129-131.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 579
BiNGER, C. A. See Barcroft, J., Binger, C. A., et al.
Bingham, Hiram.
1922. Inca Land, Boston.
1930. Machu Picchu, a citadel of the Incas. Ngav Haven.
Bird, Junius.
1938 a. Before Magellan; the explorations of an archaeologist and his wife in
a 19-foot sailboat; the story of ancient man in South America re-
constructed and the myth of the prehistoric sloth's domestication
discounted. Nat. Hist., vol. 41, pp. 16-28, 77, 79. New York.
1938 b. Antiquity and migrations of the early inhabitants of Patagonia.
Geogr. Rev., vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 250-275.
Bird, Junius, and Bird, Margaret.
1937. Human artifacts in association with horse and sloth bones in southern
South America. Science, n. s., vol. 86, pp. 36-37.
Bird, Margaret. See Bird, Junius, and Bird, Margaret.
Birdsell, J. B., and Boyd, Wm. C.
1940. Blood groups in the Australian aborigines. Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., vol. 27, p. 69.
BiscHOFF, Theodor Von.
1882 a. Bemerkung iiber die Geschlechtsverhaltnisse der Feuerlander.
Sitzung. Math.-physik. CI. K. Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich,
vol. 12, pp. 243-246.
1882 b. Weitere Bemerkungen iiber die Feuerlander. Sitzung. Math.-
physik. CI. K. Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich, vol. 12, pp.
356-368.
Blake, C. Carter.
1869. On a skull from the Chincha Islands. Journ. Anthrop. Soc. London,
vol. 7, pp. 67-70.
Blake, John H.
1878. Notes on a collection from the ancient cemetery at the Bay of Chacota,
Peru. 11th Ann. Rep., Peabody Mus. Archaeol. EthnoL, Harvard
Univ., pp. 277-304.
Blasio, a. db.
1900 a. Cranio trepanato del Paese degl'lncas. Rivista Mensile di Psi-
chiatria Forense, Antropologia Criminale e Scienze afiini, anno 3,
pp. 41-50.
1900 b. Mummie e cranii dell'antico Peru conservati in alcuni Musei dell'
University, di Napoli. Rivista Mensile di Psichiatria Forense,
Antropologia Criminale e Scienze affini, anno 3, pp. 169-189.
Bloxam, G. W.
1882. Note on a Patagonian skull. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit., Ire-
land, vol. 12, No. 28.
Bluntschli, Hans.
1931. Homunculus patagonicus und die ihm zugereihten Fossilfunde aus den
Santa- Cruz-Schichten Patagoniens. Eine morphologische Revision
an Hand der Originalstucke in der Sammlung Ameghino zu La
Plata. Morphologisches jahrbuch (Gegenbaurs m6rphologisches
jahrbuck. Eine zeitschrift fiir anatomic und entwicklungsge-
schichte.), vol. 67, pp. 811-892. Leipzig,
794711—50 38
580 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Boas, Franz.
1911, 1922, 1933. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Bull. Bur.
Amer. Ethnol., No. 40, pt. 1, 1911, Washington; pt. 2,
1922, Washington; pt. 3 (published separately by J. J.
Augustine), 1933, New York.
1925. America and the Old World. Proc. 21st Int. Congr. Amer., Goteborg,
1924, pt. 2, pp. 21-28.
1929. Migration of Asiatic races and cultures to North America. Scientific
Monthly, Feb., pp. 110-117.
BocK, A. V. See Barcroft, J., et al.
BODENBBNDER, G.
1940. Nombres vulgares en orden alfab^tico y nombres cientfficos de plantas
argentinas silvestres y cultivadas. Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, vol.
27.
BOGGIANI, GtTIDO.
1894. I Ciamacoco. Boll. Soc. Geogr. Italiana, ser. 3, vol. 7, pp. 466-510.
1895. . . . Viaggi d'un artista nell'America Meriodionale. I Caduvei
(Mbayd o Guaycurri) con prefazione ed uno studio storico ed
etnografico del Dott. G. A. Colini. Roma.
1896. Vocabolario dell' idioma guand. Atti della R. Academia dei Lencei.
Memorie. Ser. 5, vol. 3, pt. la, pp. 57-80. Roma.
1900. Lingufstica sudamericana. Datos para el estudio de los idiomas
Payagua y Machicui. Trabajos de la 4» secci6n del Congreso
cientffico latino-americano, pp. 203-282. Buenos Aires.
1929. Vocabolario dell' idioma Ciamacoco. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol.
108, pp. 149-175, 227-241.
Bohr (Boehr)
1881. Besuch von Feuerlandern am bord S. M. S. Hansa. VerhandL, Berlin.
Gesell. Anthrop. u. s. w., pp. [30]-31. {Also publ. in Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 13, 1881.)
Bois, D£sir£.
1927-28. Les plantes alimentaires chez tous les peuples et k travers les
ages, histoire, utilisation, culture. 2 vols. Paris.
See also Costantin, [J.], and Bois, [D.].
BOLINDER, GUSTAF,
1917. Einiges fiber die Motilon-Indianer der Sierra de Perijd. (Kolumbien,
Sudamerika). Zeit. Ethnol. vol. 49, pp. 21-51.
1924. Die letzten Chimila-Indianer. Ymer, vol. 2, pp. 200-228.
1925. Die Indianer der tropischen Schneegebirge. Stuttgart. (Trans, of
"Det Tropiska Snofjallets Indianer." Stockholm, 1916.)
BoLLAERT, William.
1860. Antiquarian, ethnological, and other researches in New Granada,
Equador, Peru, and Chile . . . London.
See also Raimondi, A., 1862.
BoMAN, Eric.
1908. Antiquit^s de la region andine de la R^publique Argentine et du
ddsert d'Atacama. 2 vols. Paris.
BONARELLI, GXTIDO.
1918 a. Hallazgos paleo-etnol6gicos en Tierra del Fuego. Physis, vol. 4,
p. 102.
1918 b. Pseudoeolitos de Patagonia. Un "Neoinceramus" de Santa Cruz.
Physis, vol. 4, p. 317.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 581
Boot, Theodoor de.
1929. The language of the Macoas (Motilones), collected by Theodoor de
Booy, edited by C. H. de Goeje. Int. Archiv Ethnogr., vol. 30,
pp. 53-58.
BoRBA, Telemaco Morocines.
1882. Breve noticia sobre os indios Caingangs, acoxnpanhada de um pequeno
vocabulario da lingua dos mesmos indfgenas e da dos Cayguas e
Chavantes. Rev. Men. Sec. Soc. Geogr. Lisboa, Brazil, vol. 2,
pp. 20-36. (Also in Globus, vol. 50, p. 233 flF., 1886.)
1904. Observagoes sobre os indigenas do Estado do Parand. Rev. Mus.
Paul., vol. 6, pp. 53-62.
1908. . . . Actualidade indigena. Curitiba (Parand), Brazil.
BORDAS, A. F.
1942. La posici6n sistemdtica del Tetraprothomo Argentinus Amegh. Rel.
Soc. Argent. Antrop., vol. 3, pp. 53-57.
BORGATELLO, MaGGIORINO.
1924. Nella Terra del Fuoco. Memorie di un missionario salesiano. Society
editrice internazionale, Corso Regina Margherita. Turin. (Rev.
ed. of "Nozze d'argento, ossia 25 anni di missione salesiana nella
Patagonia meridionale e Terra del Fuoco," 2 vols., Turin, 1921.)
1928 a. Alcune notizie grammaticali della lingua Alakaldf. Congr. Int.
Amer., sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 2, pp. 433-458.
1928 b. Notizie grammaticali e glossario della lingua degli Indi AlakaMf
abitanti dei canili Magellanici della Terra del Fuoco. Contributi
scientifici della missioni salesiane del venerabile don Bosco.
Society editrice internazionale. Turin.
BOTELHO DE MaGALHAES, A.
1946. Indios do Brasil. Am^r. Indfg., vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 139-148, abril.
BOTTIGNOLI, P. JUSTO.
n. d. Gramdtica razonada de la lengua guaranf. Sociedad Editora Inter-
nacional. Turfn. (Other eds.: Bol. Filol. Montevideo, 1938,
voi. 2, pp. 251-287, 527-566; Publicacidn No. 1 de la Secci6n de
Filologia y Fon^tica Experimental, Institute de Estudios Superiores,
Montevideo, 1940.)
1926. . . . Diccionario Guarani-Castellano y Castellano-Guaranf. Asun-
ci6n—PcTaguay. Sociedad Editora Internacional. Turin.
Boule, Marcellin.
1921. Les hommes fossiles; elements de paleontologie humaine. Paris.
(2d ed. 1923.)
1923. Un nouvel homme fossile (?) en Patagonie. L'Anthrop., vol. 33, pp.
272-273.
Bove, Giacomo.
1882. I Fuegini. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 12.
1882-83. La spedizione italo-platense in Patagonia. Cosmos di Guido
Cora, vol. 7.
1883. La spedizione antdrtica. Boll. Soc. Geogr. Italiana, vol. 20, pp. 5-60,
96-113, 132-147.
Bowman, Frederic Hungerford.
1908. The structure of the wool fiber, and its relation to the use of wool for
technical purposes . . . London.
582 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Boyd, William C.
1939 a. Blood groups of American Indians. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 215-235.
1939 b. Blood groups. Tabulae biologicae, vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 113-240.
The Hague.
1940. Critique of methods of classifying mankind. Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., vol. 27, p. 333.
See also Birdsell, J. B., and Boyd, Wm. C; and Wyman, L. C, and
Boyd, Wm. C.
BozA Barducci, Teodoro, and Madoo, R. M.
1941. Pareutesca de Gossypium Raimondii. Secci6n de Agricultura,
Ministerio de Fomento (Peru), Boletfn 22.
Branca, W.
1938. Acerca de una fauna f6sil de mamiferos de Punin, cerca de Riobamba,
in el Ecuador. II. Descripci6n de la fauna. (Sp. trans, by Wenzel
Goldbaum.) An. Univ. Cent. Quito., vol. 61, pp. 397-556.
Branco, Joaquim.
1935. Vocabulario etimologico do Abaneeng. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao
Paulo, 1" ann^e, 1935, vol. 9, pp. 45-56; vol. 10, pp. 17-28; vol. 11,
p. 25-31; vol. 12, pp. 67-72; 2o ann^e, 1935, vol. 13, pp. 47-58;
vol. 14, pp. 47-51; vol. 15, pp. 137-142; vol. 16, pp. 159-235.
1937. Etimologia dos nomes guaranis das ilhas paulistas. Rev. Arquiv.
Mun. Sao Paulo, 3« ann^e, vol. 32, pp. 25-30.
Brand, Donald D.
1941 a. A brief history of Araucanian studies. New Mexico Anthrop.,
vol. 5, No. 2,' pp. 19-35, 36-52.
1941 b. The status of anthropology in Chile. New Mexico Anthrop., vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 55-71.
1941 c. The peoples and languages of Chile. New Mexico Anthrop., vol. 5,
No. 3, pp. 72-93.
See also Huaiquillaf, M. C, 1941.
Brandao de Amorim, Antonio.
1928. Lendas em nheengatd en em portugues. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr.
Brasil., tomo 100, vol. 154, 2d pt., 1926 (1928), pp. 9-475.
Branner, John C.
1887. Notes upon a native Brazilian language. Proc. Amer. Assoc. Advance
Sci., 35th meeting, Buffalo, 1886, pp. 329- 330. Salem, N. Y.
Bransford, J. F. See Fernandez, Leon, 1884.
Braulino de Carvalho, Joao. See Carvalho, Joao Braulino de.
Brazil. Commissao de linhas telegraphicas estrategicas de Matto-Grosso
ao Amazonas. MissAO Rond6n, See Rond6n, C. M. da S.
Breton, Raymond.
1665. Dictionnaire caraibe-frangoise, mesl6 de quantity de remarques his-
toriques pour Tesclaireissement de la langue. Auxerre.
1666. Dictionnaire frangois-caraibe (with Dictionnaire caraibe-franffois).
Auxerre. (Facs. ed. pub. Leipzig. 1900.)
1669. Petit Cat6chisme du sommaire des trois premieres partie de la Doctrine
Chrestienne. Auxerre.
1877. Grammaire caraibe, compos^e par le P. Raymond Breton suivie du
cat6chisme caraibe. Nouvelle Edition, publ. par L. Adam and
Ch. Leclere. Coll. Ling. Am6r., vol. 3.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 583
Brett, Rev. William Henry.
1868. The Indian tribes of Guiana. 2d. ed. London. (1st ed., New York,
1852.)
Brice5}o-Iragorry, Mario.
1929. Procedencia y cultura de los Timotes-Cuycas. An. Univ. Venezuela,
vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 156-183.
Bridges, Thomas.
1846. On the habits of some mammalia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., vol. 17, pp.
481-483. Supplement, June. (Letter written to George Water-
house in London, and without title, but listed in index as above.)
1884-85. The Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego. (Extract from a letter addressed
to Prof. Flower by the Rev. Thomas Bridges, of the South Ameri-
can Missionary Society, dated Ooshooia, Fireland, August 24th,
1884.) Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit., vol. 14, pp. 288-289.
1893. La Tierra del Fuego y sus habitantes. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino,
vol. 14, pp. 221-241.
1933. Yamana-English, a dictionary of the speech of Tierra del Fuego.
Edited by Ferdinand Hestermann and Martin Gusinde. Modling
in Austria.
See also Gusinde, M., 1928 b., 1934; Hestermann, F., 1927 b;
Koppers, W., 1926, 1928.
Brigniel, J. See Lafonb-Quevedo, S. A., 1896-97.
Brinton, Daniel Garrison.
1869 a. Remarks on the MS. Arawack vocabulary of Schultz. Proc. Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 11, pp. 113-114.
1869 b. A notice of some manuscripts in Central American languages,
Amer. Journ. Sci. Arts, vol. 17, pp. 222-230.
1871. The Arawack language of Guiana in its linguistic and ethnological
relations. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc, n. s., vol. 14, pt. 3, art. 4,
pp. 427-444.
1884. Indian languages in South America. Science, vol. 4, p. 159, August.
1885 a. The philosophic grammar of American languages, as set forth by
Wilhelm von Humboldt, with the translation by him on the American
verb. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 22, pp. 306-354.
1885 b. On the language and ethnologic position of the Xinca Indians of
Guatemala. Proc Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 22, pp. 89-97. (Re-
printed separately.)
1885 c. American languages, and why we should study them. An address
delivered before the Pennsylvania Historical Society, March 9,
1885. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 9,
pp. 15-35. Philadelphia. (Reprinted separately.)
1886 a. The conception of love in some American languages. Proc. Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 23, pp. 546-561. (Reprinted separately.)
1886 b. On polysynthesis and incorporation as characteristics of American
languages. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 23, pp. 48-86. (Re-
printed separately.)
1886 c. Notes on the Mangue; an extinct dialect formerly spoken in Nica-
ragua. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 23, pp. 238-257. (Re-
printed separately.)
1887. The rate of change in American languages. Science, vol. 10, p. 274,
December.
584 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Brinton, Daniel Garrison—Continued
1889. Traits of primitive speech, illustrated from American languages. Proc.
Amer. Assoc. Advance Sci., 37th meeting, 1888, Salem, vol. 37
pp. 324-325. (Abstract of full paper.)
1890. Note on the Puquina language of Peru. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol.
28, pp. 242-248.
1891 a. The American race: a linguistic classification and ethnographic
description of the native tribes of North and South America.
New York. (2d ed., Philadelphia, 1901.)
1891 b. Vocabularies from the Musquito Coast. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc,
vol. 29, pp. 1-4.
1892 a. Studies in South American native languages. Proc. Amer. Philos.
Soc, vol 30, pp. 45-105. (Reprinted separately.)
1892 b. Further notes on the Betoya dialects from unpublished sources
.
Proc Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 30, pp. 271-278. (Reprinted
separately.)
1892 c Further notes on Fuegian languages. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol.
30, pp. 249-254. (Reprinted separately.)
1892 d. The "Hongote" language. Science, vol. 19, p. 277, May.
1894 a. Characteristics of American languages. American Antiquarian, vol.
16, pp. 33-37, January. (Reprinted separately.)
1894 b. On certain morphologic traits in American langviages, American
Antiquarian, vol. 16, pp. 336-340, October. (Reprinted sepa-
rately.)
1895 a. Some words from the Andagueda dialect of the Choco stock. Proc
Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 34, pp. 401-402. (Reprinted separately.)
1895 b. The Matagalpan linguistic stock of Central America. Proc Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 34, pp. 403-415. (Reprinted separately.)
1896. Vocabulary of the Noanama dialect of the Choco stock. Proc Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 35, pp. 202-204. (Reprinted separately.)
1897. The ethnic affinities of the Giietares of Costa Rica. Proc Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 36, pp. 496-498.
1898 a. The linguistic cartography of the Chaco region. Proc. Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 37, pp. 178-205. (Reprinted separately.)
1898 b. On two unclassified recent vocabularies from South America. Proc
Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 37, pp. 321-323. (Reprinted separately.)
1898 c. A record of study in American aboriginal languages. Media, Pa.
(Printed for private distribution.)
See also The Gueguence . . ., 1883.
Bkoca, Paul.
1866-67. Trepanation chez les Incas. Bull. Acad. Imp^r. M6d., vol. 32, pp.
866-871.
1867. Cas singulier de trepanation chez les Incas. Bull. Soc. Anthrop.
Paris, 2d ser., vol. 2, pp. 403-408.
1876. Sur deux series de cranes provenant d'anciennes sepultures indiennes
des environs de Bogota. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 2d ser., vol. 11
pp. 359-373. {Also in Int. Congr. Amer., Compte-Rendu, sess. 1,
Nancy, 1875.)
1878. Sur des cranes et des objets d'industrie provenant des Fouilles de M.
Ber k Tiahuanaco (P^rou) . Bull. Soc Anthrop. Paris, 3d ser., vol. 1,
pp. 230-235.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 585
Broesike, G.
1880. Das anthropologische material des Anatomischen Museums der
Koniglichen Universitat, Berlin. Die Anthropologischen Samm-
lungen Deutschlands, pt. 5.
Brooks, W. K.
1889. On the Lucayan Indians. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 4, pt. 2, No. 10,
pp. 213-223.
B[rowne], D[aniel] J[ay].
1858. The llama and alpaca—their geographical distribution, organization,
food, habits, and probable adaptation to certain regions of the
United States. Rep. Comm. Patents, 1857, Agric. [U. S. Dept. of
Agric, Annual Report] House Rep., 35th Congr., 1st Sess., Exec.
Doc. 32, pp. 6&-71.
Bruch, Carlos.
1911-12. Apuntes sobre antropometrfa de cuatro naturales del noroeste
argentino. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 18, pp. 47-52.
See also Outes, Felix, and Bruch, Carlos.
Brites, Charles T. See Strong, Richard P., Tyzzer, Ernest E., et al.,
1915.
BRtJNiNG, Enrique.
1904. De Chiclayo a Puerto Mel^ndez en el Maran6n. Bol. Soc. Geogr.
Lima, vols. 13 and 15. Lima.
1913. Beitrage zur Bedeutung der Namen "Yunga" und "'Quichua." Zeit.
EthnoL, vol. 45, pp. 929-931.
Bruning, Hans H.
1928. Reisen im Gebiet der Aguaruna. Baessler-archiv., vol. 12, pp. 46-85.
Berlin.
Bry, Theodor. See Leeris, J. B., 1592.
Bryan, Kirk.
1945. Recent work on early man at the Gruta de Cadonga in the Argentine
RepubHc. Amer. Antiq., vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 58-60.
Buchwald, Otto von.
1908 a. Vokabular der "Colorados" von Ecuador. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 40,
pp. 70-82.
1908 b. Die Kara. Globus, vol. 94, pp. 123-125.
1915. El imperio de los Chimus. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 31, pp. 341-
347.
1919. El Sebondoy. Vocabulario y Notas. Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana Estud.
Hist. Amer., vol. 3, pp. 20&-212.
1920. El rastro de los Atacamenos, un ensayo. Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana
Estud. Hist. Amer., vol. 4, pp. 158-164.
1921. La lengua de la antigua provincia de Imbabura. Bol. Acad. Nac.
Hist. Quito, vol. 3, pp. 177-191.
1922. Analisis de una gramdtica atacamena. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito,
vol. 5, pp. 292-301.
1924. Notas etnogrdficas. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 8, pp. 1-18.
BUKASOV, S. M.
1930. The cultivated plants of Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia. Bull.
Appl. Bot. Genet. Plant Breed. Suppl. 57.
1933. The potatoes of South America and their breeding possibilities. Lenin
Academy of Agricultural Sciences in U. S. S. R. Institute of Plant
Industry. (In Russian; English summary, pp. 153-192.) Bull.
Appl. Bot. Genet. Plant Breed., Suppl. 58.
586 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
BXJRMEISTER, H.
1866. Fauna argentina. Lista de los Mamfferos fdsiles del terreno diluviano.
Anales Museo Publico, vol. 1, entrega 3°, pp. 233-300. Buenos Aires,
1873. Sur les cranes, les moeurs et I'industrie des anciens Indiens de La
Plata. Compte rendu, 6« Ser., Congres Internat d'Anthropologie &
d'Archeologie, Bruxelles, 1812, pp. 342-350.
1876. Description physique de la R6publique Argentine, vol. 2. Paris.
Burton, Frank Albert.
1920. Prehistoric trephining of the frontal sinus. Calif. State Journ. Med.,
vol. 18, pp. 321-324.
1927. Some considerations on prehistoric aural, nasal, sinus pathology and
surgery. Publ. School Amer. Research, Archaeol. Inst. Amer.
BtrscHAN, Georg, Editor.
1922. Illustrierte Volkerkunde. Strecker and Schroeder. Vol. 1, pp.
217-423. Stuttgart.
See also Krickeberg, Walter, 1922.
Busk, George.
1873. Remarks on a collection of 150 ancient Peruvian skulls, presented to
the Anthropological Institute, by Thos. J. Hutchinson, H. M.
Consul at Callao. Journ Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol.
3, pp. 86-94. (Also in Hutchinson, Thos. J., Two Years in Peru,
1873, vol. 2, pp. 309-318. London)
Buxton, L. H. Dudley, Trevor, J. C, and Julien, Alvarez H.
1938. Skeletal remains from the Virgin Islands. Man, vol. 38, art. 47.
Caballero, Lucas.
1933. Relaci6n de las costumbres y religi6n de los indios manasicas . . .
Estudio preliminar y edici6n del ms. de 1706 por Manuel Serrano y
Sanz. Madrid.
Cabrera, Angel.
1929. Una revisi6n de los mastodontes argentinos. Rev. Mus. La Plata,
vol. 32, pp. 61-144. Buenos Aires.
1930. Sobre el supuesto antropoideo de Venezuela. Rev. Soc. Argent. Cienc.
Nat., vol. 10, pp. 204-209.
1931. Sobre los camelidos fosiles y actuales de la America austral. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 33, pp. 89-117. Buenos Aires.
1932. El perro cimarr6n de la pampa argentina. Publ. Mus. Antrop.
Etnogr. Fac. Filos. Letras, Univ. La Plata, ser. A., vol. 2, pp. 7-29.
1934. Los perros domesticos de los indigenas del territorio argentina. Congr.
Int. Amer., sess. 25, La Plata, 1932, vol. 1, pp. Sl-93. Buenos
Aires.
1936. Un nuevo carnlvoro de Chapadmalense de Miramar. Notas Museo
La Plata, Paleont., vol. 1, No. 7.
1945. Caballos de America. Editorial Sudamericana, pp. 1-405. Buenos
Aires.
Cabrera, Angel, and Yepes, Jos6.
1940. Historia natural Ediar. Mamfferos sud-americanos (vida, costumbres
y descripci6n) . Buenos Aires.
Cabrera, Pablo.
1924. En el pals de los Juries, "gasta" y "llacta" en boca de sus aborigenes.
Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, 11" ann6e, Nos 7-9.
1927. Onomdstica indiana del Tucumdn. Humanidades, vol. 14, pp.
215-224. Buenos Aires.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 587
Cabrera, Pablo—Continued
1928-29. Los aborfgenes del pafs de Cuyo. Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, vol,
15, 1928, Nos. 7-8, pp. 3-53, Nos. 9-10, pp. 71-125; vol. 16, 1929.
Nos. 1-2, pp. 3-112, Nos. 3-4, pp. 150-203, Nos. 5-6, pp. 69-133,
Nos. 7-8, pp. 126-179.
1931. C6rdoba del Tucumdn prehispana y proto-hist6rica. Rev. Univ. Nac.
Cordoba, vol. 18, Nos. 7-8, pp. 25-141.
Caillet, Luis MarIa.
1930-33. Vocabidario castellano-jfvaro, segun el dialecto que hablan en la
actualidad los indios de Arapicos. El Oriente Dominicano, vol.
3, 1930, pp. 179-181, 217-218; vol. 4, 1931, pp. 29-31, 70, 103-
105, 152, 153, 186-187; vol. 5, 1932, pp. 2, 51, 104, 132, 165;
vol. 6, 1933, p. 15. Quito.
Calandrelli, MatJas.
1896. Filologfa Americana, Lule y Tonocote. La Biblioteca, No. 5, pp.
261-276. Buenos Aires.
Caldas, Alferez Josi; Augusta,
1899. VocabuMrio da lingua indigena dos Boror6s Coroados. Cuyabd.
1903. Apontamentos para a organisagao da grammatica Bororo. Alphabeto.
Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 12, pp. 311-325.
Camara Cascudo, Lufs da.
1934. Anhangd, mito de confusao verbal. Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Hist. Geogr.
Pernambucano, vol. 33, 1932 (1934), pp. 75-80. Pernambuco.
Cameron, James W. See Mangelsdorf, Paul Christopher, and Cameron,
James W.
Camp, Charles Lewis, and Vanderhoop, V. L.
1940. . . . Bibliography of fossil vertebrates, 1928-1933. Geol. Soc. Amer.,
sp. pap.. No. 27. New York.
Camp, Charles Lewis, Taylor, D. N., and Welles, S. P.
1942. Bibliography of fossil vertebrates, 1934-38. Geol. Soc. Amer., sp.
pap. No. 42. New York.
Campana, Domenico del.
1902. Notizie intorono ai Ciriguani. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 32, pp.
17-139, 283-289.
Campanella, Andres.
1938-39. Glosario etimol6gico de los nombres indigenas de lugares tucumanos.
Cuadernos de mineralogia y geologfa, vol. 1, 1938, No. 3, pp.
50-60, No. 4, pp. 52-60; vol. 2, 1939, No. 5, pp. 45-52, No. 6,
pp. 58-63, No. 7, pp. 198-204, No. 8, pp. 57-62. Tucumdn.
Campos, Murillo de.
1919. Aptidao para o servigo militar no Brasil. Bol. Soc. M6d.-Cir. Mil.
Rio de Janeiro, ano IV, vols. 9-12.
Canals Frau, Salvador.
1941. La lengua de los Huarpes de San Juan. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer.,
vol. 2, pp. 43-168.
1942. La lengua de los Huarpes de Mendoza. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer.,
vol. 3, pp. 157-184.
1943 a. Los aborigines del valle de Salta en el siglo XVI. An. Inst. Etnogr.
Amer., vol. 4, pp. 207-248.
1943 b. Algunos datos documentales sobre la primitiva San Luis. An.
Inst. Etnogr. Amer., vol. 4, pp. 67-120.
1944. El Grupo Huarpe-Comeching6n. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer., vol. 5,
5, pp. 9-48.
588 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
CAfjAS Pinochet, Alejandro.
1902. Estudios etimolojicos de las palabras in Chile. Actes See. Sci. Chili,
vol. 12.
1911 a. Estudios de la lengua Veliche. 1st Pan-American Scientific Con-
gress (4th Latin American Congress), Santiago de Chile, 1908-
09, vol. 1, pp. 143-330. Santiago de Chile.
1911 b. La geograffa de la Tierra del Fuego y noticias de la antropologia y
etnografia de sus habitantes. 1st Pan-American Scientific Con-
gress (4th Latin American Congress), Santiago de Chile, 1908-
09, Trabajos de la III secci6n, Ciencias naturales, antropol6gica3
y etnol6gicas, vol. 1, pp. 331-404. Santiago de Chile.
Candela, p. B.
1943. Blood group tests on tissues of Paracas mummies. Amer. Journ.
Phys. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 1, pp. 65-67.
Candelier, H.
1893. Rio Hacha el les indiens Goajires. Paris.
Candolle, Alphgnse Louis Pierre Pyramus de.
1912. Origine des plantes cultiv^es. Paris.
Canestrini, Giovanni, and Moschen, Lamberto.
1879. Sopra due crani di Botocudi. Atti della Societa Veneto-Trentina di
Scienze Naturali Residente in Padova, vol. 6, pp. 77-93. (Review
in Archiv. Antrop. Etnol. vol. 9.)
Cannabrava, Catarina Baratz. See Steinen, K. von den, 1942.
Capdeville, Augusto.
1921. Notas acerca de la arqueologia de Taltal. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito,
vol. 2, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 1-16, 256-61.
Capistrang de Abreu, Joag. See Abreu, Joao Capistrang de.
Cardgna Puig, Felix.
1945. Vocabulario del dialecto karro del Rio Guainia. Acta Venezolana, vol.
1, pp. 221-230. Caracas.
Cardus, Fray Jgs:6.
1886. Las misiones franciscanas entre los infieles de Bolivia, descripci6n del
estado de ellas en 1883 y 1884. Barcelona.
1916. Catecismo de la doctrina cristiana en Guarayo y Castellano, por el
R. P. ex-converso-. (2d ed.) Yotau.
See also Lafone-Quevedg, S. A., 1905.
Carpenter, T. M., and Steggerda, Morris.
1939. The food of the present-day Navajo Indians of New Mexico and Ari-
zona. Journal of Nutrition, vol. 18, pp. 297-305. Springfield,
Illinois.
Carranza. See Pinart, A. L., and Carranza, Eds., 1890.
Carrasco, Francisco.
1901. Principales palabras del idioma de las cuatro tribus de infieles: Antis,
Piros, Conibos y Sipibos. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 11, afio 11,
Trimestre Segundo, pp. 205-211.
Carrera, Fernando de la.
1939. Arte de la lengua yunga (1644). Reedici6n, con introducci6n y notas
por Radam^s A. Altieri. Publ. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, No. 256, De-
partamento de Investigaciones Regionales, Publicaciones Especiales
del Instituto de Antropologia, No. 3.
See also Altieri, Radam^s A., 1939 a; and Villareal, Federico, 1921.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 589
Carrocera, Catetano de.
1935. Las lenguas indigenas de Venezuela y su clasificaci6n por familias.
Revista de las Espanas, 10« ann^e, pp. 316-321. Madrid.
Carvalho, Joao Braulino de.
1929. Breve noticia s6bre os indigenas que habitam a fronteira do Brasil com
o Peril. Relatorio apresentado ao Presidente da Repiiblica dos
Estados Unidos do Brasil pelo Ministro de Estado das Relagoes
Exteriores, Anno de 1928, 4° vol., Annexo especial n. 2, pp. 301-332.
Rio de Janeiro.
1931. Breve noticia sobre os indigenas que habitam a fronteira do Brasil com
o Peru, elaborada pelo medico da comissao Dr.- e calcada em obser-
vagoes pessoais. Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 7, pp. 225-256.
Casanoves, Eduardo BoscX.
[1908?] El esqueleto humano f6sil del arroyo de Samborob6n (America del
Sur). Associaci6n Espaiiola para el progreso de las ciencias, Con-
greso de Zaragoza. Madrid.
Castellanos, Alfredo.
1917. Sobre la orientaci6n fronto-glabellar de Ameghino. Rev. Univ. Nac.
C6rdoba, 4th year, pp. 188-195.
1922. La presencia del hombre f6sil en el pampeano medio del valle de los
Reartes (sierra de C6rdoba). Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba, vol.
25, pp. 369-382.
1924. Contribuci6n al estudio de la paleo-antropologfa argentina. Restos
descubiertos en la laguna Melincue (prov. de Santa Fe). Rev. Univ.
Nac. C6rdoba, 11th year, Nos. 10-12.
1926 a. El hombre f6sil en las mdrgenes de la laguna Melincu6. Inst. Int.
Anth., 2nd sess., Prague, 1924, pp. 271-272. Paris.
1926 b. Descubrimiento y posici6n estratigrdfica de restos humanos f6siles en
las margenes del rio Salvador y del arroyo Cululii, provincia de
Santa F6 (Repiiblica Argentina). Inst. Int. Anthrop., 2nd sess.,
Prague, 1924, pp. 273-280. Paris.
1926 c. Sobre un fragmento de maxilar inferior humano f6sil del pampeano
superior de la provincia de Santa F6 (Repiiblica Argentina) . Inst,
Int. Anthrop., 2nd sess., Prague, 1924, pp. 280-289. Paris.
1926 d. Hornos en el Post-Pampeano de la regi6n de Esperanza (provincia de
Santa F6, Repiiblica Argentina). Inst. Int. Anthrop., 2nd sess.,
Prague, 1924, pp. 301-303. Paris.
1928 a. La existencia del hombre f6sil en la Argentina. Atti del XXII
Congr. Int. Amer. Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 277-282.
1928 b. Deformaci6n artificial en un crdneo humano f6sil de la Argentina.
Atti del XXII Congr. Int. Amer., Rome, 1926, pt. 1, pp. 283-290.
1930. Nuevos restos del hombre f6sil. Physis, vol. 10, pp. 175-181.
1933. El hombre prehist6rico de la provincia de C6rdoba (Argentina). Rev.
Soc. "Amigos Arqueol.," vol. 7, pp. 5-88.
1936. Los sedimentos del Pampeano inferior y del Araucano en el valle de
Los Reartes (sierra de C6rdoba). Publ. Fac. Cienc. Univ. Nac.
Litoral, ser. Tec.-Cient., No. 6, pp. 1-96.
1938. Nuevos restos del hombre f6sil y de "Hornos de Tierra Cocida" en
Santiago del Estero (Argentina). Nota preliminar. Publ. Inst.
Fisiog. Geol., No. 2, edici6n del autor.
1943. Antigiiedad geol6gica del yacimiento de los restos humanos de la
"Gruta de Candonga," C6rdoba. Publ. Inst. Fisiog. Geol., vol. 4,
No. 14.
590 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Castelli, a. See Henckel, K. O., Castelli, A., and Dal Borgo, J.
CASTELLVf, MaRCELINO DE.
1934 a. Manual de investlgaciones lingiiisticas, para uso de los investigadores
del Departmento de Narino y de las regiones del Caquetd, Putu-
mayo y Amazonas. Clasificaci6n resumida de los idiomas indl-
genas hablados en su territorio. Ensayo de instrucciones y
encuestas segun los m^todos modernos, adaptados especialmente
para dichas regiones. Pasto.
1934 b. Las investlgaciones lingiiisticas y etnogrdficas en la Misi6n del
Caquetd. Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol. 5, pp. 193-213.
1934 c. Diccionario indio. Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol. 6, Nos. 61-62, pp.
19-26.
1938. La lengua KoMn. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 30, pp. 219-233.
1939. Bibliografia sobre la familia lingiifstica Tukano. Proc. Second Conv.
Inter-Amer. Bibl. Libr. Assoc, ser. 2, vol. 2. Washington.
1940. La lengua Tinigua. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 32, pp. 93-101.
See also Igualada, F. de, and Castellvi, M. de; Tulcdn, I de, 1934 b.
Castelnaxj, Francis de.
1850-59. Expedition dans les parties centrales de TAmerique du Sud, de Rio
de Janeiro h Lima, et de Lima au Para; executee par ordre du
gouvernement frangais pendant les annees 1843^1847. 14 vols.
in 16. (Part I, Histoire du voj^age. 6 vols. 1850-51.) Paris.
Castillo, Joseph.
1906. Relaci<5n de la provincia de Mojos. Documentos para la historia
geogrdfica de la Republica de Bolivia compilados y anotados por
Manual V. Ballividn. Serie primera. Epoca colonial, vol. 1, Las
Provincias de Mojos y Chiquitos. La Paz.
See also Onetto, E., and Castillo, J.
Castillo y Orozco, Eujenio del.
1877. Vocabulario Pdez-Castellano, catecismo, nociones gramaticales i dos
pldticas con adiciones, correcciones, i un Vocabulario Castellano-Pdez
por Ezequiel Uricoechea. Bibl. Ling. Amer. Paris, vol. 20.
Castle, William E.
1916. An expedition to the home of the guinea-pig and some breeding experi-
ments with material there obtained. Carnegie Institution of Wash-
ington, Publ. 241, pt. 1, pp. 3-55.
Castro, Amerigo.
1935. Cuestiones lingiiisticas de America. Tierra firme, vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
177-191. Madrid.
Castro, Eug&nio de
1937. Geographia lingiiistica e cultura brasileira (ensaio). Grd.fica Sauer.
Rio de Janeiro.
Castro, Josue de, and Silva, Irene.
1938. Resistencia dentaria e factor racial. Archiv. Med. Leg. Ident., vol.
8, No. 16, pp. 197-217.
Castro, Maria Antonieta de.
1939. Peso e Altura dos Escolares de S. Paulo. Gazeta Clfnica, anno 37, No.
8, Agosto, pp. 287-299; No. 9, set., pp. 337-348. Sao Paulo.
Cathoud, a. See Walter, H. V., Cathoud, A., and Mattos, A.
Cattunar, p. Herman. See Romano, P. Santiago, and Cattunar, P. Herman.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 591
CAVADA, F. J.
1920. Lingiiistica del archipielago de Chilo6 (suite). La Revista Cat61ica.
Santiago de Chile, vol. 34, pp. 788-791.
1921. Diccionario manual isleno. Provincialismos de Chiloe (Chile). San-
tiago de Chile.
Celed6n, Rafael.
1878. Gramdtica, catecismo i vocabulario de la lengua goajira. . . , con una
introducci6n y un apendice por E. Uricoechea. Bibl. Ling. Am^r.
Paris, vol. 5.
1886. Gramdtica de la lengua Koggaba, con vocabularios y catecismos.
Bibl. Ling. Amer. Paris, vol. 10.
1892 a. Vocabulario de la lengua Atanques. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 8.
Paris, 1890, pp. 591-599.
1892 b. Vocabulario de la lengua Bintukua. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 8,
Paris, 1890, pp. 599-609.
C^sPEDEs MarIn, Amadeo.
1923. Cr6nicas de la visita oficial y diocesana al Guatuso. San Jos6 de
Costa Rica.
Chaffanjon, Jean.
1889. L'Orenoque et le Caura; relation de voyages ex4cut6s en 1886 et 1887.
Paris.
Chagas Lima, Padre Francisco das.
1842. Mem6ria sobre o descobrimento e colonia de Guaraupava. Rev.
Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 4, pp. 43-64.
Chamberlain, Alexander Francis.
[1903.] Indians, American. In Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 9. (Copyright,
1903.) New York; Chicago, (i^ez^tsed m Encyclopedia Americana,
vol. 15, 1941, pp. 43-58, by the late Alexander F. Chamberlain and
C. Leonard Stuart.)
1907. South American linguistic stocks. Congr. Int. Amer., sess. 15, Quebec,
1906, vol. 2, pp. 187-204.
1910 a. Sur quelques families linguistiques peu connues ou presques inconnues
de I'Amerique du Sud. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 7,
pp. 179-202.
1910 b. The Uran: a new South American linguistic stock. Amer. Anthrop.,
vol. 12, pp. 417-424.
1911 a. The present state of our knowledge concerning the three linguistic
stocks of the region of Tierra del Fuego, South America. Amer.
Anthrop., vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
1911 b. On the Puelchean and Tsonekan (Tehuelchean) , the Atacamenan
(Atacaman) and Chonoan, and the Charruan linguistic stocks of
South America. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 13, pp. 458-471.
1912 a. The Calchaquian linguistic stock. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 14,
p. 167 (abstract).
1912 b. The AUentiacan, Bororoan, and Calchaquian linguistic stocks of
South America. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 14, pp. 499-507.
1912 c. The linguistic position of the Pawumwa Indians of South America.
Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 14, pp. 632-635.
1913 a. Linguistic stocks of South American Indians, with distribution-map.
Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 15, pp. 236-247.
1913 b. Nomenclature and distribution of the principal tribes and sub-tribes
of the Arawakan linguistic stock of South America. Journ. Soc.
Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 10, pp. 473-496.
592 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Chamberlain, Alexander Francis—Continued
1913 c. The Carayan, Caririan, Chavantean and Guatoan linguistic stocks
of South America. Science, vol. 37, p. 344 (abstract). New York.
Chandless, William.
1866. Ascent of the River Puriis. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 36, pp.
86-118.
1869. Notes of a journey up the River Jurud. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc,
vol. 39, pp. 296-311.
Chantre y Herrera, Jos6.
1901. Historia de las misiones de la Compania de Jesus en el Maran6n
espanol. (1637-1767). Madrid.
Chervin, Arthur.
1907. Anthropologie bolivienne. Vol. 2, Anthropometrie. Paris.
1908. Anthropologie bolivienne. Vol. 3, Craniologie. Paris.
1913. Aymaras and Quichuas: A study of Bolivian anthropology. Congr.
Int. Amer., Proc. 18th sess., London, 1912, pt. 1, pp. 63-74.
Chevalier, August.
1936. Ce que TAm^rique a donn^ k I'Ancien Monde. Revue de Botanique
Appliqu^e et d'Agriculture Tropicale, Laboratoire d'Agronomie
Coloniale, ann^e 16, No. 177, May 1936, pp. 348-364; ann^e 16,
No. 178, June 1936, pp. 417-441. Paris.
Chillida, Luis Alberto.
1943. Caracteristicas m^tricas y niorfol6gicas del humero en los aborfgenes
argentinos. Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 3, No. 1.
Christensen, J.
1917. Toponomfa de la provincia de Santiago del Estero. In Fernandez,
Jorge, Centros mds importantes de la poblaci6n de Santiago del
Estero en 1916, pp. 85-133. Buenos Aires.
Christian, F. W.
1924. Early Maori migrations as evidenced by physical geography and lan-
guage. Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science,
Report of 16th meeting, WeUington, January 1923, pp. 523-535.
Wellington.
1932. Polynesian and oceanic elements in the Chimu and Inca languages.
Journal of the Polynesian Society, vol. 41, pp. 144^156. New
Plymouth, New Zealand.
Chuqiwanqa, Ayulo.
1928. Ortografia indoamericana. La Sierra, 2* annee, Nos. 13-14, Janv.-
Fev., pp. 48-51. Lima.
Church, George Earl.
1898. Notes on the visit of Dr. Bach to the Catuquinaru Indians of Amazonas.
Geogr, Journ. vol. 12, pp. 63-67.
CiEZA DE Le6n, Pedro de.
1864. The travels of Pedro de Cieza de Leon, A. D. 1532-50, contained in
the First Part of his Chronicle of Peru. Trans, and edit, with notes
and introd. by Clements R. Markham. Hakluyt Soc, vol. 33.
London.
1881. La guerra de Chupas. Guerras Civiles del Peru. Col. Doc Ined.
Hist. Espaiia, vol. 77. (English ed., London, 1918.)
1932. La cr6nica del Peril, Primera Parte. Madrid.
Vol. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 593
CiMITILE, FrEI LuIZ DE.
n. d. Epitome dos costumes e religiao dos Indies Games ou Coroados com
um pequeno vocabuldrio. (Manuscrito original No. 618, na biblio-
teca do Institute Hist6rico-Geogrdfico Brasileiro.) Rio de Janeiro.
Cipriani, Cfbar A.
1902. Exploraci6n del Bajo Inambari por el ingeniero C^sar A. Cipriani. In
"Vias del Pacffico al Madre de Dios," pp. 153-189. Lima.
Cipriani, Lidio.
1930. Su alcuni caratteri del cranio faciale degli antichi Peruvian!. Proc.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 23, New^York, 1928, pp. 866-880.
Claraz, Jorge. See Outes, F. F., 1926-27 b.
Clarke, Charles Upson.
1937. Jesuit letters to Hervds on American languages and customs. Journ.
Soc. Am^r. Paris, vol. 29, pp. 97-145.
Coates, Christopher W.
1939. What we know about the electric eel. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc, vol. 42,
No. 3, pp. 80-83.
1947. The kick of an electric eel. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 180, No. 4, pp.
75-79, October. Boston.
Coates, C. W., Cox, R. T., and Granath, L. P.
1937. The electrical discharge of the electric eel, Electrophorus electricus
(Linnaeus). Zoologica, vol. 22, pt. 1, Nos. 1-6, pp. 1-31. New
York.
Cobb, W. Montague.
1933. Human materials in American institutions available for anthropological
study. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 17, suppl. to No. 4.
CoBO, Bernabe.
1890-95. Historia del nuevo mundo . . . Ed. Marcos Jimenez de la Espada.
Sociedad de Bibliofilos Andaluces. 4 vols. Seville.
Coca, A. F., and Deibert, O.
1923. A study of the occurrence of the blood groups among the American
Indians. Journ. Immunol., vol. 8, p. 487.
Cohen, M. See Meillet, A., and Cohen, M.; Rivet, P., 1924 a.
Coker, Robert E.
1919. Habits and economic relations of the guano birds of Peru. Proc. U. S.
Nat. Mus., vol. 56, No. 2298, pp. 449-511.
1923. Primitive fishery methods in Lake Titicaca. Natural History, vol. 23,
No. 1, pp. 25-31, January-February. New York.
Colbacchini, Antonio.
n. d. Grammatica dei Bororos-Orarimugudoge del Matto Grosso (Brasile).
Society Editrice Internazionale. Turin.
1925. I Bor6ros orientali "Orarimugudoge" del Matto Grosso (Brasile).
Society Editrice Internazionale. Turin.
Colbacchini, Antonio, and Albisetti, Cesar.
1942. Os Bor6ros orientals. Orarimogodogue do planalto oriental de Mato
Grosso. Bibl. Pedag. Brasil., ser. 5a, vol. 4.
Colbert, Edwin H.
1942. The association of man with extinct mammals in the Western Hemi-
sphere. Proc. Amer. Eighth Sci. Cong., Washington, D. C, 1940,
Anthropological sciences, pp. 17-29.
Coleti, Giovanni Domenico.
1771. Dizionario storico-geografico dell'America Meridionale. Venezia.
594 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Collins, Frederick.
1879. Vocabulary of the language of the Indians of the Canton of Cchoc6
(Napipi Expedition). Pp. 118-121. Washington.
Collins, G. N.
1930. The phylogeny of maize. Bull. Torr. Bot. Club, vol. 57, No. 4, pp.
199-210.
Collins, Henry B., Jr.
1926. The temporo-frontal articulation in man, Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., vol. 9, pp. 343-348.
1927. Frequency and distribution of fossa pharyngea in human crania.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 11, pp. 101-106.
COLMAN, NaRCISO R.
1917. Ocara Poty (Cantares del Rosicrdn) (con un ap^ndice que contiene
producciones po6ticas de otros bardos guaranfes) . Vol. 1. Asunci6n.
1921. Ocara poty (flores silvestres). Pr61ogo de Juan O'Leary, 2« edition
corrig^e et augmentee. Asunci6n. (Vol. 2, seguido de una anto-
logfa de bardos guaranfes contempordneos, titulada "El Parnaso
de Guarania.")
1929 a. Mil refranes guaranfes (Ne'engd). Asunci6n.
1929 b. Nando ipi cuera. Poema guarani etnogenetico y mitol6gico.
Asunci6n.
1932. Nande ypy cuera. Poema sobre los aborigenes (nuestros antepasados)
.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 3, pp. 171-225.
Rio de Janeiro.
1936. Nuestros antepasados (Nande ipi cuera) . Version castellana del mismo
autor. Poema guarani etnogenetico y mitol6gico, seguida de un
estudio etimol6gico de los mitos, nombres y voces empleadas.
Bibl. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, No. 6.
COLVOCORESSES, G. M.
1852. Four years in a government exploring expedition. New York.
Comas, J.
1941. Aportaci6n a la bibliografia y estadistica serol6gica racial Americana;
Bol. Bibl. Antrop. Amer., vol. 5, p. 29.
1942. Los grupos sangulneos y la raciologia americana. Rev. Mex. Soc,
vol. 4, pp. 69-73.
Cominges, D. Juan.
1892. Exploraciones al Chaco del Norte. Diario de la segunda expedici6n
realizada en octubre y noviembre del ano 1879. In Obras escogidas
de Don Juan Cominges con su biografia por el D. Matias Alonso
Criado. Buenos Aires.
COMPTE RENDU DE LA I. CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE DE PaTHOLOGIE Gto-
GRAPHiQUE. Geneve, 1931, Librairie Kundig. (Cirrosis hepdtica.)
CoMPTE RENDU DE LA II. CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE DE PaTHOLOGIE Gio-
GRAPHiQUE. Utrecht, 1934, A, Osthoek S. A. (Arteriosclerosis y cirrosis
hepdtica.)
CoMPTE RENDU DE LA III. CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE DE PaTHOLOGIE G£o-
GRAPHiQUE. Stockholm, 1937, Mercators Tryckeri. (Las anemias.)
CoMPTE, Francisco MarIa. See Prieto, A. J., 1885.
CONSTANCIO.
1939. Algo sobre la Compania y las lenguas indfgenas. Estudios, vol. 61,
pp. 245-264. Buenos Aires.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 595
C0NSTANZ6, MarIa DE LAS MeRCEDES.
1941. Restos humanos de Pampa Grande (Salta). An. Inst. Etnogr.
Amer., vol. 2, pp. 239-254.
1942 a. Antropologia Calchaquf. La Coleccion Zavaleta del Museo Argen-
tine de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia." Rev. Instit.
Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucumc4n, vol. 2, No. 9, Publ. No. 292, pp.
213-308.
1942 b. Datos sobre la antropologia fisica de los antiguos habitantes de
Cuyo. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer., vol. 3, pp. 323-338.
1942 c. Lesiones dentarias en los indfgenas pre-hispdnicos. Rel. Soc. Arg.
Antrop., vol. 3, pp. 241-252.
CONZEMIUS, EdUARD.
1923. The Jicaques of Honduras . . . Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 2, pp.
163-170.
1927-28. Los Indios Payas de Honduras. Journ. Soc. Am4r. Paris, n. s,
vol. 19, pp. 245-302, 1927; cont'd, in vol. 20, pp. 253-360.
1929 a. Die Rama-Indianer von Nicaragua. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 59, 1927,
pp. 291-362.
1929 b. Notes on the Miskito and Sumu languages of Eastern Nicaragua and
Honduras. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 5, pp. 57-115.
1930 a. Une tribu inconnue du Costa-Rica: les Indiens Rama du Rio Zapote.
L'Anthropologic, vol. 40, pp. 93-108. Paris.
1930 b. Sur le Garif des Caraibes noirs de I'Amerique Centrale. Anthropos.,
vol. 25, pp. 859-877. St. Gabriel-Modling, Austria.
1932. Ethnographical survey of the Miskito and Sumu Indians of Honduras
and Nicaragua. Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 106.
Cook, A. H.
1895. Molluscs. In Cambridge Nat. Hist., vol. 3, pp. 1-459. London.
Cook, F. A.
1900. Through the first antarctic night 1898-99; a narrative of the "Belgica."
New York.
Cook, Orator Fuller.
1901. Origin and distribution of the cocoa palm. Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb.,
vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 257-293.
1910. History of the coconut palm in America. Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb.,
vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 271-342.
1916. Quichua names of sweet potatoes. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., vol.
6, pp. 86-90.
1925. Peru as a center of domestication. Journ. Hered. (American Genetic
Assoc), vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 33-46; No. 3, pp. 95-110.
Cooper, John M.
1917 a. Analytical and critical bibliography of the tribes of Tierra del Fuego
and adjacent territory. Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 63.
1917 b. Fuegian and Chonoan tribal relations. Proc. Int. Congr. Amer.,
Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, pp. 445-453. Washington.
1942 a. Areal and temporal aspects of aboriginal South American culture.
Primitive Man, vol. 15, Nos. 1 and 2.
1942 b. The South American marginal cultures. Proc, Eighth Amer. Sci.
Congr., vol. 2, pp. 147-160.
Coqueiro, Mota.
1935 a. Araqud, araquara, araraquara (um pouco de hist6ria e um pouco de
tupf). Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1« annee, vol. 10, pp. 152
154.
794711—50 39
596 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
CoQUEiKO, MoTA—Continued
1935 b. A palavra araraquara. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 2« ann^e,
vol. 15, pp. 209-213.
CORDEIRO, L.
1875. Una excursi6n a Gualaquiza. Cuenca.
CORDERO PalACIOS, OctAVIO.
1924. El Quechua y el Canari; contribuci6n para la historia precuencana delas
provincias azuayas. Obra editada por el Consejo Municipal de
Cuenca del Ecuador.
CORNBJO BOXJRONCLE, JoRGE.
1939. Las momias Incas. Trepanaciones craneanas en el antiguo Perii.
Bol. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lima, ano 3, No. 11, pp. 106-115.
CoRYN, Alfredo.
1922. Los Indios Lenguas, sus costumbres y su idioma, con compendio de
gramdtica y vocabulario. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 93, pp.
221-282.
Cosio, Jose Gabriel.
1916. Los dramas quechuas. Usca Pauccar. Revista Universitaria, 5*
ann^e. No. 17, pp. 2-9. Cuzco.
1919. Etimologia quechua de la voz "guacho." Mercurio Peruano. Lima.
1923. Algo sobre el alfabeto de la lengua Quechua o Runa simi. Revista
Universitaria, 12« ann^e, Nos. 41-42, Sept.-D6c., pp. 1-14.
Cuzco.
1924. Fonetismo de la lengua Quechua o Runa Simi en sustituci6n del sistema
insinuado por la revista limena "Inca." Cuzco.
Costa, O., and Faria, L.
1936. A Planta que faz Sonhar. Revista da Flora Medicinal, No. 10. Rio
de Janeiro.
Costa, Pietro.
1890. II terzo trocantere, la fossa ipotrocanterica, la cresta ipotrocanterica nel
femore dell'uomo. Archiv. Antrop. EtnoL, vol. 20, pp. 269-305.
CosTANTiN, [J.], and Bois, [D.].
1910. Sur les graines et tubercules des Tombeaux p^ruviens de la Periode
Incasique. Rev. G4n. Bot., June 15, vol. 22, No. 258, pp. 242-265.
Paris.
CoTHEAL, Alexander I.
1848. A grammatical sketch of the language spoken by the Indians of the
Mosquito Shore. Trans. Amer. Ethnol. Soc, vol. 2, pp. 235-264.
Coudreau, Henri A.
1886-87. La France 6quinoxiale. 2 vols, and Atlas. Paris. (Vol. 1.
fitudes sur les Guyanes et I'Amazonie. 1886. Vol. 2. Voyage
k travers les Guyanes et I'Amazonie. 1887. Atlas.)
1892. Vocabularies m(5thodiques des langues Quayana, Aparai, Oyampi,
Emerillon. Bibl. Ling. Am6r. Paris, vol. 15.
1897 a. Voyage au Tapaj6z, 28 juillet 1895-7 Janvier 1896. Paris.
1897 b. Voyage au Tocantins-Araguaya, 31 d^cembre 1896-23 mai 1897.
Paris.
1897 c. Voyage au Xingu, 30 mai 1896-26 octobre 1896. Paris.
Coudreau, Olga.
1901. Voyage au Cumina, 20 avril 1900-7 septembre 1900. Paris.
1903 a. Voyage k la Mapuerd, 21 avril 1901-24 d^cembre 1901. Paris.
1903 b. Voyage au Rio Curud, 20 novembre 1900-7 mars 1901. Paris.
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY
'
597
Count, E. W.
1939. Primitive Amerinds and the Australo-Melanesians. Rev. Inst. Antrop.
Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 1, pp. 91-159.
1941. The Australoid problem and the peopUng of America. Second con-
tribution: a consideration of the three cardinal cranial dimensions.
Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 2, pp. 121-176.
CouTO DE Magalhaes, Agenor.
1931. Monographia Brazileira de peizes fluviaes. Sao Paulo.
CouTO DE Magalhaes, Jos6 Vieira.
1876. . . . O selvagem. I. Curso da lingua geral segundo OUendorf,
comprehendendo o texto original de lendas tupis. II. Origens,
custumes, regiao selvagem, methodo a empregar para amansalos por
intermedio das colonias militares e do interprete militar. Rio de
Janeiro.
CouTo DE Magalhaes, Jos6
1902. Viagem ao Araguaia. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Cox, R. T.
1938. The electric eel at home. Bull. N. Y. Zool. Soc, vol. 41, No. 2, pp.
59-65.
See also Coates, C. W., Cox, R. T., and Granath, L. P.
Crawshay, Richard.
1907. The birds of Tierra del Fucgo. Bernard Quaritch. London,
Crequi-Montfort, G. de, and Rivet, Paul.
1912. Linguistique bolivienne. Le groupe Otuke. Journ. Soc. Am6r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 9, pp. 317-337.
1913 a. Linguistique bolivienne. Les afiinites des dialectes Otukfe. Journ.
Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 10, pp. 369-377.
1913 b. La famille linguistique Capakura. Journ. Soc. Am4r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 10, pp. 119-171.
1913 c. La langue Saraveka. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 10, pp.
497-540.
1913 d. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Lapa6u ou Apolista. Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 45, pp. 512-531.
1913 e. Linguistique bolivienne. Les dialectes Pano de Bolivie. Le Museon,
n. s., vol. 14, pp. 19-78.
1913 f. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Kanicana. Mem. Soc. Ling.
Paris, vol. 18, pp. 354-377.
1914. L'origine des aborigines du P4rou et de la Bolivie. Acad^mie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Comptes rendus des stances de
I'annee 1914, pp. 196-202. Paris.
1914-19. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Mobima. Journ. Soc. Am6r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 11, pp. 183-211.
1916-17. La langue Itonama. M6m. Soc. Ling. Paris, vol. 19, pp. 301-322,
vol. 20, pp. 26-57.
1917-20. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Kayuvava. Int. Journ. Amer.
Ling., vol. 1, pp. 245-265.
1921. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Uru ou Pukina. Int. Arch.
Ethnogr., vol. 25, pp. 87-113.
1921-23. La famille linguistique Takana. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 13,''pp. 91-102, 281-301; vol. 14, pp. 141-182; vol. 15, pp.
121-167.
598 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Cr:6qui-Montfort, G. de, and Rivet, Paul—Continued
1925-27. Linguistique bolivienne. La langue Uru ou Pukina. Journ. Soc.
Am^r. Paris, vol. 17, 1925, pp. 211-244; vol. 18, 1926, pp. 111-139;
vol. 19, 1927, pp. 57-116.
Cr^vaux, Jules Nicolas.
1883. Voyages dans I'Am^rique du Sud. Paris.
Cr^vaux, Jules Nicolas, Sagot, P., and Adam, Lucien.
1882. Grammaires et vocabulaires Roucouyenne, Arrouague, Piapoco et
d'autres langues de la region dea Guyanes. Bibl. Ling. Am6r.
Paris, vol. 8.
Crile, George Washington, and Quiring, D. P.
1939 a. Indian and Eskimo metabolisms. Journal of Nutrition, vol. 18,
pp. 361-368. Springfield, 111.
1939 b. A study of the metabolism of the Maya Quich6 Indian. Journal of
Nutrition, vol. 18, pp. 369-374. Springfield, 111.
Cuervo MXrquez, Carlos.
1920. Estudios arqueol6gicos y etnogrdficos Americanos (prehistoria y viajes
americanos). 2 vols. (2d ed.) Madrid.
1927. Las conmociones geol6gicas de la 6poca cuaternaria en la sdbana de
Bogotd y su alrededores. Bogotd.
CUEVA, R. P. DE LA.
1893. Principes et dictionnaire de la langue Yurucare ou Yurujure composes
par le R. P. de la Cueva et publi^es conform^ment au manuscrit de
A. d'Orbigny por Lucien Adam. Bibl. Ling. Amer. Paris, vol. 16.
CuLLEN, Edward.
1851 a. Vocabulary of the language of the Cholo or Choco Indians, of the
Isthmus of Darien. Collected by Dr. Edward CuUen. Journ.
Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 20, pp. 189-190.
1851 b. Vocabulary of the language of the Yule Indians, who inhabit the
rivers and the Coast of Darien, from the mouth of the Atrato to
the Coast of San Bias. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 21, pp. 241-
242. {Reprinted in "Isthmus of Darien Ship Canal," appendix,
pp. 99-102, 1853, London; also reprinted, with corrections and
additions, in vols. 4 and 6, n. s., of Trans. Ethnol. Soc. London,
1866, 1868, q. v. below.)
1866. The Darien Indians. Trans. Ethnol. Soc. London, n. s., vol. 4, pp.
264-268.
1868. The Darien Indians. Trans. Ethnol. Soc London, n. s., vol. 6, pp.
150-175 (Vocabulary of words in the language of the Toole or Darien
Indians, on pp. 172-175).
1875. Description of the Choco Indians. In New York Herald. (Withmap;
Nos. 167-171 bound in volume. Languages of Chiriqui and Darien.)
Cumberland, C[harle8].
[1886?] The guinea pig, or domestic cavy, for food, fur, and fancy. London.
CtJNEO-VlDAL, R6mULO.*
1913. Puntos fundamentales para el estudio de la historia y geografia de
Arica. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 29, ano 1913, trimestres tercero
y cuarto, pp. 171-174,
1914. De algunas etimologfas del Bajo Collasuyo (Urin Collasuyo) de los
Incas. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 30, pp. 143-150.
* See footnote on page 599.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 599
CtJNEo-ViDAL, R6mulo '—Continued
1915 a. Lingiifstica peruana. Etimologias americanas de los grupos Rimac,
Limac, Lima, Colla, Quilla, Chilla, ChUa. Bol. Soc Geogr. Lima,
vol. 31, pp. 111-115.
1915 b. Etimologfas americanas de los grupos "Hattun," "Antun," "Anto,"
"Jaya," "Haya," 'Taya,"-"Hasta," "Gasta,"-"Antofagasta,"-
"Antofaya." El Mercurio, No. 27512, juillet 1915. Santiago de
ChUe.
1915 c. De algunas etimologias del bajo Collasuyo (Urin Collasuyo) de los
Incas. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol. 13, pp. 295-305.
1916. De una nueva interpretaci6n etimol6gica del nombre Arequipa. Bol.
Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 32, pp. 264-266.
1918 a. Etimologfas americanas; Guacho, Uruguay, Paraguay. Bol. Soc.
Geogr. Lima, vol. 34, pp. 88-93.
1918 b. Etimologias peruanas. El nombre "Jauja." Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima,
vol. 34, pp. 346-348.
1920 a. Etimologias americanas de extracci6n andino-peruana. Bol. Soc.
Geogr. Lima, vol. 36, pp. 14-16.
1920 b. Etimologias peruanas: Tiabaya, Sabandia, Quilca, Carmen alto.
Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 36, pp. 164-168.
1922. Etimologias peruanas. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 39, pp. 84-92.
1930 a. El nombre "Pichu" en la orografia del Perii de los Incas. Bol. Soc.
Geogr. Lima, vol. 47, pp. 41-42.
1930 b. Del probable valor filol6gico de la voz Raymi entre los antiguos
Peruanos. Revista Universitaria, 2* serie, vol. 14, pp. 28-30.
Cuzco.
Cutler, Hugh. See Anderson, Edgar, and Cutler, Hugh.
CuTRiGHT, Paul Russell.
1940. The great naturalists explore South America. New York.
Dabbene, Roberto.
1911. Los indigenas de la Tierra del Fuego. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino,
vol. 25, Nos. 5-6, pp. 163-226; Nos. 7-8, pp. 247-300.
Daland, Judson.
1935. Depressed fracture and trephining of the skull by the Incas of Peru.
Ann. Med. Hist., n. s., vol. 7, pp. 550-558.
Dal Borgo, J. See Henckel, K. O., Castelli, A., and Dal Borgo, J.
Dangel, Richard.
1930. Quechua und Maori. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien., vol, 60, pp.
343-351.
1931 a. Das Chinchaysuyu der Departamentos Huanuco-Ancash. Journ.
Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 23, pp. 71-113.
1931 b. Beitrage zur kenntnis der heutigen Quechua-dialekte. Anthropos,
vol. 26, pp. 946-949. St. Gabriel-Modhng bei Wien.
Darapsky, Ludwig.
1888. La lengua araucana. Santiago de Chile.
1889. Estudios lingiiisticos americanos. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol.
10, pp. 368-380.
• In the articles by Cuneo-Vidal published in the Boletin de la Sociedad GeogrSfica de Lima, the date
given for the article is not the publication date but the date of the Boletin for the designated year.
600 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Darlington, Philip Jackson, Jr.
1938. The origin of the fauna of the Greater Antilles, with discussion of
dispersal of animals over water and through the air. Quart.
Rev. Biol., vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 274-300.
Darwin, Charles Robert.
1875. Reise eines Naturforschers um die Welt. Aus dem Englischen liber-
setzt, von J. Victor Carus . . . Stuttgart.
1876. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. 2nd ed.,
2 vols. New York.
Davis, Joseph Barnard.
1867. Thesaurus Craniorum. London.
1873. On ancient Peruvian skulls. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland,
vol. 3, pp. 94-100. (Also in Hutchinson, Thos. J., Two Years in
Peru, vol. 2, London, 1873, pp. 318-326.)
1875. Supplement to Thesaurus Craniorum. London.
Dawson, Warren R.
1927. Contribution to the history of mummification. Proc. Roy. Soc. Med.,
vol. 20, Sect. Hist. Med., pp. 28-50. 832-854.
1928 a. Mummification in Australia and in America. Journ. Roy. Anthrop.
Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol. 58, pp. 115-138.
1928 b. Two mummies from Colombia. Man, vol. 28, No. 53, pp. 73-74.
De Armas, Juan Ignacio. See Ignacio db Armas, Juan.
De Goeje, C. H. See Gobje, C. H. de.
Deibert, O. See Coca, A. F., and Deibert, O.
De la Hitte, Charles, and Ten Kate, H.
1897. Notes ethnographiques sur les Indiens Guayaquis et description de
leurs caracteres physiques. An Mus. La Plata, Anthropologie,
vol. 2.
De la Vaulx, H. See Verneau, R., and de la Vaulx, H.
Del Campana, Domenico.
1902. Notizie Intorno j Ciriguani. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol, vol. 32, pp. 17-144.
Deletang. Luis F.
1926,-31. Contribuci6n al estudio de nuestra toponimia. I. Pilcomayo,
Paraguay, Guapay. Publ. Inst. Invest. Hist., No. 29, 1926;
No. 58, 1931, pp. 18-108.
Delgado, Alberto, and Vacas Galindo, Enrique.
1929. Cat6n en lengua jibara para la misi6n de Macas. El Oriente Domini-
cano, vol. 2, pp. 31-32, 62-63. Quito.
Delgado, Eulogio.
1896-97. Vocabulario del idioma de las tribus Campas. Bol. Soc. Geogr.
Lima, vol. 5, pp. 445-457; vol. 6, pp. 96-105, 230-240, 347-356.
393-396.
Delle Seta, M.
1938. II sacro dei Fueguini. Riv. Antrop., vol. 32.
Dembo, Adolfo.
1937 a. La decoraci6n dentaria en la America aborigen. Rev. Geogr. Amer.,
aiio 4, vol. 7, pp. 95-100.
1937 b. La tdcnica de las mutilaciones dentarias en la America Precolum-
biana. Rev. Geog. Amer., ano 4, vol. 8, pp. 195-202.
1937 c. Sobre un craneo de la Patagonia con mutilaci6n dentaria. Gaea,
vol. 5, pp. 345-347.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 601
Dbmbo, Adolfo—Continued
1938. La decoraci6n dentaria en la America aborigen. Las referencias de los
cronistas ampliamente confirmadas por los hallazgos arqueol6gicos.
An. Soc. Geogr. Hist. Guatemala, vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 231-236.
1939. Multilaciones dentarias entre los aborfgenes de la Republica Argentina
y regiones vecinas. Physis, vol. 16, pp. 351-363.
Dembo, Adolfo, and Imbelloni, Jos:fi.
1938. Deformaciones intencionales del cuerpo humano de cardcter 4tnico.
Humanior, Secci6n A, vol. 3.
Dembo, Adolfo, and Paulotti, Osvaldo L.
1942. Dos mujeres Izoz6 con mutilaciones dentarias intencionales. Consi-
deraciones sobre la tdcnica, significado y difusi6n del aguzamiento en
Sud America. Rel. Soc. Argentina Antrop., vol. 3, pp. 157-172.
Deniker, Joseph.
1926. Les races et les peuples de la terre. (2d ed. rev. et considerablement
augm.) Paris.
See also Hyades, Paul Daniel Jules, and Deniker, Joseph.
Denison, Thomas Stewart.
1913. Mexican linguistics, including Nauatl or Mexican in Aryan phonology.
Chicago.
Dentjce, J.
1910. Note sur un vocabularie complet de la langue Yahgane. Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 16, Wien (Vienna), 1908, vol. 2, pp. 651-654.
De Sola, C. Ralph.
1932. Observations on the use of the sucking-fish or remora, Echeneis nau-
crates, for catching turtles in Cuban and Colombian waters. Copeia,
No. 2, pp. 45-52. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Detlefsen, John Adolph.
1914. Genetic studies on a cavy species cross. Carnegie Inst. Washington,
Publ. 205, pp. 1-134.
DfAZ L., RoGELio, and DfAz, Rogelio, (hijo).
1939. . . . Toponimia geogrdfica de la provincia de San Juan y voces de uso
corriente derivadas de las lenguas indfgenas . . . Pr61ogo del Dr.
Alfonso G. Hernandez, presidente de la Junta de estudios hist6ricos
de San Juan. Mendoza, Argentina.
DfAZ Romero, Belisarig.
1918. El Idioma Aymara. Bol. Soc. Geogr. La Paz, 16' ann(5e, No. 47,
pp. 52-64.
DiJOUR, Elizabeth.
1931-32. Preliminary study of Runasimi (Q'eswa) of the Cuzqueno and
Bolivian groups. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol.
2, pp. 155-183.
Dill, David Bruce.
1938. Life, heat, and altitude; physiological effects of hot climates and great
heights. Harvard Univ. Press.
DiLLENIUS, JuLXANNE A.
1910. El hueso parietal bajo la influencia de la deformaci6n fronto-occipital.
Contribuci6n al estudio somdtico de los antiguos Calchaqufes.
Publ. Secc. Antrop. Fac. Filos. Let., No. 7.
1912 a. Das Scheitelbein unter dem Einfluss der fronto-occipitalen Schadel-
deformation. Ein Beitrag zur somatischen Anthropologic der
Calchaqufstamme. Archiv Anthrop., N. F., vol. 11, pp. 113-139.
(Sp. ed. 1910.)
602 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
DiLLENius, JuLiANNE A.—Continued
1912 b. La verdadera forma del crdneo calchaquf deformado. Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, pp. 150-154.
1913. Cranometrfa comparativa de los antiguos habitantes de La Isla y del
Pukard, de Tilcara (Provincia de Jujuy). Publ. Secc. Antrop. Fac.
Filos. Let., No. 12.
Dingwall, Eric John.
1931. Artificial cranial deformation, a contribution to the study of ethnic
mutilations. London.
DiNIZ GONSALVES, AlpHEU.
1929. . . . Bibliographia da geologfa mineralogfa e paleontologfa do Brasil.
Bol. Min. Agric. Indiist. Com., No. 27.
DiTMARS, Raymond Lee.
1928. Reptiles of the world: tortoises and turtles, crocodilians, lizards, and
snakes of the eastern and western hemisphere. New York. (Several
editions.)
DiTMARS, Raymond L. and Greenhall, Arthur M.
1935. The vampire bat. A presentation of undescribed habits and review of
its history. Zoologica, vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 53-76. (Reprinted in
Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst. (1936), 1937, pp. 277-296.)
DiTMER, Erna Ernestovich, Ivanov, N. R., and Popova, G. M.
1937. L. Phaseolus. Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R., Flora of Cultivated Plants,
vol. 4, pp. 457-620.
Dixon, Roland Btjrrage.
1923. The racial history of man. New York.
1933. Contacts with America across the southern Pacific. In Jenness,
Diamond, ed.. The American aborigines, their origin and antiquity,
a collection of papers by ten authors assembled and edited by
Diamond Jenness; publ. for presentation at the Fifth Pacific Science
Congress, Canada, 1933, pp. 313-353. Toronto.
DOBRIZHOFFER (DoBRITZHOFEr)
,
MaRTIN.
1784. Historia de Abiponibus equestri, bellicosaque Paraquariae natione
... 3 vols. Vienna. (Eng. trans., London, 1822.)
See also Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1896-97.
DoGGART, J. H. See Barcroft, J., et al., 1923.
DomInguez, Manuel.
1912. Raices guaranies. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910,
pp. 193-221.
DoMViLLE-FiPE, Charles William.
1924. Among wild tribes of the Amazons . . . London; Philadelphia.
DoNAY, Leon.
1890. Contribution a I'americanisme du Cauca (Colombia). Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888, pp. 753-786.
D'Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines. See Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines d'.
DORNAS FiLHO, JOAO.
1938. Vocabulario quimbundo. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 5" ann^e,
vol. 49, pp. 143-150.
DoRSEY, George A.
1894. Crania from the Necropolis of Anc6n, Peru. Proc. Amer. Assoc.
Advance. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 358-369.
1897. A Peruvian cranium with suppressed upper lateral incisors. Dent.
Cosmos, vol. 39.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 603
Dorset, George A.—Continued
1898. A bibliography of the anthropology of Peru. Field Mus. Nat. Hist.
Anthrop. Ser., vol. 2, No. 2.
DouviLLE, J. B. See Metraux, A., 1930.
Dreising, Dr.
1883. Patagonier von Punta Arenas. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop.
Ethnol. Urg., pp. 143-145.
Drumond, Carlos.
1944. ... I. Designativos de parentesco no tupi-guarani. II. Notas gerais
sobre a ocorrencia da partfcula tyb, do tupi-guarani, na toponima
brasileira. Bol. Fac. Filos. Cienc. Let. Univ. Sao Paulo, No. 46,
Etnografia e lingua tupl-guaranf, No. 5.
1946. Notas sobre os trocanos. Bol. Fac. Filos. Cienc. Let. Univ. Sao Paulo,
No. 58, Etnografia e lingua tupi-guarani, No. 10.
Du BoiB, E. F. See Aub, Joseph Charles, and Du Bois, E. F.
Ducci, Zacar!AS.
1904. Los Tobas y su lengua. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 21, pp.
165-214.
1905. Vocabulario toba-castellano recogido y ordenado por . . . Bol. Inst.
Geogr. Argentino, vol. 22, pp. 68-88.
1911-12. Los pronombres de la lengua Toba con referencias d los del Mocovi,
con una introducci6n de Samuel A. Lafone Quevedo. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 18, (2" Serie, vol. 5), pp. 232-245.
DUERDEN, J. E.
1897. Aboriginal Indian remains in Jamaica. Journ. Inst. Jamaica, vol. 2,
No 4, pp. 1-51, 309-359.
DUHOUSSET, E.
1873. Etudes sur quelques Crdnes Patagons. Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris,
2d ser., vol. 1, pp. 305-306.
Dunn, Emmett Reid.
1931. The herpetological fauna of the Americas. Copeia, No. 3, pp. 106-119.
Ann Arbor, Mich.
1944. Los generos de anfibios y reptiles de Colombia, III. Tercera parte:
Reptiles; orden de las serpientes. Caldasia, vol. 3, No. 12, pp.
155-224, October 20. Bogota.
Duque, L. See Lehmann, Henri, Duque G6mez, Luis, and Fornaguera, M.
DuQUE, G6mez Luis.
1944. Grupos sanguineos entre los indigenas del departamento de Caldas.
Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac, Bogota, vol. 1, pp. 623-653.
DuRAND, JuXn.
1915-18. Etimologias peruanas. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 31, 1915, pp.
306-313, 348-353; vol. 32, 1916, pp. 102-104, 267-273, 418-428;
vol. 34, 1918, pp. 145-147, 459-462.
1921. Etimologias Peru-Bolivianas. La Paz.
DuRONi, Salvador.
1924. Diccionario Jibaro-Castellano y Castellano-Jibaro. Bol. Acad. Nac.
Hist. Quito, vol. 9, pp. 1-67. (2d ed., 1928.)
1928. Diccionario de bolsillo del idioma Jibaro. Cuenca.
DussERT, E. See Meza, F., Sanhueza, H., and Dussert, E.
Dtott, George Miller.
1926. On the trail of the unknown in the wilds of Ecuador and the Amazon.
London.
604 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Eaton, George Francis.
1912. Report on the remains of man and of lower animals from the vicinity of
Cuzco, Peru. Reprint, Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 4, vol. 33, No. 196,
pp. 325-333, April.
1913. Vertebrate remains in the Cuzco gravels. Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 4,
vol 34, pp. 3-14, July.
1916. The collection of osteological material from Machu Picchu. Mem.
Conn. Acad. Arts Sci. vol. 5, pp. 1-96.
Eberhardt, Charles C.
1910. Indians of Peru. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 52, pp. 181-94 (vol. 5,
pt. 2 of the Quarterly Issue, published 1908).
EcheverrIa t Reyes, AnIbal.
1890. Noticias sobre la lengua Atacamena. Santiago.
1900. . . . Voces usadas in Chile. Santiago.
1912. Noticias sobre la extinguida lengua cunza. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess.
17, Buenos Aires, 1910, p. 222.
See also Vaisse, E., Hoyos, F., and Echeverria y Reyes, A.
ECKART, AnSELM VON.
1890. Anselmi Eckarti specimen linguae Brasilicae vulgaris. Editionem
separatam alias immutatam curavit Julius Platzmann. Leipzig.
EcKER, Alexander.
1878. Catalog der Anthropologischen Sammlungen der Universitat, Freiburg,
I. B. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen Deutschlands, pt. 3.
Ehrenreich, Paul.
1886. tJber die Puris Ostbrasiliens. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 18, pp. 184-188.
1887. Uber die Botokudens der brasilianischen Provinzen Espiritu Santo und
Minas Geraes. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 19, pp. 1-46.
1888. Reise auf dem Araguay. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol.
Urg., pp. 547-550.
1891. Die Einteilung und Verbreitung der Volkerstamme Brasiliens nach dem
gegenwartigen Stande unserer Kentnisse. Petermanns Mitt,, vol. 37,
pp. 81-89, 114-124.
1894^95. Materialen zur Sprachenkunde BrasUiens. Zeit. Ethnol., 1894,
vol. 26, pp. 20-37, 49-60, 115 ff.; vol. 27, 1895, pp. 149-176.
1896. Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der botokudischen Sprache. In
Festschrift ftir Adolf Bastian zu seinem 70. geburtstage 26 juni
1896, pp. 605-630. Berlin.
1897 a. Anthropologische Studien liber die Urbewohner Brasiliens vornehm-
lich der Staaten Matto Grosso, Goyaz und Amazonas (Purus-
gebiet) . Braunschweig.
1897 b. Materialien zur Sprachenkunde Brasiliens. Vokabulare von Purus-
Stammen. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 29, pp. 59-71.
1905. Die Ethnographic Siidamerikas im Beginn des XX Jahrhunderts
unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Naturvolker. Archiv.
Anthrop. n. s., vol. 3, pp. 39-75.
ElCKSTEDT, EOON FrEIHERR VON.
1934. Rassenkunde und Rassengeschichte der Menschheit. Ferdinand
Enke Verlag. Stuttgart.
Eigenmann, Carl H., and Allen, William Ray.
1942. Fishes of western South America. I. The intercordUleran and Ama-
zonian lowlands of Peru. II. The high pampas of Peru, Bolivia,
and northern Chile. With a revision of the Peruvian Gymnotidae,
and of the genus Orestias. University of Kentucky. Lexington, Ky.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 605
Ellerman, John Reeves, with Hayman, R. W., and Holt, G. W. C.
1940-41. The families and genera of living rodents ... 2 vols. British
Mus. (Nat. Hist.).
Elliot Smith, Grafton. See Smith, Grafton Elliot.
Ellis, Alfredo.
1936. . . . Os pi-imeiros troncos paulistas e o cruzamento euro-americano.
Bibl. Pedag. Brasil., Ser. 5*: Brasiliana, vol. 59. Sao Paulo.
Engler, Adolf.
1902, 1920. Das Pflanzenreich. Regni vegetabilis conspectus. Im Auftrage
der Konigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften. 11.
Heft. (IV. 48), 1902; 71. Heft. (IV. 23-E.), 1920.
Englert, P. SebastiXn.
1934. Los elementos derivados del aymard, y quichua en el idioma araucano.
—
Araucano y Rapanui. Prensas de la Universidad de Chile. Santi-
ago de Chile. (Tirage k part des Anales de la Facultad de Filosofla
y Educaci6n, Secci6n de Filologia).
Enrique, Tulio. See Tasc6n, Leonardo, 1934.
Eraso Guerrero, Alberto.
1944. Lengua Guambiano. Rev. Hist. Colombia, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 63-68.
Ernst, A.
1870. Die Goajiro-Indianer. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 2, pp. 328-336.
1885. Uber die Resten der Ureinwohner in den Gebirgen von Merida.
Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 17.
1887 a. Einige Worter aus der Sprache der Indianer von Tucurd in Neu-
Granada. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 19.
1887 b. Die Sprache der Motilonen. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 19, pp. 376-378.
1887 c. Motilonen-Schadel aus Venezuelas. Verhandl. Berlin. GeseU.
Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 296-301.
1891. tlber einige weniger bekannte Sprachen aus der Gegend des Meta
und oberen Orinoco. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 23, pp. 1-13.
1895. Upper Orinoco vocabularies. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 8, pp. 393-401.
See also Montolieu, E., 1895.
ESCHWEGE, WiLHELM LuDWIG VON.
1818. Journal von Brasilien oder vermisch Nachrichten aus BrasiUen. 2
vols. Weimar.
1830. Brasilien: die neue welt in topographischer, geognostischer, bergman-
nischer, naturhistorischer, politischer und statistischer Hinsicht . . .
Braunschweig.
Escobar, Gabriel. See Rowe, J. H., and Escobar, Gabriel.
ESCOMEL.
1910. Un cas de trepanation pr^historique. Bull. M^m. Soc. Chir. Paris,
n. s., vol. 36, pp. 344-354.
Escragnolle Taunay, Alfredo de.
1868. Cenas de viagem. Exploraeao entre os rios Taquari e Aquidauana
no distrito de Mirando. Rio de Janeiro.
1888. Os Indos Caingangas, Coroados de Gurapuava. Rev. Inst. Hist.
Geogr. Brasil., vol. 51, pp. 251-311. (Later ed., Rev. Mus. Paul.,
vol. 10, pp. 569-628.)
EspiNosA, Lucas.
1935. Los Tupi del oriente peruano. Estudio lingiiistico y etnogrdfico.
Publicaciones de la expedicion Iglesias al Amazonas. Secci6n de
antropogeografia. Lingiiistica. Madrid.
606 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
EspiNOZA, Angel Antonio
1938. Breve ensayo sobre el alfabeto quechua para el conciirso de literatura
quechua con motivo del IV centenario del Cuzco. Rev. Inst.
Arqueol. Cuzco, ano III, No. 4-5, pp. 82-86.
ESSENDORFER.
1880. Begegnung mit Feuerlandern in der Magellanstrasse. Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 12.
Ester, C. de. See Winans, Roger S., and Ester, C. de.
EsTRUCH, Jaime.
1943. Osteologia comparada de los auchenidos peruanos. Rev. Univ.
Arequipa, vol. 15, No. 18, pp. 113-156.
Etienne, Ignace.
1909. Les Boruns. (Note sur une tribu indienne disparue.) Anthropos,
vol. 4, pp. 942-944. Wien (Vienna), Austria.
1910. Les Capiecrans. Anthropos, vol. 5, pp. 473-482. Wien (Vienna),
Austria.
EWERTON QUADROS, FrANCISCO RaIMUNDO.
1892. Memoria sobre os trabalhos de observagao e exploragao effetuada
pela segunda secgao da commissao militar encarregada da linha
telegraphica de Uberaba d Cuiabd,, de fevereiro d junho de 1889.
Rev. Trim. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 55, pt. 1, pp. 233-255.
EwiNG, Henry Ellsworth.
1927. A revision of the American lice of the genus Pediculus. Proc. U. S.
Nat. Mus., vol. 68, Art. 19.
1934. The identity and origin of the sucking lice of American monkeys.
Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, vol. 1,
No. 1, p. 21, March.
F. M.
1907. M^todo prdctico para aprender la lengua Guaranf. Asuncion, Para-
guay.
Fabo, Pedro.
1911. Idiomas y etnograffa de la regi6n oriental de Colombia. Barcelona.
Falkenburger, Fr^d^ric.
1938. Recherches anthropologiques sur la deformation artificielle du crane . .
.
Journ. Soc. Am6r., Paris, n. s., vol. 30, pp. 1-70.
Falkenburger, Fritz.
1913. Diagraphische Untersuchungen an normalen und deformierten Ras-
senschadeln. Archiv Anthrop., vol. 12, pp. 81-95.
Falkner, Thomas.
1774. A description of Patagonia, and the adjoining parts of South America.
Hereford. (Facsimile reprint, Chicago, 1935.)
1899. Thomas Falkner's nachricht von der moluchischen sprache; separat
und unverandert herausgegeben von Julius Platzmann. Leipzig.
Fallot and Alezais.
1890. Notes sur I'Autopsie d'un Indien d'Am^rique et d'un Nfegre de la
Martinique. L'Anthropologic., vol. 1, pp. 656-687. Paris.
Farabee, William Curtis.
1918 a. The Arawaks of northern Brazil and southern British Guiana.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 1, pp. 427-442.
1918 b. The Central Arawaks. Anthrop. Publ. Univ. Pennsylvania Mus., vol. 9.
1922. Indian tribes of Eastern Peru. Pap. Peabody Mus. Archaeol. Ethnol.
Harvard Univ., vol. 10.
1924. The Central Caribs. Anthrop. Publ. Univ. Pennsylvania Mus., vol. 10.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 607
Farfan, J. M. B.
1939. Escritura prd.ctica de las lenguas aborfgenes del Peru y Bolivia. Bol.
Bibl. Antrop. Amer., vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 10-14.
1941-42. La clave del lenguaje quechua del Cusco. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima,
vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 215-39; vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 117-34, No. 2,
pp. 249-66.
1942. Poesia folkl6rica quechua. Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucum^n,
vol. 2, No. 12, pp. 530-625.
1943. El quechua bibliogrdfico. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 12, No. 2,
pp. 228-234.
1944. Cantos quechuas de Ancash. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 13, pp. 1-10.
Faria, L. See Costa, O., and Faria, L.
FEBRifis, Andres.
1765. Arte de la lengua general del Reyno de Chile, text and notes. Lima.
1864. Gramdtica Chilena. Concepci6n.
1882. Diccionario araucano-espanol 6 sea calepino chileno-hispano. Ed. J.
M. Larsen. Buenos Aires. (First ed., Lima, 1765.)
Febres Cordero, Julio.
1921. Historia de los Andes. Procedencia y lengua de los aborfgenes.
M6rida, Venezuela.
1942. Los Ayamdn, Gay6n, Jirajara. Bol. Soc. Venezolana Cienc. Nat.
(concluded in), pp. 7, 50, 245-259.
Feenet, B. C.
1941. Arch-isolationists. San Bias Indians. Nat. Geogr. Mag., vol. 79, pp.
193-220.
Feijog Retna, R.
1924. Lenguas quechua y aimard. Rev. Arqueol. vol. 2, juillet-Sept.
Fejos, Paul.
1943. Ethnography of the Yagua. Viking Fund Publ. Anthrop., No. 1.
Fj&Lix JosjS de Augusta, Fray.
1903. Gramdtica araucana. Valdivia.
1916. Diccionario araucano-espanol y espanol-araucano. 2 vols. Santiago
de Chile.
1922. Pismahuile; un cuento araucano. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop. Chile,
vol. 2, pp. 385-400.
[Fellechner, Muller, and Hesse.]
1845. Bericht iiber die im hochsten Aufrage des Prinzen Karl von Preussen
und des Fiirsten von schonburg-Waldenburg bewirkte Untersuchung
einiger Theile des Mosquito landes, erstattet von der dazu ernannten
Commission. Berlin.
Fenner, C. N. See Hrdli6ka, A.,' Holmes, W. H., Willis, B., Wright, F. E.,
and Fenner, C. N.
Fernandez, Josi: Antonio.
1892. Informagao sobre a provincia de Sergipe en 1821. Rev. Trim. Inst.
Hist. Geogr. Brasil, vol. 55, pt. 1, pp. 261-265.
Fernandes, Jorge. See Christensen, J., 1917.
FernAndez, Le6n.
1884. The Guatuso Indians of Costa Rica. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst,,
1882, pp. 675-677. (Note, on this paper, by J. F. Bransford, ibid.,
pp. 677-681.)
See also Fernandez Guardia, R., and Fernd,ndez Ferraz, J., eds., 1892;
and Gabb, W. M., 1886.
608 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
FernXndez de San Jos:6, Manuel, and Bartolom^, Marcos.
1895. Ensayo de gramd,tica hispano-goaMva, por los RR. PP. misioneros
de Lasanare Manuel Fernandez y Marcos Bartolom6 . . . Bogota.
FernXndez Guardia, Ricardo, and FernXndez Ferraz, Juan, Editors.
1892. Lenguas indigenas de Centro America en el siglo XVIII segiin copia
del Archive de Indias, hecha per licenciado don Le6n Fernandez y
publicada por Ricardo Ferndndez Guardia y Juan Ferndndez Ferraz
para el 9° Congreso de Americanistas. San Jos6 de Costa Rica.
FernXndez t GonzXles, D. Francisco.
1893. Los lenguajes hablados por los Indigenas del Norte y Centro de America.
Madrid.
Ferrario, Benigno.
1927. Observaciones sobre indagaci6n lingiifstica aplicada a los idiomas de la
America meridional. Rev. Soc. "Amigos Arqueol." vol. 1.
1933. La investigaci6n lingufstica y el parentesco extra-continental de la
lengua "qhexwa." Rev. Soc. "Amigos Arqueol.", vol. 7, pp. 89-120.
1934. Delia natura della lingua "Qhexwa" (programma di ricerche future).
Actas y Trabajos Cientfficos, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25, La Plata,
1932, vol. 2, pp. 229-245. Buenos Aires.
1937. A prop6sito de idiomas indigenas. La Manana, 20« annee, N° 6954,
20 Janvier, p. 1. Montevideo.
1938. Della possibile parentela fra le lingue "altaiche" ed alcune americaine.
Tip. della R. Accademia dei lincei del Dott. Rome. (Tirage a part
du XIX° Congresso Internazionale degli Oreintalisti, pp. 210-223.)
1939. Las lenguas de los Chonos y de los Caucaues en el sur de Chile. Rev.
Soc. Argent. Cienc. Nat., vol. 16, pp. 379-388.
1942. Revisi6n gramatical y la lengua tsoneca. Actas y trabajos . . . Int.
Congr. Amer., Sess. 27, Mexico and Lima, 1939, (Lima, 1939) vol.
2, pp. 41-46. Lima.
Ferraz, Alvaro, and Lima Junior, [Miguel Ignacio de] Andrade,
1939. A morfologia do homem do nordeste (estudo biotipologico) . . .
Trabalho da Diretoria de educagao fisica da Brigada militar de
Pernambuco. Colegao Documentos Brasileiros, dirigida por Gilberto
Freyre, vol. 15. Rio de Janeiro.
Ferreira-Fran5a, Ernesto.
1859. Chrestomatia da lingua brasflica. Leipzig.
Ferreira-Penna, Domingo Soarez.
1881. Algumas palavras da lingua dos Aruans. Archiv. Mus. Nae. Rio de
Janeiro, vol. 4, pp. 15-25.
Ferris, Harry Burr.
1916. The Indians of Cuzco and the Apurimac. Mem. Amer. Anthrop.
Assoc, vol. 3, pp. 59-148.
1921. Anthropological studies on the Quichua and Machiganga Indians.
Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts Sci., vol. 25, pp. 1-92.
Fiebrig-Gertz, C.
1927. Guarany names of Paraguayan plants and animals. Rev. Jardfn
Botdn. Asunci6n, vol. 2, pp. 99-149.
1932. Nomenclatura guaranf de vegetales del Paraguay. Anais, Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 3, pp. 305-329. Rio de
Janeiro.
FiGALLO, S.
1940. Observaciones morfol6gicas acerca de la uvula. (Tesis para optar al
titulo de dentista.)
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 609
FiGUEIRA, LUIZ.
1878. Grammatica da lingua do Brasil. Novamente publicado por Julio
Platzmann. Leipzig.
FiGUEREDO, JtJAN DE.
1701. Arte de la lengua Quichua. Lima.
FlGTJEROA, G.
1903. Vocabulario etimol6gico de nombres Chilenos. Santiago.
FiTZINGER, L. J.
1867. Versuch einer natiirlichen Anordnung der Nagethiere (Rodentia).
Sitzung. Akad. Wissen. Wien. Math.-naturwiss. Kl., vol. 56, Abt. 1,
hf. 1, pp. 57-168.
FiTZ-RoY, Robert.
1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty's ships "Adventure"
and "Beagle," between the years 1826 and 1836. 3 vols, and app.
London.
Florence, H.
1875, 1876. Esbogo da viagem feita pelo Sr. Langsdorff. . . . Rev. Trim.
Inst. Geogr. Ethnogr. Brasil, vol. 38 (1875), vol. 39 (1876).
Flores, N.
1939. Irrigaci6n arterial del hfgado. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 2, pp. 140-178.
Flornoy, Bertrand.
1938. Contribution k I'etude de la langue Jivaro ou Suor. Journ. Soc. Am^r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 30, pp. 333-341. Paris.
Flower, Stanley S.
1931. Contributions to our knowledge of the duration of life in vertebrate
animals.—V. Mammals. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, pp. 145-234.
Flower, William Henry.
1891. Exhibition of two skulls from a cave in Jamaica. Journ. Anthrop.
Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol. 20, pp. 110-112.
1895. On recently discovered remains of the aboriginal inhabitants of
Jamaica. Nature, vol. 52, pp. 607-608.
1907. Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the osteology and dentition of
vertebrated animals, recent and extinct, contained in The Museum
of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Pt. 1, 2d ed.
FONK, F.
1906. Los crdneos de parades gruesas segiin Vergara Flores. Un dato md,s.
Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat., vol. 10. {Reimpr., Rev. Chilena Hist.
Geogr., vol. 3, 1912.)
FONSECA, AjlfLCAR.
1914. Dialecto Cuicas. Gaceta de los Museos Nacionales, vol. 2, pp. 216-
220, Mar. 1914. Caracas. (Panorama, Journal de Maracaibo, 4®
annee, Nos. 1699, 1700, 12 et 13 Janvier, 1920.)
FoNSECA, JOAO SeVERIANO DA.
1880-81. Viagem ao redor do Brasil, 1875-1878. 2 vols. Rio de Janeiro.
(Another ed. Rio de Janeiro, 1895.)
Forbes, David.
1870. On the Aymara Indians of Bolivia and Peru. Journ. Ethnol. Soc.
London, n. s., vol. 2, pp. 193-205.
Forbes, H. S. See Barcroft, J., et al, 1923.
FoRERo, Manuel Jose.
1934. Vestigios de la lengua chibcha. Generos, vol. 2, pp. 41-48.
1939. El idioma de los Chibchas. Bol. Hist. Antig., vol. 26, pp. 110-116.
FoRNAGUERA, M. See Lehmann, Henri, Duque, L., and Fornaguera, M.
610 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
FoRSTER, George.
1843. George Forsters samtliche Schriften. Leipzig.
Franco
1882. Noticias de los indios del departamento de Veragua, y vocabulario de
las lenguas guayami, norteno, sabanero y dorasque. In Colecci6n
de lingiifstica y etnografia americanas, publicada por A. L. Pinart,
vol. 4. San Francisco.
Franco Inojosa, Jos6 MarIa.
1937. Del aymara. Apuntes lingiifsticos para la reivindicacion del uru.
Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Cuzco, 2« annee, p. 85.
Freeman, Leonard.
1924. Surgery of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Art and Archae-
ology, vol. 18, pp. 21-35.
Freiderici, Jorje. See Schuller, R. R., 1906.
Freitas, Affonso Antonio de.
1910. Os Guayanas de Piratininga. Sao Paulo.
FrENGTJELLI, JOAQTjfN.
1919. Sobre un astrdgalo humano del Pampeano superior de los alrededores
de C6rdoba. Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, 6th year, pp. 43-57.
1920. Excursi6n en los alrededores de Esperanza (Prov. de Santa Fe). Bol.
Acad. Nac. Cien. C6rdoba, vol. 24, pp. 257-292.
1921. Los terrenos de la costa atldntica en los alrededores de Miramar (prov.
de Buenos Aires) y sus correlaciones. Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc.
C6rdoba, vol. 24, pp. 325-485.
1927. El Paleolitico en la Argentina. Bol. Univ. Nac. Literal, vol. 1, pp.
794-808.
1928. SuU'origine deH'uomo americano. Atti del Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22,
Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 291-296.
1932. Perfiles geol6gicos de las mdrgenes del rfo Salado (Santa Fe). Publ.
Mus. Antrop. Etnogr. Fac. Filos. Letras, ser. A, vol. 2, pp. 83-97.
1934. El problema de la antigiiedad del hombre en la Argentina. Actas
y Trabajos Cientificos, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25, La Plata, 1932,
pt. 1, pp. 1-23. Buenos Aires.
Freudenthai,, K. See Paez, C. P., and Freudenthal, K.
Fretre, Gilberto.
1934. Casa-Grande e Senzala. Pp. 74-83 passim. Rio de Janeiro.
Friant, M.
1933. Les primates e I'homme fossile en Am^rique du Sud. Terre et Vie,
vol. 3, pp. 27&-281.
Frig, VoJxiiCH Alberto.
MS. Slovniky ndreci Kam6 a Kadurukre. (Manuscrito original e in^dito, em poder
do autor.)
Fric, Vojt£;ch Alberto, and Radin, Paul.
1906. Contributions to the study of the Bororo Indians. Journ. Roy.
Anthrop. Inst., vol. 36, pp. 382-406.
Fridolin, Julius.
1898. Amerikanische Schadel. Archiv. Anthrop., vol. 25, pp. 397-412.
Friederici, Georg.
1926. Hilfsworterbuch fiir den Amerikanisten. Halle.
1930. Vier Lehnworter aus dem Tupf (ajoupa, boucan, pal^tuvier, tiburon).
Zeit. Franz. Sprache Litt., vol, 54, pp. 175-187.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 61
1
Fritz, SAMUEii.
1922. Journal of the travels and labours of Father Samuel Fritz in the river
of the Amazons between 1686 and 1723. (Trans, from the Evora
ms. and edited by the Rev. George Edmundson.) Hakluyt, 2d
series, No. 51. London.
Fro^s de Abreu, Sylvio.
1929. Os indios crenaques (Botocudos do rio Doce) em 1926. Rev. Mus.
Paul., vol. 16, pp. 569-602.
1931, Na terra das palmeiras; estudos brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro.
Ftjhrmann, Ernst.
1922. Reich der Inka. In Kulturen der Erde, vol. 1. Hagen, Germany.
Furlong, Charles Wellington.
1917 a. The Alaculoofs and Yahgans, the world's southernmost inhabitants.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, vol. 1, pp. 420-431.
1917 b. The Haush and Ona, primitive tribes of Tierra del Fuego. Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, vol. 1, pp. 432-444.
Gabb, William More.
1875. On the Indian tribes and languages of Costa Rica. Proc. Amer.
Philos. Soc, vol. 14, pp. 483-602.
1886. Tribus y lenguas indigenas de Costa Rica . . . In Ferndndez, Le6n,
Colecci6n de documentos para la historia de Costa Rica, 1881-1907.
Barcelona. (Translation of 1875.)
Gaffarel, Paul. See L^ry, J. de, 1599 (1880); Thevet, A., 1878.
Gagini, Carlos.
1917. Los aborigenes de Costa Rica. San Jos6 de Costa Rica.
See also Pittier, H. F., and Gagini, C.
Galindo, Juan.
1834. Notice of the Caribs in Central America. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc,
vol. 3, pp. 290-291.
Gallardo, Carlos R.
1910. Tierra del Fuego. Los Onas. Buenos Aires.
Galt, F. L.
1878. The Indians of Peru. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian Inst., 1877, pp. 308-315.
Galvao, Homero Reheder.
1934. A giria dos garimpeiros do Rio das Garcas. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao
Paulo, l"-* annee, vol. 3, pp. 31-34.
Gancedo, a.
1922. El idioma japones y sus afinidades con lenguas americanas. Rev.
Derecho Hist. Let., 24« ann^e, vol. 73, pp. 114-122.
GANofA, Enrique de.
1931. Determinaci6n del nombre gen6rico de la lengua guarani. Azul, No. 8,
pp. 41-54.
Gapanovich, J. J.
1931. The Asiatic origin of South American man. Journal, Royal Asiatic
Society, North China Branch, vol. 62, pp. 172-198. Shanghai.
Garbe, Richard von.
1883. Eine voUstandige Grammatik des Yagan. In Gottingsche gelehrte
Anzeigen, vol. 1, pp. 336-376. Gottingen.
GarcIa, Juan Antonio.
1917. Gramdtica aymara sobre la base de una edici6n antigua. (2» ed.)
La Paz.
794711—50 40
612 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
GARCfA, R.
1927. Glossario das palavras e frases da Ifngua Tupi contidas na "Histoire de
la mission des Peres Capucins, en I'isle de Maragnan et terres cir-
convoisines" do Padre Claude d'Abbeville [Paris, 1614]. Rev. Inst.
Hist. Geogr. Brasil., t. XCIV, vol. 148, 1923 (1927), pp. 1-100.
GARcfA FrIas, ElIas.
1940. La tuberculosis en log Antiguos Peruanos. Actualidad Medica Peru-
ana, ano 5, No. 10, pp. 274-291. Lima.
GARcfA Pay6n, J.
1934. G6nesis del indio americano y origen de las culturas aborfgenes ameri-
canos. An. Mus. Nac. Arqueol. Hist. Etnol., ser. 5, vol. 1, pp.
423-466.
Garcilaso de la Vega (El Inca).
1723. Primera parte de los Commentarios reales, que tratan, de el origen de
los Incas, reies, qve fveron del Peru, de sv idolatria, leies, y govierno,
en paz, y en guerra: de svs vidas, y conquistas: y de todo lo que
fue aquel imperio, y su republica, antes que los Espanoles pasaran
d el. 2d ed., Madrid. (Trans, and ed. by Clements R. Markham,
Hakluyt, vol. 1, pp. 1-359, bks. 1-4; vol. 2, pp. 1-533, bks. 5-9,
1869. London.)
Garman, Samuel W.
1875. I. Fishes and reptiles. In Exploration of Lake Titicaca, by Alexander
Agassiz and S. W. Garman. Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool.,
vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 273-278.
See also Allen, J. A., 1876.
Garraux, Anatole Louis.
1898. Bibliographic Br^silienne (1500-1898). Paris.
Garro, L. J. Eugenic.
1939. Caracteristicas fon6ticas del chinchaysuyu de Ancash. Rev. Mus.
Nac. Lima, vol. 8, pp. 283-295.
1942. Northern Kechuan dialects of Peru. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 44, pp.
442-450.
Garson, John George.
1885. On the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego. Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol.
15, pp. 141-157.
Gas86, Leonardo.
1908. Gramdtica Karibe-Cuna. Barcelona.
1910-14. La misidn de San Jose de Nargand entre los Karibes. In Las
Misiones Catolicas, vols. 18-22. Barcelona.
Gastiaburu, J. C. See Strong. Richard P., Ttzzer, Ernest E., et al, 1915.
Gatschet, Albert S.
1900. Central-Amerikas sprachstamme und dialekte. Globus, vol. 77, pp.
81-84, 87-92. Braunschweig.
Gat, C.
1854. Flora of Chile. Vol. 6, p. 440.
Genna, Giuseppe E.
1928. SuUo scheletro degli arti inferiori dei Fuegini. Atti del Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 303-335.
1930-32. Sulla curvatura del femore nei Fuegini. Riv. Antrop., vol. 29.
Gensch, Hugo.
1908. Worterverzeichnis der Bugres von Santa Catharina. Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 40, pp. 744-759.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 613
Gentry, Howard Scott.
1942 Rio Mayo plants; a study of the flora and vegetation of the valley of
the Rio Mayo, Sonora. Carnegie Inst. Washington, Publ. 527.
Gervais, Paul.
1867. Zoologie et pal^ontologie gen^rale, 1° s6r., vol. 1. Paris.
1872. Debris humains recueillis dans la Conf6d6ration Argentine avec des
ossements d'animaux appartenant a des espdces perdues. Journ. Zool.,
vol. 2, pp. 231-234. Paris.
Gez, Juan W.
1915. Disquisiciones filol6gicas sobre la lengua guaranf. Corrientes.
Ghinassi, Juan.
1938. Gramdtica te6rico-prdctica y vocabulario de la lengua Jibara . . .
Quito.
1939. Gramdtica de la lengua Jibara. Talleres Grdficos de Educaci6n.
Quito,
GlACHETTI, ViNCENZO.
1905. Studi antropologici sugli antichi Peruviani. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol.
vol. 35, pp. 201-298.
Giacone, Antonio.
1939. Pequena gramiitica e diciondrio de lingua Tucana . . . Mandos.
GlANNECCHINI, DoROTEO.
1896. Reglas elementares de la lengua Chiriguana. Obra postuma del R. P.
Alajandro Maria Corrado. Lucca.
See also Romano, P. Santiago, and Cattunar, P. Herman, 1916.
GiGLioLi, Enrico H.
1891. Maschere Fatte Colla Parte Facciale di Crani Umani Provenienti dal
Uynca-Suyu, Peril. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 21, pp. 41-45.
GiGOux, E.
1927. Notas, observaciones y recuerdos de los indios de Atacama. Rev.
Univ. Cat. Chile, year 12.
Gilt, Antonio.
1902. Confesionario Ticana. Bibl. Ling. Mus. La Plata, Secci6n Bolivia,
vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. 109-120.
Gilij, Filippo Salvadore.
1780-84. Saggio di storia americana; o sia, Storia naturale, civile e sacra de
regui, e delle provincie spagnuole di Terra-Ferma nell'America
Meridionale descritto dall' abate F. S. Gilij. 4 vols. Rome.
See also Veigl, Franz Xavier, 1785 b.
Gillin, John.
1936. The Barama River Caribs of British Guiana. Pap. Peabody Mus.
Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Univ., vol. 14, No. 2.
1940. Some anthropological problems of the tropical forest area of South
America. Linguistic Studies. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 42, No. 4,
pt. 1, pp. 647-648.
1941. Quichua-speaking Indians of the Province of Imbabara (Ecuador).
Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 128, Anthrop. Pap. No. 16, pp.
167-228.
GiLMORE, MeLVIN R.
1931. Vegetal remains of the Ozark Bluff-dweUer culture. Pap. Mich. Acad.
Sci., Arts and Letters, vol 4, pp. 83-102,
614 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
GiLMORE, Raymond M.
1947. Cyclic behavior and economic importance of the rata-muca (Ory-
zomys) in Peru. Journ. Mamm., vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 231-241,
August.
GlKALDO JaHAMILLO, GaBRIEL.
1939. Clasificacion del hombre Americano. Bol. Hist. Antig., vol. 26, pp.
206-215.
GiRON L., Gustavo. See Jir6n, G.
GlUFFRIDA-RUGGERI, V.
1906 a. Quattro Scheletri di Indiani Cavinas (Sud-America Centrale).
Atti Soc. Rom. Anthrop., vol. 12, fasc. 3, pp. 259-273.
1906 b. Un cranio Guayachi, un cranio (incomplete) Ciamacoco, e un cranio
Fuegino. Atti Soc. Rom. Antrop., vol. 12, fasc. 3, pp. 1-22.
1912. Schema di classificazione degli "Hominidae" attuali. Archiv. Antrop.
Etnol., vol. 42, pp. 136-143.
GOEJE, C. H. DE.
1906. Bejdrage tot de ethnographic der Surinaamsche Indianen. Int.
Archiv. Ethnogr., Supplement to vol. 17.
1908. Beitrage zur Volkerkunde von Surinam. Int. Archiv. Ethnogr., vol.
19, pp. 1-34.
1910. Etudes linguistiques Caraibes. Johannes Muller. Verhandelingen
der Koninkly ke Akademie van Vv'^etenschappen te Amsterdam,
AfdeeUng Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, vol. 10, No. 3. Amsterdam.
1924. Guayana und Carib tribal names. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, The
Hague, 1924, pt. 1, pp. 212-216. The Hague.
1928 a. The Arawak language of Guiana. Verhandelingen der Koninkly
ke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letter-
kunde, Nieuwe Reeks, vol. 28, No. 2, Amsterdam.
1928 b. Old relations between Arawak, Carib and Tupi. Atti del Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 63-67. Rome.
1929-30. Het Merkwaardige Arrawaksch. Iverdruk uit "De West-Indische
Gids," vol. 11, No. 1 (March 1929), pp. 11-28. The Hague.
1930. The inner structure of the Warau language of Guiana. Journ. Soc.
Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 22, pp. 33-72.
1930-31. Het Merkwaardige Warau. Rep. "De West-Indische Gids," vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 1-16. The Hague.
1931-32. Ouheden uit Suriname. Op zoek naar de Amazonen. "De West-
Indische Gids," vol. 13, afi. 10-11, pp. 449-530. The Hague.
1932. Das Kariri (Nordost-Brasilien). Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol.
24, pp. 147-178.
1932-33. Het merkwaardige Karaibisch. (Een ethnologisch verhaal voor
den gewonen lezer). "De West-Indische Gids," vol. 14, pp.
99-123. The Hague.
1934. Das Kariri (Nordost-Brasilien). Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 24, Ham-
burg, 1930, vol. 1, pp. 298-322.
1935. Fiinf Sprachfamilein Siidamerikas. Mededeelingen der Koninkly ke
Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, vol. 77, Ser.
A, No. 5. Amsterdam.
1939. Nouvel examen des langues des Antilles, avec notes sur les langues
Arawak-Maipure et Caribs et vocabulaires Shebayo et Guayana
(Guyane). Journ. Soc. Amdr. Paris, n. s., vol. 31, pp. 1-120.
See also Booy, Theodoor de, 1929.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 615
GoELDi, Emilio a.
1906. Chelonios do Brasil. (Jabotis-Kdgados-Tartarugas)
. Bol. Mus.
Goeldi, vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 699-756.
GoLDBAUM, Wenzel. See Branca, W., 1938.
Golden, G.
1930. Distribution of blood groups in the South American Indians. Lancet
II, vol. 219, pp. 278-280. London.
Goldman, E. A. See Kellogg, Remington, and Goldman, E. A.; and Young,
Stanley P. and Goldman, Edward A.
G6mez Hakdo, Juan Carlos.
1937. Un vocabulario charrua desconocido. Bol. Filol. Montevideo, vol.
1, Nos. 4^5, p. 323.
GoNgALVEs DiAS, Antonio.
1855. Diccionario da lingua Tupy chamada lingua geral dos indigenas do
Brazil. Leipzig. (Other ed., 1858.)
GonzXles, L. a. See Paulotti, Osvaldo, and GonzAles, L. A.
GonzXles HoLGufN, Diego.
1607. Gramdtica y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Peru, llamada
lengua Quichua, o lengua del Inca . . . Lima.
1608. Vocabvlario dela lengva general de todo el Perv llamada lengua Qui-
chua, o del Inca. Corregido y renovado conforme ala propriedad
cortesana del Cuzco . . . Lima.
1901. Arte y Diccionario qquechua-espanol. Lima.
GonzXles Suarez, Federico.
1904. Prehistoria ecuatoriana: Ligeras reflexiones sobre las razas indigenas,
que poblan antiguamente el territorio actual de la Republica del
Ecuador. Quito.
Goodspeed, Thomas Harper, and Avery, P.
1939. Trisomic and other types in Nicotiana Sylvestris. Journ. Genet.,
vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 381-458.
Gorrochotegui, Abelardo.
1918. Lenguas indigenas. De Re Indica, vol. 1, No. 2, 28 October, pp. 62-
66; No. 3, 22 December, pp. 98-101.
GossE, L.-A.
1855. Essai sur les deformations artificielles du crane. Ann. Hyg. Publ.
Med. L6g., 2d ser., vol. 3, pp. 317-393.
1860. Sur les anciennes races du Perou. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, vol, 1,
pp. 549-557.
1860-63. Dissertation sur les races qui composaient I'ancienne population du
P^rou. Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, vol. 1, pp. 149-176.
Granath, L. p. See Coates, C. W., Cox, R. T., and Granath, L. P.
Grasserie, Raoul de la. See La Grasserie, Raoul de.
Greenhall, Arthur M. See Ditmars, Raymond Lee, and Greenhall,
Arthur M.
Greiffenstein, C.
1878. Vocabulario der Indier der Chami. Zeit. Ethnol, vol. 10, pp. 135-138.
Grig6rieff, Sergio.
1935. Compendio del idioma quichua. Con notas detalladas sobre las par-
ticularidades del idioma en Santiago del Estero. Buenos Aires.
Grijalva, Carlos E.
1921. Nombres y pueblos de la antigua provincia de Imbabura. Bol. Acad.
Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 2, Nos. 3-4, pp. 33-70.
616 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Groeber, Pablo.
1926. Toponimia araucana. Gaea, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 3-195.
Groeteken, Axjtbert.
1907. Bischof Armentia O. F. M. und die Erforschung des Rio Madre de
Dios. Anthropos, vol. 2, pp. 730-734. Salzburg.
Grtjbb, Kenneth G.
1927. The lowland Indians of Amazonia; a survey of the location and re-
ligious condition of the Indians of Colombia, Venezuela, the Guianas,
Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and Bolivia. London.
Grubb, Wilfred Barbrooke.
1911 (1913). An unknown people in an unknown land; an account of the life
and customs of the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan
Chaco
. .
. London,
Grupe y Thode, G.
1890. Ueber den Rio Blanco und die anwohnenden Indianer. Globus, vol.
57, pp. 251-254. {Reprinted from Rev. Men. Soc. Geogr. Rio de
Janeiro.)
GxjamXn Poma de Ayala, Felipe. See Poma de Ayala, Felipe GuamXn.
GuDGER, Eugene Wilms.
1919. On the use of the sucking-fish for catching fish and turtles: studies in
Echeneis or Remora. I, II, and III. Amer. Natur., vol. 53, No,
627, pp. 289-311, July-Aug.; No. 628, pp. 446-467, Sept.-Oct.;
No. 629, pp. 515-525, Nov.-Dec.
1923. Dogs as fishermen. Nat. Hist., vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 55&-568, November-
December.
1925. Stitching wound with the mandibles of ants and beetles. A minor
contribution to the history of surgery. Journ. Amer. Med. Assoc,
vol. 84, pp. 1861-1864. Chicago.
1927. Fishing with the otter. Amer. Natur., vol. 61, pp. 193-225.
1930. The candirii; the only vertebrate parasite of man. New York.
(Reprinted, with additions and corrections, from the American
Journal of Surgery, vol. 8, Nos. 1 and 2.)
1943, The giant fresh-water fishes of South America. Scientific Monthly,
vol. 57, pp. 500-513, December. New York.
GiJEGiJENCE, The; a comedy ballet in the Nahuatl-Spanish dialect of
Nicaragua. Ed. by Daniel G. Brinton. Philadelphia, 1883. (Brinton's
Library of Aboriginal American Literature, No. 3.)
Guerrero y Sosa, Pedro,
1932, Compendio de gramdtica quichua. El Oriente Dominicano, vol. 5,
pp. 8-9, 68-69, 88-89, 133. Quito.
Guevara [Silva], TomXs.
1898- Historia de la civilizaci6n de Araucanfa [Antropolojfa araucanaj.
An. Univ. Chile, tomo 101, pp. 615-653, 865-908; continued in
tomos 103, 104, 105, 106. (Edici6n completa, Santiago, 1900.
2 vols.)
1912. Las riltimas familias i costumbres araucanas. An. Univ. Chile, tomo
130 sig.
GuiMARAES, CONEGO Jos6 DA SiLVA.
1865, Memoria sobre os usos, costumes, linguagem dos Appiacds, e descobri-
mento de novas minas na Provincia de Mato Grosso. Rev. Inst.
Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 6, pp. 305-325. (2d. ed.)
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 617
GUIMARAES, G.
1930. El toponlmico Pernambuco. Rev. Inst. Arqueol. Hist. Geogr. Pernam-
bucano, vol. 30, Nos. 143-146.
GUIMARAES, JOAO JOAQTjIM DA SiLVA.
1854. Diccionario da lingua geral dos Indies do Brasil; reimpresso e augmen-
tado com diversos vocabuldrios e offerecido a 'Sua Magestada impe-
rial . . . Bafa, Brazil.
GUIMARAES DaUpIas, JoRGE.
1922. O dialecto capiau. Rio de Janeiro.
GuMiLLA, Joseph.
1745. El Orinoco Ilustrado, y Defendido, Historia Natural, Civil, y Geogra-
phica de este Gran Rio, y de sus Caudalosas Vertientes . . . (2d ed.
in 2 pts.) Madrid. (New ed., Barcelona, 1791.)
1791. Historia natural, civil y geografica de las nacioncs situadas en las
riveras del rio Orinoco. 2 vols. Barcelona. (First issued as "El
Orinoco Ilustrado . . .," Madrid, 1741.)
GuNiHER, B., and Giacaman, P.
1946. Metabolic and anthropometric determinations in the population of
Concepci6n, Chile. Medicina, vol. 6, pp. 261-267. Buenos Aires.
GusiNDE, Martin.
1922 a. Expedici6n a la Tierra del Fuego. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop.
Chile, vol. 2.
1922 b. Segundo viaje a la Tierra del Fuego. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop.
Chile, vol. 2.
1922 c. Tercer viaje a la Tierra del Fuego. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop.
Chile, vol. 2.
1924. Cuarta expedici6n a la Tierra del Fuego. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop.
Chile, vol. 4, pp. 7-67.
1926 a. Anthropoligische Beobachtungen bie den Ona-Indianern auf Feuer-
land. Tag. Deutsche Anthrop. Gesell.
1926 b. Die Feuerlander einst unt jetzt. Tag. Deutsche Anthrop, Gesell.
1926 c. Das lautsystem der feuerlandischen sprachen. Anthropos, vol. 21,
pp. 1000-1024. St.-Gabriel-Modling.
1927 a. Die Kraniologischen Verhaltnisse der Feuerlander, Sitzung. An-
throp. Gesell. Wien, Jahrgang 1926-1927, pp. 141-143.
1927 b. Der Ausdruck "Pescherah." Ein Erklarungsversuch. Deutsche
Monatschefte fur Chile, vol. 7, pp. 333-341. Concepci6n.
1928 a. Zur Kraniologie der Feuerlander. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22,
Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 337-355.
1928 b. Die Manuskripte iiber die Yamana-sprache des Pastors Thomas
Bridges. Ethnologischer Anzeiger, vol. 1, fasc. 5, pp. 374-375.
Stuttgart.
1931. Die Feuerland-Indianer. I. Band. Die Selk'nam. Modlifig bei Wien.
1934. Die Manuskripte der Yamana-Sprache des Rev. T. Bridges. Actas
y Trabajos Cientificos, Congr. Int. Am.er., Sess. 25, La Plata, 1932,
vol. 2, pp. 247-251. Buenos Aires.
1936. Plantas medicinales que los Indies Araucanos recomiendan. Anthro-
pos, vol. 31, pp. 555-571, 850-873. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1937. Die Feuerland-Indianer. II. Band. Die Yamana. Modling bei Wien.
1939. Die Feuerland-Indianer. III. (pt. 2) Anthropologie. Anthropos.
Modling bei Wien.
See also Klimek, S., 1939; Routil, R., 1939; Stewart, T. D., 1943 b.
618 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
GusiNDE, Martin, and Lebzelter, Viktor.
1927. Kraniologische Beobachtungen an feuerlandischen und australischen
schadeln. Anthropos., vol. 22, pp. 259-285.
1932. Die Somatologie der feuerlandindianer. Anz. Akad. Wissen. Wien,
Math.-naturw. Klasse, 69. Jhrg., No. 1, pp. 5-10.
1933. Kraniometrische Untersuchungen an Feuerland-Schadeln. Anz. Akad.
Wissen. Wien, Math.-naturw. Klasse, 70. Jhrg., No. 19, pp. 229-235.
Gutierrez, Juan MarIa.
1871. Algunas observaciones sobre las lenguas Guaranf y Araucana. Rev.
Rio de la Plata, vol. 2, pp. 198-203.
GuzmAn, Manuel.
1920 a. Gramdtica de la Icngua Quichua (dialecto del Ecuador). Quito.
1920 b. Vocabulario de la Lengua Quichua cual se habla hoy en la Republica
del Ecuador. Quito.
Haberl, M.
1928. Gesetze des lautwechsels in der sprache der Yamana auf Feuerland.
In Festschrift, publication d'hommage offerte au P. W, Schmidt .
. .
pp. 63-66. Wien (Vienna).
Hacker, Rudolf.
1902. Katalog der Anthropologischen Sammlung in der Anatomischen
Anstalt der Universitat Tubingen. Dio Anthropologischen Samna-
lungen Deutschlands, pt. 16. Brunswick.
Haddon, a. C.
1897. Note on the craniology of the aborigines of Jamaica. Journ. Inst.
Jamaica, vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 23-24, 335-336.
Hagen, Victor Wolfgang von. See Von Hagen, Victor Wolfgang.
Hahn, Ph.
1883. La mere et I'enfant chez les fu^giens du sud (Yahgan). Bull. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris., ser. 3, vol. 6, pp. 804-807.
Haldane, J. B. S.
1940. The blood group frequencies of European peoples, and racial origins.
Human Biol., vol. 12, p. 457.
Hamy, Ernest T.
1902. Les Chamacocos, esquisse anthropologique. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat.
Paris, vol. 8, pp. 393-397.
See also Quatrefages, A. de, and Hamy, Ernest T.
Hanke, Wanda.
1938. Indianersprachen im Gran Chaco. Lasso, 5® ann^e, No. 9, pp. 565-568.
Hansen, S0ren.
1888. Lagoa Santa Racen. En anthropologisk Unders0gelse af jordfundne
Menneskelevninger fra brasilianske Huler. Med et Tillaeg om det
jordfundne Menneske fra Pontimelo, ved Rio de Arrecife^, La Plata.
E. Museo Lundii, vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 1-37. Copenhagen.
Hardenburg, Walter E.
1910. The Indians of the Putumayo, Upper Amazon. Man, vol. 10, pp. 134-
138.
1912. The Putumayo, the devil's paradise; travels in the Peruvian Amazon
region and an account of the atrocities committed upon the Indians
therein. London.
Hardy, Osgood.
1919. The Indians of the Department of Cuzco. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol.
21, No. 1, Jan.-Mar., pp. 1-27.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 619
Harland, Sydney Cross.
1939. The genetics of cotton. London.
Harper, Francis.
1945. Extinct and vanishing mammals of the old world. Amer. Comm.
Inter. Wild Life Protect. Spec. Publ. 12. New York.
See also Allen, G. M., 1942.
Harrington, John Peabody.
1925. Ethnological and linguistic notes on the Tule Indians of Panama.
Explorations and Field-Work of the Smithsonian Institution in 1924,
Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 77, No. 2, publ. 2794, pp. 112-136.
1943. Hokan discovered in South America. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci.,
vol. 33, No. 11, pp. 334-344.
1944. Sobre fon^tica Witoto. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer., vol. 5, pp. 127-128.
1945. Yunka, language of the Peruvian coastal culture. Int. Journ Amer.
Ling., vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Harrington, John P., and Valcarcel, Luis E.
1941. Quichua phonetics. A shortcut to the scientific writing of the lan-
guage of the Incas of Peru. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 10, No. 2,
pp. 201-214.
Harrington, M. R.
1921. Cuba before Columbus. 2 vols. Ind. Notes Monogr.
Harrington, Tomas.
1925. Algo sobre la lengua Puelche o Ktinnu. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina,
vol. 99, pp. 205-206.
Harris, James Arthur, and Benedict, Francis Gano.
1919. A biometric study of basal metabolism in man. Carnegie Inst.
Washington, Publ. No. 279.
Harris, R. G.
1926. The San Bias Indians. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 9, pp.
17-65.
Harrop, G. See Barcroft, J., et al., 1923.
Hartman, C. V.
1910. Le calebassier de I'Am^rique tropicale (Crescentia) . fitude d'ethno-
botanique. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 7, pp. 131-143.
Hartt, Charles Frederick.
1941. Geologia e geografia fisica do Brasil. Brasiliana, Serie 5a, vol. 200.
(1st ed. Boston, 1870.)
Haseman, J. D.
1912. Some notes on the Pawumwa Indians of South America. Amer,
Anthrop., n. s., vol. 14, pp. 333-349.
Hassel, Jorge M. von.
1902. Vocabulario Aguaruna. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 12, pp. 73-86.
Hawkes, J. G.
1941. Potato collecting expeditions in Mexico and South America, Imperial
Bureau of Plant Breeding and Genetics, School of Agriculture.
Cambridge, England.
1944. Potato collecting expeditions in Mexico and South America. II.
Systematic classification of the collections. Imperial Bureau of
Plant Breeding and Genetics, School of Agriculture. Cambridge,
England.
1947. Some observations on South American potatoes. Annals of Applied
Biology, vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 622-633.
620 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Hawtatne, G. H.
1886. Remarks on the Caribs. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol.
16, pp. 196-198.
Hayman, R. W. See Ellerman, John Reeves, with Hatman, R. W., and
Holt, G. W. C.
Heath, Edwin R.
1883. Dialects of Bolivian Indians. A philological contribution from
material gathered during three years' residence in the Department
of Beni, in Bolivia. Kansas City Review of Science and Industry,
vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 679-687. Kansas City, Mo.
Heath, George Reinke.
1913. Notes on Miskito grammar and on other Indian languages of Eastern
Nicaragua. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 15, pp. 48-62.
1927. Grammar of the Miskito languages. Printed by F. Lindenbein.
Herrnhut.
Hellman, Mild. See Sullivan, Louis R., and Hellman, Mild.
Henckel, C. [Karl], and Skewes, E.
1943. El peso de algunos 6rganos internes. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n,
vol. 17.
Henckel, Carlos. See Henckel, Karl Otto.
Henckel, Karl [C] Otto.
1933 a. Beitrag zur Anthropologie ChUes. II. tJber Schadel aus Conchal
Darwin in Talcahuano. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop., vol. 31, pp.
310-313.
1933 b. Sobre la disposici6n de las crestas papilares de las falangitas en los
indfgenas de la provincia de Cautfn. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n,
vol. 7.
1934 Beitrage zur Anthropologie Chiles. III. tlber die Papillarlinien-
muster der Fingerbeeren bei Indianern der Provinz Cautin. Zeit.
Morph. Anthrop., vol. 34, pp. 113-119.
1939. Contribuciones al estudio de la Antropologfa Chilena. IX, Observa-
ciones antropol6gicas acerca de la Isla de Pascua. Bol. Soc. Biol.
Concepci6n, vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 83-105.
1941. Contribuciones al estudio de la Antropologfa Chilena, XI. Observa-
ciones histol6gicas acerca del integumento de los indios Mapuche.
Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 15.
1942 a. Observaciones histol6gicas sobre el ojo de los indios mapuches. Bol.
Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 16, pp. 25-30.
1942 b. La disposici6n de las crestas papilares en los pulpejos digitales de la
mano. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 4.
Henckel, Karl Otto, Castelli, A., and Dal Borgo, J.
1941. Algunas observaciones acerca de la proporci6n de los grupos san-
gufneos M y N en los indios mapuches. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n,
vol. 15, p. 37.
Henderson, Alexander.
1846, A grammar of the Moskito language. New York.
1847. The gospel according to Matthew, in the Charibbean language. Edin-
burgh. (Alexander Henderson, translator.)
1872. Grammar of the Karif language as spoken in the Bay of Honduras.
Belize.
Also in Berendt, C. H., 1874 a.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 621
Henderson, George.
1811. An account of the British settlement of Honduras . . . (2d ed.)
London.
HENRfquEZ UreiJa, Pedro.
1938. Para la historia de los indigenismos . . . Facultad de filosofia y letras
de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de filologfa. Buenos
Aires.
Henry, Jules.
1935. A Kaingang text. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 8, pp. 172-218.
1936. The linguistic expression of emotion. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 38, pp.
250-256.
1939. The linguistic position of the Ashluslay Indians. Int. Journ. Amer.
Ling., vol. 10, pp. 86-91.
1948. The Kaingang language. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 14, pp. 194-204.
Henry, Victor. See Adam, Lucien, and]HENRY, Victor, Eds.
Hensel, Reinhold.
1869. Die Coroados der brasilianischen Provinz Rio Grande do Sul. Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 1, pp. 124-139.
1870. Die Schadel der Coroados. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 2, pp. 195-203.
Hermann, Wilhelm.
1908. Pilcomayo Expedition, Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 40, pp. 120-133.
HernXndez, Exjsebio, and Pinart, A. L.
1897. Pequeno vocabulario de la lengua Lenca. Petite Bibliotheque Ameri-
caine, vol. 8. Paris.
HernXndez, Francisco.
1942. Historia de las plantas de Nueva Espana. Vol. 1. Inst. Biol. Univ.
Aut6. Mexico.
Hbrrera [y Garmendia], Fortunato L[uciano].
1916. Nombres indfgenas y t^cnicos de algunas especies botdnicas expon-
tdneas en el departamento del Cuzco. Revista Universitaria, 5«
annfe. No. 15, pp. 19-28; No. 16, pp. 41-48; No. 17, pp. 43-52.
Cuzco.
1919. Botdnica etnol6gica. Revista Universitaria, 8« ann6e, No. 29, pp.
3-31. Cuzco.
1921. Contribuci6n a la flora del departamento del Cuzco. Cuzco.
1923. Nomenclatura indfgena de las plantas. Flora Cuzcoensis Inca, vol. 1,
pp. 607-623. Lima.
1933. Botdnica etnol6gica. La duplicaci6n de las voces en la nomenclatura
indigena. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 2, pp. 3-8.
1933-34. Filologfa quechua. Botdnica etnol6gica: nomenclatura binaria in-
dfgena. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 2, pp. 131-136; vol. 3, pp.
37-62.
1939 a. Etnobotdnica. Nomenclatura binaria en la lengua quechua del
Cuzco. Actas de la Academia de ciencias exactas, fisicas y natu-
rales de Lima. vol. 2, fasc. 1, pp. 39-46. Lima.
1939 b. Filologfa quechua. Etimologia de algunos nombres vernaculares de
plantas indfgenas en el Departamento del Cuzco. Lima.
1940. Plantas que curan y plantas que m.atan de la flora del Cuzco. Rev.
Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 73-127.
1941 a. Estudios lingufsticos: Clasificaci6n de los nombres simples de plantas
en la quechua del Cuzco, atendiendo a su terminaci6n. Revista
Universitaria, vol. 30, No. 80, pp. 158-186. Cuzco.
622 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
Herrera [y Garmendia], Fortunato L[uciano]—Continued
1941 b. Enumeraci6n de algunos nombres quechuas atendiendo a su silaba
terminal. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 189-200.
1942. Article in La Cr6nica, March 16, 1942. Lima.
See also Yacovleif , Eugenio, and Herrera, Fortunato L.
Herrero, Padre. See Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1905.
Hertig, Marshall.
1942. Phlebotomus and Carrion's disease. Supplement, Amer. Journ. Trop.
Med., vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 1-81.
HervXs y Panduro, Lorenzo,
1800-05. Catdlogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y numeraci6n,
divisi6n, y clases de 6stas segiin la diversidad de sus idiomas y
dialectos. 6 vols. (Vol. 1, Lenguas y naciones americanas.)
Madrid.
Herzog, Ernesto.
1937. Anatomia e histologfa patol6gica de las lesiones orgdnicas de tifus
exantemdtico durante la ultima epidemia en Chile (1932-35). Actas
de la 9. Reunion de la Sociedad Argentina de Patologia Regional
en Mendoza, 1935. Imprenta de la Universidad. Buenos Aires.
1943. Trombosis y EmboUas en Chile. Rev. Sudamer. Morfol., vol. 1,
pp. 3-15.
Herzog, George.
1941. Culture change and language; shifts in the Pima vocabulary. In
Language, culture, and personality; Essays in memory of Edward
Sapir, pp. 66-74. Menasha, Wis.
Herzog, Wilhelm.
1886. Ueber die Verwandschaftsbeziehungen der costaricensischen Indianer-
sprachen mit denen von Central- und Siid-Amerika. Archiv An-
throp., vol. 16, pp. 623-627.
Hestermann, Ferdinand.
1910. Die Pano-Sprachen und ihre Beziehungen. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess.
16, Vienna, 1908, vol. 2, pp. 645-650.
1914. Zu den Sprachen Feuerlands. Anthropos, vol. 9, pp. 657-658.
1914-19. Die Schreibweise der Pano-Vokabularien. Journ. Soc. Am6r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 11, pp. 21-33.
1925. Zur Ausgabe "Julius Platzmann. Das anonyme Worterbuch Tupi-
Deutsch und Deutsch-Tupi (s. 1., s. a.) (1901)." Folia ethno-
glossica, I" annee, N° a, Octobre, pp. 14-18. Hamburg.
1927 a. Die Linguistik Siidamerikas, besonders in Deutschland, von der
Ersten Xingii bis zur letzten Oriniko-Expedition. Folia ethno-
glossica, vol. 3, pp. 1-4. Hamburg.
1927 b. Eine Umfrage nach dem Yagan (Ydmana)-Lexikon von Thomas
Bridges. Folia ethno-glossica., vol. 3, pp. 5-7. Hamburg.
1927 c. Die alteren Vokabulare des Halakwulup. Folia ethno-gl6ssica,
vol. 3, fasc. 2-4, avril-d6c., pp. 43-47. Hamburg.
1929. Das pronomen im Ydmana, Feuerland. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol.
5, pp. 150-179. New York.
1938. Die Schmidtsche Kulturkreistheorie und Sprach-wissenschaft in
Sudamerika. Actes du 4* Congres international de linguistes,
1936, pp. 199-203. Copenhague.
Higbee, E. C.
1945. The river is the plow. Scientific Monthly, vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 405-416.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 623
HlLD^N, KaARLO.
1930. Zwei Indianerschadel aus Feuerland. Acta Geographica, vol. 3, No.
2. Helsinki.
1931. Weiterer Beitrag zur Kraniologie der Feuerlander. Acta Geographica,
vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-11. Helsinki.
1932. Keinotekoiset Kallonmudot ja Niiden Maantieteellinen Levinneisyys
.... Terra (Suomen Maantieteellisen Seuran Aikakauskirja; Geogra-
fiska Sallskapets I Finland Tidskrift), vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 86-101.
HiLHOusE, William.
1832. Vocabulary, 82 nouns and numerals 1-10 in four Indian languages of
British Guyana. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 2, pp. 247-248.
1834. Memoir on the Warow land of British Guiana. Journ. Roy. Geogr.
Soc, vol. 4, pp. 321-332.
Hill, John Eric. See Allen, G. M., 1942.
HiNRiCHSEN, Roberto F.
1930. Contribuigao ao estudo craniometrico dos indios brasileiros. Bol.
Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 21-43.
Hirszfeld, L., and Hirszfeld, H.
1919. Serological differences between the blood of different races. Lancet
II, vol. 197, pp. 675-679.
HOCQUART, P. JuliIn.
1916. Janacc pacha nan, Devocionario Huamanga, di6cesis runacunapac.
Lima.
HOEHNE, FrEDERICO CaRLOS.
1915. Apontamentos da lingua dos indios Apiacas. Commissao das Linhas
Telegraphicas Estrategicas de Mato Grosso ao Amazonas, vol. 3,
pp. 175-177. Rio de Janeiro.
1919.
. . .
Caracteres botanicos, historia e cultura das Cinchonas. Institute
de Butantan. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
1923. Phytophysionomia do estado de Matto-Grosso e ligeiras notas a
respeito da composigao e distribuigao da sua flora . . . Sao Paulo,
Brazil. (Commissao Rondon, Relatorios, Rio de Janeiro, 1909-30.)
1932. Algo sobre a identidade botanica do oiti e do pequia da Bahia. Ann.
Acad. Brasil. Scienc, vol. 4, No. 1.
1937. Botanica e Agricultura no Brasil no seculo XVI. Bibl. Pedag. Brasil.,
ser. 5a, Brasiliana, vol. 71.
HoELLER, Alfredo.
1932 a. Grammatik der Guarayo-sprache ... 1. Aufi. Guarayos . . .
Stuttgart.
1932 b. Guarayo-deutsches worterbuch ... 1. Aufl. Guarayos . . . Stuttgart.
Hoijer, Harry.
1941. Methods in the classification of American Indian languages. In
Language, culture and personality; Essays in memory of Edward
Sapir, pp. 3-14. Menasha, Wisconsin.
HOLDEN, W. H.
1938. Civilization and sudden death. Nat. Hist., Dec, vol. 42, No. 5.,
pp. 328-337.
HoLMER, Nils M.
1946. Outline of Cuna grammar. Int. Journ Amer. Ling., vol. 12, No. 4,
pp. 185-197.
1947. Critical and comparative grammar of the Cuna language. Etnol.
Stud., vol. 14.
624 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Holmes, W, H. See Hrdli6ka, A., Holmes, W. H., Willis, B., Wright, F. E.,
and Fenner, C. N.
Holt, G. W. C. See Ellerman, J. R., with Hayman, R. W., and Holt, G. W. C.
Holter, Hermann von.
1877. Das land der Yurakarer und dessen bewohner. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 9,
pp. 105-115.
Holtheuer, a.
1934-35. Frecuencia y formas andtomo-patol6gicas de la tuberculosis pul-
monar del adulto en la Provincia de Concepci6n. Bol. Soc.
Biol. Concepci6n, vols. 8/9, pp. 1-39.
Hooker, Sir Joseph D. See Banks, Joseph, 1896.
HooTON, Earnest Albert.
1937. Apes, men and morons. New York. (Pages 155-186 contain section
on aboriginal racial types in America.)
1942. Man's poor relations. Garden City, N. Y.
Also in LoTHROP, Samuel Kirkland, 1928.
HoRTA Barbosa, Nicolau Bueno.
1922. Exploragao e levantamento dos rios Anary e Machadinho; relatorio
apresentado ao Exmo. Snr. coronel Candido Mariano da Silva
Rondon, chefe da Commissao, pelo capitao de engenharia-, adjudante
da Commissao. Commissao das Linhas Telegraphicas Estrategicas
de Mato Grosso ao Amazonas, Publicagao n° 48. Rio de Janeiro.
HoussE, Emile.
1940. El condor (Vultur gryphus, Linne). Bol. Mus. Hist. Nat. "Javier
Prado," vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 223-243, April-June.
Houz:^, Emile.
1884. Les Araucans du pare Leopold. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Bruxelles, vol.
2, No. 5.
Howes, Paul Griswald.
1930. Wild life in Dominica. Nat. Hist., Jan.-Feb., vol. 30, pp. 90-103.
HoYos, Felix S. See Vaisse, E., Hoyos, F. S., and Echeverria y Reyes, A.
HoYos SliNZ, Luis de.
1911 a. Crd,neos Araucanos del Museo Antropol6gico Nacional. Rev. Real
Acad. Cienc. Exact., FIs. Nat. Madrid, vol. 10, pp. 369-378.
1911 b. Crdneo Foguino del Museo Antropol6gico de Madrid. Rev. Real
Acad. Cienc. Exact., Fis. Nat. Madrid, vol. 9, pp. 529-539.
1913. Cranes fu^giens et araucans du Musee Anthropologique de Madrid.
Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 10, fasc. 1, pp. 181-194.
HrdliCka, Ale§.
1907 a. Skeletal remains suggesting or attributed to early man in North
America. Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 33.
1907 b. Measurements of the cranial fossae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 32,
pp. 177-232.
1911. Some results of recent anthropological exploration in Peru. Smith-
sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 56, No. 16. {Also in Proc, 2d Sess. Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 17, Mexico, 1910 (1912), pp. 72-88.)
1912 a. The problem of the unity or plurality and the probable place of origin
of the American aborigines. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 14, pp.
1-59.
1912 b. Artificial deformations of the human skull. Actas, 1st Sess. Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, pp. 147-149.
1913. Early man in South America. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 18, London,
1912, vol. 1, pp. 10-21. {See HrdHcka, et al. 1912.)
Vol. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 625
Hrdli6ka, Ale§—Continued
1914. Anthropological work in Peru in 1913, with notes on the pathology of
the ancient Peruvians. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 61, No. 18.
1917. The genesis of the American Indian. Proc, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess.
19, Washington, 1915, pp. 559-568.
1918. Recent discoveries attributed to early man in America. Bull. Bur.
Amer. EthnoL, No. 66.
1925. The origin and antiquity of the American Indian. Ann. Rep. Smith-
sonian Inst., 1923, pp. 481-494. (Revised ed., Washington, 1928.)
1926. The Indians of Panama. Their physical relation to the Maya. Amer.
Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 9, pp. 1-15.
1932. The Humerus: Septal apertures. Anthropologic, vol. 10, pp. 31-96.
Prague.
1934 a. Contributions to the study of the femur: The crista aspera and the
pilaster. Amer. Journ, Phys, Anthrop., vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 17-37.
1934 b. The hypotrochanteric fossa of the femur. Smithsonian Misc. Coll.,
vol. 92, No. 1.
1935 a. Ear exostoses. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 93, No. 6.
1935 b. Melanesians and Australians and the peopling of America. Smith-
sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 94, No. 11, pp. 1-58.
1937. The gluteal ridge and gluteal tuberosities (3d trochanters). Amer.
Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 127-198.
1938. The femur of the Old Peruvians. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol.
23, No. 4, pp. 421-462.
1940 a. Mandibular and maxUlary hyperostoses. Amer. Journ. Phys.
Anthrop., vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-67.
1940 b. Lower jaw. Further studies. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol.
27, No. 3, pp. 383-467.
1940 c. Ritual ablation of the front teeth in Siberia and America. Smith-
sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 99, No. 3.
1941. Lower jaw: Double condyles. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 28,
pp. 75-89.
1943. Skull of a midget from Peru. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., n. s.,
vol. 1, pp. 77-82.
Also in Dabbene, Roberto, 1911.
Hrdli(5ka, Ale§, Holmes, W. H., Willis, B., Wright, F. E., and Fenner, C. N.
1912. Early man in South America. Bull. Bur. Amer. EthnoL, No. 52.
Huaiquillaf, M. C0LL16.
1941. A Tri-Lingual Text. Introduction by D. D. Brand. New Mexico
Anthrop., vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 36-51.
Hubner, Georg.
1907. Die Yauapery. Kritisch bearbeitet und mit Einleitung versehen von
Theodor Koch-Griinberg. Zeit. EthnoL, vol. 39, pp. 225-248.
See also Koch-Griinberg, T., and Hiibner, George.
Hudson, William Henry.
1892. The naturalist in La Plata. London. (1st and 2d ed., 1892; 3d ed.,
1895; 4th ed., 1903.)
1920. Birds of La Plata. 2 vols. London.
HULTKRANTZ, JoHAN ViLHELM.
1898. NS,gra bidrag till Sydamerikas fysiska antropologi. Ymer, vol. 18,
pp. 31-48.
626 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
HuLTKRANTz, JoHAN ViLHELM—Continued
1907. Zur Osteologie der Ona- und Yahgan-Indianer des Feuerlandes.
In Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der schwedischen Expedition
nach den Magellanslandern 1895-97 unter Leitung von Dr. Otto
Nordenskjold, vol. 1, Geologie, Geographie und Anthropologie,
No. 5, pp. 109-173. Stockholm.
1936. A brief report on an examination of certain human skeletal remains
collected in 1932 in La Candelaria department of the province of
Salta, Argentina, by S. Ryd^n, of the Gothenburg museum, Etnol.
Studier, vol. 3, app. 1, pp. 306-314.
Humboldt, Alexander von.
1822-27. Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of the New
Continent during the years 1799-1804. 6 vols. London.
(1st ed. 1814-26; several other eds. including 1852-53, 1881.)
Hunt, Richard James.
1913 a. El Vejoz 6 Aiyo. Introducci6n de Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo.
Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 22 (ser. 2, vol. 9), pp. 7-215.
1913 b. Vocabularies Espanol-Ingl6s-Vejoz. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 23,
pp. 93-214.
1915 a. El Chorotf o Y6fuaha. (Introducci6n de Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo.
Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 23 (ser. 2, vol. 10), pp. v-xxxviii, 1-308.
1915 b. Towothli or Lengua-Enimaga. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 23, pp.
238-305. {Included in 1915 a. reference.)
1917. The place of the Lengua-Mascoy among the Indians of the Para-
guayan and neighboring Chacos, from a linguistic point of view.
Proc, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, p. 555.
1937. Mataco-English and English-Mataco dictionary. Ethnol. Stud.,
vol. 5, pp. 1-98.
1940. Mataco grammar (Revisada per el Rev. B. A. Tompkins, misionero
de la South American Missionary Society). Publ. Univ. Nac.
Tucumdn, No. 271.
HuNZiKER, Juan Federico.
1910. Grammar of the Tsoneca language. Republished by Lehmann-
Nitsche. Buenos Aires. {Also in Outes, F. F., 1926, q. v.)
1928 a. Un texto aoniikiin'k (patag6n meridional) para incitar a la caza
. . . 1861. In Outes, F. F., 1928 c, pp. 367-369, q. v.
1928 b. Vocabulario y fraseario Genakenn (Puelche) reunidos por ... en
1864. In Outes, F. F., 1928 a., q. v.
See also Outes, F. F., 1926, 1928 a, 1928 c.
Huonder, p. Anton.
1902. Die Volkergruppierung im Gran Chaco im 18 Jahrhundert. Nach
der spanischen Handschrift eines unbekannten Verfassers verof-
fentlicht. Globus, vol. 81, pp. 387-391.
Hurley, Henrique Jorge.
1931 a. Vocabulario tupi-portugu6s, falado pelos Tembds dos rios Gurupi e
Guamd, do Pard. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 17, 1 » parte, pp. 323-351.
1931 b. Sobre a grafia de Oyapoc. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 17, !» parte,
pp. 483-492.
1932. Eu e o meu professor de Apinag6. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 17, 2»
parte, pp. 827-832.
Hurtado, Alberto.
1927. Estudios de metaboUsmo bdsico en el Perd. An. Facul. Med., vol. 10,
n. s., pp. 253-316.
Vol. G] BIBLIOGRAPHY 627
HuETADO, Alberto—Continued
1928. Algunas observaciones sobre el volumen del t6rax, la capacidad vital
y el metabolismo b^sico en la altura. XIII. Observaciones sobre
el metabolismo bdsico en la altura. An. Facul. Med., vol. 11, n. s.,
pp. 287-295.
1929. Estudios sobre el soldado peruano. (Informe No. 3.) El metabolismo
bdsico del soldado peruano. Revista de Sanidad Militar, vol. 2,
pp. 9-24. Lima.
1932 a. Studies at high altitude: Blood observations on the Indian natives
of the Peruvian Andes. Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. 100, pp.
487-505.
1932 b. Respiratory adaptation in the Indian natives of the Peruvian Andes.
Studies at high altitude. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 17,
pp. 137-165.
HURTADO, GUILLERMO O.
1924. Los Noanamdes. A. B. C, xi« ann6e, N° 940, 12 Octobre, pp. 17, 20.
Quibd6, Colombia.
1937. Los Noanamdes. Idearium, ano 1, Nos. 4-5, pp. 203-210. Pasto,
Colombia.
Hutchinson, J. B., Silow, R. A., and Stephens, S. G.
1947. The evolution of Gossypium and the differentiation of the cultivated
cottons.
HtJTCHiNsoN, Thos. J. See Davis, Joseph Barnard, 1873; Busk, George,
1873.
Huxley, Thomas Henry.
1868. On the form of the cranium among the Patagonians and Fuegians.
Journ. Anat. Physiol., II, 2d ser., I, pp. 253-271.
Huysmans, G. L.
1945. Los salmonidos y su aclimataci6n en la Argentina, Diana Rev. Mens.
Ilus., Buenos Aires, vol. 8, No. 72, pp. 84-89.
Hyades, Paul Daniel Jules, and Deniker, Joseph.
1891. Mission scientifique de cap Horn. Vol. 7, Anthropologic, Ethno-
graphie. Paris.
Ibar, J.
1933. Consideraciones anat6micas sobre crdneos de Indias de Paquica y
Chiuchiu. Archiv. ChU. Morf., vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 243-272.
Ignace, Etienne.
1912. Les Camacans. Anthropos, vol. 7, pp. 948-956. St. Gabriel-Modling.
Ignacio, Luiz. See Lima Junior, Andrade, and Ignacio, Luiz.
Ignacio de Armas, Juan.
1888. La zoologfa de Col6n y de los primeros exploradores de America.
Habana.
Igualada, Francisco de, and CastellvI, Marcelino de.
1940. Clasificaci6n y estadfstica de las lenguas habladas en el Putumayo,
Caquetd y Amazonas. Amazonia Colombiana Americanista.
Centro Investig. "Cileac," vol. 1, Nos. 2-3, pp. 92-101. Sibundoy.
Ihering, Hermann von.
1882. Die Kiinstliche Deformirung der Zahne. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 14,
pp. 213-262.
1895. A civilisagao prehistorica do Brazil meridional. Rev. Mus. Paul.,
vol. 1, pp. 34-159.
1904. Os Guayanas e Caingangs de Sao Paulo. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 6,
pp. 23-44.
794711—50 41
628 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Ihering, Hermann von—Continued
1907. A anthropologia de Estado de Sao Paulo. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 7,
pp. 202-257.
1912. A etnographia do Brasil meridional. Actas, Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, pp. 250-264.
1914. Das alter des menschen in Siidamerika. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 46, pp.
249-266,
Ihering, Rudolpho von.
1934. Da vida dos nossos animals. Fauna do Brazil. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
1940. Dicionario dos animais do Brasil. Secret. Agric, Indust. Comer.
Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Iljin, N. a.
1941. Wolf-dog genetics. Journ. Genet., July 25, vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 259-414.
Imbelloni, Jos6.
1923 a. Habitantes neoliticos del lago Buenos Aires. Documentos para la
antropologia fisica de la Patagonia austral. Rev. Mus. La Plata,
vol. 27, pp. 85-160.
1923 b. Nota sobre los supuestos descubrimientos del Dr. J. G. Wolff en
Patagonia. Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, vol. 51, pp. 39-51.
1923 c. Introducci6n a nuevos estudios de crdneotrigonometrfa. An. Mus.
Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 31, pp. 31-94.
1924, L'uomo terziario fossile della Patagonia e la sua veridica istoria. La
Vie d'ltalia e deU' America Latina, vol. 1, pp. 279-285.
1925 a. Sobre el numero de tipos fundamentales a los que deben referirse las
deformaciones craneanas de los pueblos indlgenas de Sud Am6rica.
(Algunos resultados de una nueva aplicaci6n de morfologfa exacta
o craneotrigonometria.) Gaea, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 183-199.
1925 b. Sur un appareil de d6formation du crane des anciens Humahuacas.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924, pp. 607-618. Gote-
borg.
1925 c. Estudios de morfologfa exacta: Parte III. Deformaciones inten-
cionales del crdneo en Sudamerica. Pollgonos craneanos aberrantes
(series A). Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 28 (3d serie, vol, 4), pp.
329-407.
1926. La esfinge Indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos del problema de los
orfgenes americanos. Buenos Aires.
1928 a, Intorno ai crani "incredibili" degli indiani Natchez. Nuove orien-
tazioni critiche e tassinomiche sulla deformazione artificiale.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 391-406.
1928 b. L'idioma Kichua nel sistema linguistico dell' Oceano Pacifico,
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 2, pp. 495-509.
1930. Die Arten der kunstlichen Schadeldeformationen. Zusammenfas-
sender Bericht. Anthropos., vol. 25, pp. 801-830.
1931. Deformacioni artificiali del craneo. Enciclopedia italiana, vol. 12,
pp. 191-195. Roma.
1932 a. Las deformaciones corporales en la estdtica de los pueblos bdrbaros
y civilizados. Ciclo de conferencias dictadas en el Museo Argen-
tino de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires.
1932 b. Sobre un ejemplar mim^tico de deformaci6n craneana: El crdneo
3876 de la Isla de Tilcara (Jujuy, Argentina). An. Mus. Arg.
Cienc. Nat., vol. 37, Publ. No. 74,' pp. 193-207.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 629
Imbelloni, Josifi—Continued
1932 c. I popoli deformatori delle Andc; la deformazione del cranio come
arte e come elemento diagnostico delle culture. Archiv. Antrop.
Etnol., vol. 60-61, pp. 99-135.
1933. Los pueblos deformadores de los Andes. La deformaci6n intencional
de la cabeza como arte y como elemento diagn6stico de las cul-
turas. An. Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat., vol. 37, No. 75, pp. 209-253.
1934 a. America, cuartel general de las deformaciones craneanas. Actas y
Trabajos Cientfficos, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25, La Plata, 1932,
vol. 1, pp. 59-68. Buenos Aires.
1934 b. Los autores de la cerdmica de Llajta Mauca. Primeras noticias
antropofisicas sobre los antiguos civilizadores del Chaco Santia-
gueno. Actas y trabajos cientificos, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25,
La Plata, 1932, vol. 1, pp. 25-57. Buenos Aires.
1934 c. Ueber Formen, Wesen und Methodik der absichtlichen deforma-
tionen. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop., vol. 33, pp. 161-189. Berlin.
1934 d. La deformaci6n craneana. Sus modelos y su estudio. Curso
dictado en la Facultad de Filosofia y Letras de la Universidad
Nacional de Buenos Aires.
1936. Lenguas indigenas del territorio argentino. Historia de la Naci6n
Argentina, vol. 1, pp. 177-205. Buenos Aires. (2d ed. ibid; vol.
1, pp. 203-223, 1939.)
1937 a. Fu6guides et laguides: position actuelle de la Race Pal<5o-Am6ricaine
ou de Lagoa Santa. Zeit. Rassenk., voL 5, pp. 295-315. {See
also Imbelloni, J., 1937 b and 1939 c.)
1937 b. Fueguidos y Mguidos: posici6n actual de la raza paleo-americana o
de Lagoa Santa. An Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat. "Bernardino Riva-
davia," vol. 39, pp. 75-104. {See also Imbelloni, J., 1937 a and
1939 c.)
1937 c. Razas humanas y grupos sanguineos. Rel. Soc. Argentina Antrop.,
vol. 1, pp. 23-49.
1938 a. El poblamiento primitivo de America. Cursos Confer., vol., 12,
pp. 965-988.
1938 b. Tabla clasificatoria de los Indies, regiones biol6gicas y grupos raciales
humanos en America. Physis, vol. 12, No. 44, pp. 229-249.
1938 c. Formas esencia y metodica de las deformaciones cefdlicas inten-
cionales. Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucum^n, vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 1-37.
1938 d. La antropologia en la Argentina. Zeit. Rassenk., vol. 7, Heft 1,
pp. 83-84.
1938 e. Acotaciones al mapa de los pueblos deformadores de la regi6n andina
central. An. Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat., vol. 40, pp. 253-268. (Antro-
pologia, Etnograffa y Arqueologla, Publ. No. 81, Jan. 30, 1942.)
1939 a. Algunos nuevos problemas de taxonomia humana surgidos de la
indagaci6n serol6gica. Physis, vol. 16, No. 48, pp. 323-343.
1939 b. Estado actual de la sistemdtica del hombre con referenda a America.
Physis, vol. 16, No. 48, pp. 309-321.
1939 c. Fueguidos y Mguidos. Posici6n actual de la raza paleo-americana o
de Lagoa Santa. Actualidad M^dica Peruana, vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
3-32. {See also Imbelloni, J., 1937 a and b.)
1940. Los aborigenes de Santiago del Estero. SIntesis antropoldgica. Rel.
Soc. Argentina Antrop., vol. 2, pp. 79-115.
630 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Imbelloni, Jose—Continued
1942. Sobre craneologfa de los Uru, superviviencias de razas Austral6ides en
los Andes. Actas y trabajos cientificas, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 27,
Mexico City, 1939, vol. 1, pp. 3-22.
MS. Los cronistas de Indias y la deformaci6n cefdlica.
(See also Astete Ch., S., 1937 b; Dembo, Adolfo, and Imbelloni, Jos6.
Im Thtjrn, Everard Ferdinand.
1883. Among the Indians of Guiana. London.
Iriarte, B. de. See Sarmibnto de Gamboa, P., 1768.
Isaacs, Jorge.
1884. Estudio sobre las tribus indfgenas del Estado de Santa Marta. An.
Instr. Publ. Estad. Unid. Colombia, vol. 8.
Iturry NuNez, Nemesio.
1939. La fon^tica del alfabeto aimara. Rev. Bolivia, No. 23, pp. 63-64.
Ivanov, Nikolai R.
1937. Geographical regularities in the distribution of cultivated Phaseolinae.
Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences in U. S. S. R., Institute of
Plant Industry, Bulletin of Applied Botany, of Genetics and Plant
Breeding, 1st Ser., Taxonomy, Geography and Ecology of Plants,
No. 2, pp. 41-152.
See also Ditmer, Erna Ernestovich, Ivanov, N. R., and Popova, G. M.
IzAGUiRRE, Bernardino.
1927-29. Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Peru. Pro-
ducciones en lenguas indigenas de varios misioneros de la orden,
publicadas por el Padre Fray-. Vol. 13, 1927; vol. 14, 1929.
Lima.
Jahn, Alfredo.
1914. Parauhanos und Guajiros und die Pfahlbauten am See von Maracaibo.
Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 46, pp. 267-283, 536.
1927. Los aborigenes del occidente de Venezuela. Su historia, etnografia, y
afinidades lingiiisticas. Caracas.
1932. Los crdneos deformados de los aborigenes de los valles de Aragua.
Observaciones antropol6gicas. Bol. Soc. Venezolana Cienc. Nat,
vol. 1, pp. 295-308.
Jara, G.
1936. La anatomfa patol6gica de los aneurismas a6rticos y su relaci6n con la
mesaortitis ludtica en el material de autopsias de Concepci6n. Bol.
Soc, Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 10, pp. 137-158.
JXUREGUI ROSQUELLAS, AlFREDO.
1937. Bibliografia del idioma quechua. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Sucre, vol. 21,
Nos. 327-332, pp. 143-162.
Jazzetta, p. Guglielmo.
1928. Sullo Scheletro dell'Arto Superiore dei Fuegini. Atti del Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 357-391.
Jenkins, J. A.
1948. The origin of the cultivated tomato. Economic Botany, vol. 2, pp.
379-392.
Jenness, Diamond. See Dixon, R. B., 1933.
Jij6n y CaamaJJo, Jacinto.
1912, Contribuci6n al conocimiento de los aborigenes de la Provincia de
Imbabura en la Republica del Ecuador. Estudios de Prehistoria
Americana, vol. 2. Madrid.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY , 631
Jij6n y CaamaSo, Jacinto—Continued
1919. Contribuci6n al conocimiento de las lenguas indfgenas que se hablaron
en el Ecuador interandino y occidental, con anterioridad d la con-
quista espanola. Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana Estud. Hist. Amer., vol.
2, No. 6, pp. 340-413.
1921. La voz canari en el drama Ollanta. Rev. Centr. Estud. Hist. Geogr.
Cuenca, vol. 1, pp. 351-352.
1923-24. Puruhd. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 7, 1923, pp. 185-193,
285-291; vol. 9, 1924, pp. 267-406.
1938. Las naciones indigenas que poblaban el Occidente de Colombia al
tiempo de la Conquista, segiin los cronistas castellanos. In Jij6n y
Caamano, 1936-38, Sebastidn de Benalcdzar, vol. 2. Quito.
1939. Materiales para el mapa lingiiistico del occidente de Colombia. Rev.
Popaydn, ano 27, No. 175. {Also in Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol.
12, pp. 167-175.)
1941-43. El Ecuador interandino y occidental ... 3 vols. Quito.
JiMfiNEZ, Otr6n. See Popenoe, W., and Jimenez, Otr6n.
Jimenez Borja, Jos6.
1937. El aporte peruano-iudigena en la formaci6n del espanol. Letras,
No. 6, pp. 38-50.
Jimenez de la Espada, Marcos. [Published by.]
1881-97. Relaciones geogrdficas de Indias. 4 vols. Madrid.
See also Anonymous, 1909; Cobo, Bernabe, 1890-95,
Jimenez Moreno, Wigberto.
1936. Mapa lingiiistico de Sudam^rica, segun Krickeberg. Inst. Panamer.
Geogr. Hist.
Jimenez Seminario, Aug.
1924. Bermerkungeu iiber den Stammder Bora oder Meamuyna am Putu-
mayo. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 56, pp. 83-93.
Jir6n (Giron L.), G (Gustavo)
1933. Sobre cisuras pulmonares. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
45-52.
1935 a. Sobre cisuras pulmonares. Archiv. Chil. Morf, vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
177-183.
1935 b. El plexo sacro, sus grandes ramas terminales y sus variedades.
Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 241-242.
1938. Aporte de la anatomia a los estudios antropol6gicos y su importancia
en la determinaci6n de las relaciones interraciales. Congr. Cient.
Gen. Chil., Sess. 9, Valparaiso, 1936, vol. 2, pp. 77-82. Santiago.
1939. Contribuci6n al estudio de la anatomia del baso. Archiv. Chil. Morf.,
vol. 2, pp. 102-114.
Johnson, Frederick.
1940. The linguistic map of Mexico and Central America. In The Maya
and their Neighbors, pp. 88-114. New York.
Jomard, Edme FRANgois.
1846. Note sur les Botecudos, accompagnle d'un vocabulaire de leur langue
et de quelques remarques. Extrait du Bull. Soc. Geogr. Paris,
Nov. and Dec, vol. 1, pp. 377-384.
1847. Notfcia sobre os Botocudos, acompanhada de um vocabuldrio de seu
idioma e de algumas observagoes. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil.,
vol. 9, pp. 107-113.
632 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. 13. Bull. 143
Jorge, Fray Jos6 PAcfnco.
1924. Melodias religiosas en Quechua, seleccionadas y transcritas en su
expresi6n tipica por-, con ocasi6n del centenario de Ayacucho,
1824-29 de diciembre-1924. Friburgo de Brisgovia.
Jos:6 DE MarIa, Missionnaire Salesien.
1918-19. Gramdtica y vocabulario jibaros. Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana Estud.
Hist. Amer., vol. 1, 1918, pp. 159-180, 351-361; vol. 2, 1919, pp.
144-153, 281-287.
Joyce, Thomas Athol.
1934. The use and origin of yerba mat6. Man, vol. 34.
JuLiANi, Carmela.
1939. Indice de peso e estatura da creanca brasileira. Journ. Clfn., anno 20,
No. 7 e 9, Abril e Maio.
JuLiEN, Alvarez H. See Buxton, L H. Dudley, Trevor, J. C, and Julien,
Alvarez H.
jull, morley a.
1927. The races of domestic fowl. Nat. Geogr. Mag., vol. 51, No. 4, pp.
379-452, April.
1930. Fowls of forest and stream tamed by man. Nat. Geogr. Mag., vol.
57, No. 3, pp. 326-371, April.
Kaden, O. F.
1935. Ordnung der Kakaobaumtypen. Tropenpflanzer; Zeitschrift fiir
tropische landwirtschaft, vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 367-378. Berlin.
Kahn, M. C.
1936. Blood grouping of 336 Upper Aucaner Bush Negroes and 70 Alkuyana
Indians in Dutch Guiana. Journ. Immunol., vol. 31, p. 377.
Kantule, Reuben P:fiREz. See Nordenskiold, Erland, 1928-30, 1938.
Karsten, Rafael.
1919. Mitos de los Indios Jibaros. Bol. Soc. Ecuatoriana Estud. Hist.
Amer., vol. 2, pp. 325-339.
1920 a. Contributions to the sociology of the Indian tribes of Ecuador.
Humaniora, Acta Acad. Aboensis, vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-75.
1920 b. Beitrage zur sittengeschichte der siidamerikanischen Indianer.
Humaniora, Acta Acad. Aboensis, vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 1-104.
1921-22. La lengua de los Indios Jibaros (Shuara) del Oriente del Ecuador.
Gramdtica, vocabulario y muestras de la prosa y poesia. For-
handlingar, vol. 65, Avd, B, n° 2. Helsingfors.
1922. The religion of the Jibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador. Bol. Acad.
Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 4, pp. 309-330.
1923. The Toba Indians of the Bolivian Gran Chaco. Humaniora, Acta
Acad. Aboensis, vol. 4.
1932. The Indian tribes of the Argentine and Bolivian Chaco. Ethnological
Studies, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum
Litterarum, vol. 4, No. 1. Helsingfors.
1935. The headhunters of Western Amazonas. The life and culture of the
Jfbaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador and Peru. Societas, Scientiarum
Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, vol. 7, No. 1.
Helsingfors.
Kate, H. ten.
1924. Notes d'anthropologie sud-am6ricaine. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 16, pp. 183-193.
Katzer, Friedrich.
1901. Zur ethnographic des Rio Tapaj6s. Globus, vol. 79, pp. 37-41.
Vol. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 633
Kehl, Renato.
1929. Ethnic elements in the population of Brazil. Eugenical News, vol.
14, pp. 148-150. Cold Spring Harbor, New York.
Keith, Sir Arthur.
1925. The antiquity of man. (New and enlarged ed.) Philadelphia.
1931. New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man. New York.
Keller-Leuzinger, Franz.
1874. The Amazon and Madeira Rivers. London.
Kellogg, Remington, and Goldman, E. A.
1944. Review of the spider monkeys. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 96, No.
3186, pp. 1-45.
Kennedy, J. A. See Moss, W. L., and Kennedy, J. A.
Kersten, Ludwig.
1905. Die Indianerstamme des Gran Chaco bis zum Ausgange des 18. Jahr-
hundert. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Ethnographie Sudamerikas.
Int. Archiv. Ethnogr., vol. 17, pp. 1-75.
KiLLip, Ellsworth P., and Smith, Albert C.
1931. The use of fish poisons in South America. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian
Inst., 1930, pp. 401-408.
Kimmich, Josi.
1917-18. Etnologfa peruana. Origen de los Chimus. Bol. Soc. Geogr.
Lima, vol. 33, 1917, pp. 343-358, 441-462; vol. 34, 1918, pp. 35-73.
Kinder, Leopoldo.
1936. Gramdtica y vocabulario de la lengua huitota. Pasto.
King, Phillip Parker.
1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of his Majesty's ships "Adventure"
and "Beagle." Proceedings of the 1st Expedition, 1826-30, vol. 1.
London.
Kissenberth, Wilhelm.
1911. Bei den Canella-Indianern in Zentral-Maranhao (Brasilien). Baessler-
Archiv., vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. 45-54. Beriin.
1916. Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Tapirape-Indianer. Baessler-Archiv., vol.
6, pp. 50-64. Berlin.
Klimann, Elena Scolni de.
1938. Sobre las caracterfsticas del femur en los varios grupos de indfgenas
argentinos. Physis, vol. 12, No. 44, pp. 197-227.
Klimek, Stanislaw.
1929. Przyczynek do kranjologji Indjan amerykd,nskich. (Beitrage zur
Kraniologie der amerikanischen Indianer.) Kosmos, Lw6w, vol.
53 (1928), pp. 808-829.
1939. Kraniologische Typenanalyse [der Feuerlander]. In Gusinde, M.,
"Die Feuerland-Indianer. III. (pt. 2) Anthropologie," pp. 446-463.
Knoche, Walter.
1931. Zu Verbreitung der Changos in Chile. Verhandl. Deutsche Wiss.
Ver. Santiago, n. s., vol. 1.
Knudsen Larrain, Augusto.
1945. Un diccionario de la lengua Yagan. Rev. Mus. Hist. Nac. Chile,
ano 1, No. 4, pp. 521-533.
Koch-Grunberg, Theodor.
1902 a. Die Maskoi-Gruppe im Gran Chaco. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien,
vol. 32, pp. 130-148.
1902 b. Die Guakuriistamme. Globus, vol. 81, pp. 1-7, 39-46, 69-78,
105-112.
634 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Koch-Grunberg, Theodor—Continued
1902 c. Die Apiak^-Indianer (Rio Tapaj6s, Mato Grosso). Zeit. EthnoL,
vol. 34, pp. 350-379.
1903. Die Guaikuru-Gruppe. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, ser. 3, vol. 33,
pp. 1-128.
1906 a. Les Indians Ouitotos: etude linguistique. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris,
n. s., vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 157-189.
1906 b. Die Maku. Mit fiinf abbildungen nach Aufnahmen des Verfassers.
Anthropos, vol. 1, pp. 877-906.
1906 c. Die Indianerstamme am oberen Eio Negro und Yapurd. Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 38, pp. 166-205.
1906 d. Indianertypen aus dem Amazonasgebiet, Pt. 1. (3 vols., 1905-08.)
Berlin,
1908. Die Hiandkoto-Umdua. Anthropos, vol. 3, pp. 83-124, 297-333,
952-982.
1909-10. Zwei jahre unter den Indianern. Reisen in Nordwest-Brasilien,
1903-05. 2 vols. Berlin.
1910 a. Die Mirdnya (Rio YapiirA, Amazonas). Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 42,
pp. 896-914.
1910 b. Die Uit6to-Indianer. Weitere Beitriige zu ihrer Sprache nach einer
Worterliste von Hermann Schmidt. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris,
n. s., vol. 7, pp. 61-83.
1911. Aruak-sprachen Nordwestbrasiliens und der angrenzenden Gebiete.
Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 41 (ser. 3, vol. 11), pp. 33-153,
203-282.
1912-16. Die Bet6ya-Sprachen Nordwesbrasiliens und der angrenzenden
Gebiete. Anthropos, vol. 7, 1912, pp. 429-462; vol. 8, 1913,
pp. 944-977; vol. 9, 1914, pp. 151-195, 569-589, 812-832; vols.
10-11, 1915-16, pp. 114-158, 421-449.
1913. Abschluss meiner Reise durch Nordbrasilien zum Orinoco, mit beson-
derer Beriicksichtigung der von mir besuchten Indianerstamme.
Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 45, pp. 448-474.
1914-19. Ein Beitrag zur Sprache der Ipurind-Indianer (Rio Purus, Brasilien).
Journ. Soc .Am4r. Paris, n. s., vol. 11, pp. 57-96.
1915. Zaubersprache der TaulipAng-Indianer (Venezolanisch- und Brasilisch-
Guayana). Archiv Anthrop., vol. 41, pp. 371-382.
1917-28. Vom Roroimazum Orinoco; Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordbrasilien
und Venezuela in den Jahren 1911-13 ... 5 vols. Berlin;
Stuttgart.
1922. Die Volkergruppierung zwischen Rio Branco, Orinoco, Rio Negro und
Yapurd. Festschrift Eduard Seler, pp. 205-266. Stuttgart.
1928. Vom Roroima zum Orinoco, Ergebnisse einer Reise in Nordbrasilien
und Venezuela in den jahren 1911-1913. Vol. 4, Sprachen. Stutt-
gart. (Vol. 4 of 1917-28, above.)
1932. Worterlisten "Tup^)-," Maud und Purubora. Journ. Soc. Am6r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 24, pp. 31-50.
See also Hiibner, Georg, 1907.
Koch-Grtjnberg, Theodor, and Hubner, Georg.
1908. Die Makuschf und Wapischdna. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 40, pp. 1-44.
KOENIGSWALD, GuSTAV VON.
1908 a. Die CayuAs. Globus, vol. 93, pp. 376-381.
1908 b. Die Coroados in sudlichen Brasilien. Globus, vol. 94, pp. 27-32,
45-49.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 635
KOK, P.
1921-22. Ensayo de gramdtica Dagseje o Tokano. Anthropos, vol. 16-17,
pp. 83S-865. St.-Gabriel-Modling.
See also Rivet, P., and Kok, P., and Tastevin, C.
KOLLMANN, J.
1884. Hohes Alter der Menschenrassen, Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 16, pp. 181-212.
KOPPELMANN, Dr.
1929. Ostasiatische Zahlworter in siid-amerikanischen Sprachen. Int. Archiv
Ethnogr., vol. 30, Nos. 4-5, pp. 77-118.
KOPPERS, WiLHELM.
1926. Wo befindet sich das Manuskript letzter Redaktion des grossen Ya-
mana-(-Yagan) Lexikons von Th. Bridges? Anthropos, vol. 21,
pp. 991-995. St.-Gabriel-Modling.
1927. Die fiinf Dialekte in der Sprache der Yamana aiif Feuerland. Anthro-
pos, vol. 22, pp. 466-476.
1928. Das Grosse Lexikon der Yamana-Sprache von Th. Bridges. Anthro-
pos, vol. 23, pp. 324-326. St.-Gabriel-Modling.
KosLOwsKY, Julio.
1895. Tres semanas entre los indios Guatos. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 6,
pp. 221-250.
Kraglievich, Lucas.
1930 a. Generos vivientes de la subfamilia "Caviinae." An. Mua. Nac.
Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 36, pp. 59-96.
1930 b. Craneometrfa y clasificaci6n de los canidos sudamericanos especial-
mente los argentinos actuales y f6siles. Physis, vol. 10', No. 35,
pp. 35-73.
Krause, Fritz.
1911. In den wildnissen Brasiliens; Bericht und Ergebnisse der Leipziger
Araguaya-Expedition, 1908. Leipzig.
1936. Die Yarum.4- und Arawine-Indianer Zentralbrasiliens. Baessler-
Archiv., vol. 19, pp. 32-44.
Krickeberg, Walter.
1922. Die Volker Siidamerikas. In lUustrierte Volkerkunde, George
Buschan, Ed. Stuttgart.
Krieg, Hans.
1925. Biologische Reisestudien in Siidamerica. VII. Notiz iiber einen
Bastard zwischen Hund und Pampafuchs (Pseudalopex [Canis]
azarae) (sic), nebst Bemerkungen iiber die Systematik der argen-
tinischchilenischen Fiichse. Zeitscrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie
der Tiere, vol. 4, pp. 702-710. Berhn.
1929. tlber siidamericanische Haustiere I. XII. Fortsetzung der "Biolo-
gischen Reisestudien in Sudamerika." Zoologische Garten, Zeitschrift
fiir die gesamte tiergiirtnerei, vol. 1 (hf . 7/9) , pp. 273-284. Leipzig.
1932. Meine dritte Siidamerika-Expedition. Muench. Med. Wochen., vol.
79, No. 39, pp. 1575-1576.
1939. Indianerhunde im Gran Chaco. Physis, vol. 16, No. 48, pp. 153-158.
Krieger, Herbert W.
1929. Archeological and historical investigations in Samand, Dominican
Republic. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 147.
See also Miller, Gerrit Smith Jr., and Krieger, Herbert W.
636 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Kroeber, a. L.
1926. Culture stratifications in Peru. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 28, pp.
331-351.
1930. Archeological explorations in Peru. Pt. II: The Northern Coast.
Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Mem., vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 45-116.
1938. Archeological explorations in Peru. Pt. IV: Caiiete Valley. Field
Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthrop. Mem., vol. 2, No. 4 (1937), pp. 266-267.
Krone, R.
1906. Die Guarany Indianer des Aldeamento do Rio Itariri im Staate von
Sao Paulo in Brasilien. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 36,
pp. 130-146.
Krug, Edmundo.
1925. Os Indies das margens do Parana-panema. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr.
Sao Paulo, vol. 21, 1923 (1925).
Krusb, Albert.
1930, Bausteine zu einer praktischen Grammatik der Sprache der Mun-
durukuindianer. Santar^m.
Ktjiper, K. See Lotsy, J. P., and Kuiper, K.
KuNiKE, Hugo.
1911. Beitrage zur Anthropologic der Calchaqui-Taler. Archiv. Anthrop.,
n. s., vol. 10, pp. 203-225.
1915. Venezolanische Schadel. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 47, pp. 181-197.
1916. Beitrage zur Phonetik der Karajd-Sprache (Brasilien). Int. Archiv.
Ethnogr, vol. 23, fasc. 5-6, pp. 147-182.
1919. Die Phonetik der Karaidsprache (nach linguistichen Principien).
Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 11, pp. 139-181.
KUPFER.
1870. Die Kayapo-Indianer in der Provinz Matto-Grosso. Zeit. Gesell.
Erd. Berlin, vol. 5, pp. 244-255.
KuPFFER, K. W., ritter von, and Bessel-Hagen, F.
1880. Schadel und Skelete der Anthropologischen Sammlungen zu Konigs-
berg I. Pr. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen Deutschlands,
pt. 4.
Kysela, Vladimiro.
1931. Tribu indigena Maccd. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 3, No. 1,
pp. 43-49.
Lacayo, Joseph Renato. See Williams, Herbert U., Rice, John P., and
Lacayo, Joseph Renato.
Lacaz de Moraes, Joaqtjim.
1939. Estudos de antropometria constitucional dos Brancos Nativos do
Estado de S. Paulo. Departmento de Anatomia, Faculdade de
Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo. Sao Paulo.
Lacerda, (Joao Baptista de.)
1876. Sobre a conformagao dos dentes. Contribuigao para o estudo anthro-
pologico das ragas indigenas do Brazil. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de
Janeiro, vol. 1, pp. 77-83.
1879. Craneos de Maracd, Guiana Brasil^ira. Contribuigao para o estudo
anthropologico das ragas indigenas do Brasil. Archiv. Mus. Nac.
Rio de Janeiro, vol. 4, pp. 35-45.
1885. O homem dos Sambaqufs. Contribuigao para a anthropologia
brazileira. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, pp. 175-203.
1909. De variis Plantis Veneiferis (Studium Physiologicum) . Archiv. Mus.
Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 15, p. 1 ff.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 637
Lacerda, (J. B.) and Rodrigues Peixoto, (J.).
1876. Contribuigao para o estudo anthropologico das ra^as indigenas do
Brasil. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 1, pp. 47-55.
Lafone-Quevbdo, Samuel A.
1892 a. Vocabulario Mocovi-Espanol, fundado en los del P. Tavolini. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 4, pp. 161-207. (Reprinted in Lafone-Quevedo,
1893 a.)
1892 b. Apendices a la gramd,tica mocovi. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 4,
pp. 257-287. (Reprinted in Lafone-Quevedo, 1893 a.)
1892-93. Un introducci6n al Arte Mocovi del Padre Tavolini; estudio de
gramiltica comparada. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 4, pp. 369-432;
vol. 5, pp. 93-128. {Reprinted in Lafone-Quevedo, 1893 a.)
1893 a. Mocovi, MS. del P. Francisco Tavolini, y otros documentos editados
y comentados. Bibl. Ling. Mus. La Plata; Secci6n del Chaco.
La Plata.
1893 b. Notas o sea principios de gramiitica mocovi, segun ellos se desprenden
en los trabajos de Tavolini, Dobrizhoffer, Barcena y otros. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 1, pp. 113-144; vol. 2, pp. 241-274, 289-352,
393-424. {Also in Lafone-Quevedo, 1893 a.)
1894. Los Lules. Estudio filol6gico y calepino lule-castellano seguido del
catecismo. Vade niecum para el arte y vocabulario del P. Antonio
Machoni. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentine, vol. 15, pp. 185-246.
1895 a. La lengua vilela 6 chulupf. Estudio de filologia chaco-argentina.
Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentine, vol. 16, pp. 87-123.
1895 b. Lenguas argentinas. Grupo mataco-mataguayo del Chaco. Dialec-
to Nocten. "Pater noster" y apuntes por el Padre Inocencio
Massei Ord. Serdfica con introducci6n y notas. Bol. Inst. Geogr.
Argentine, vol. 16, pp. 343-389.
1895 c. Tesoro de catamarqueiiismos. Nombres de lugar y apellidos indios
con etimologias y eslabones aislados de la lengua Cacana. An.
Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 39, pp. 77-109.
1896 a. Los indios Matacos y su lengua por el P. Joaqufn Remedi Ord.
Seraf. misionero apost61ico con vocabularies ordenados . . .
Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentine, vol. 17, p. 331-362.
1896 b. Grupo mataco-mataguayo del Chaco. Dialecto vejoz. Vocabulario
y apuntes. MS. D'Orbigny con intreducci6n, notas, etc. Bel. Inst.
Geogr. Argentine, vol. 17, pp. 121-175.
1896 c. Lenguas Argentinas. Idioma Mbaya, Uamado "Guaycuru-Mocevi"
segiin Hervds, Gilij y Castelnau, con introducci6n, notas y mapas.
An. Sec. Cient. Argentina, vol. 41, pp. 339-364; vol. 42, pp.
44-58, 145-164.
1896-97. Lenguas argentinas. Idioma abip6n. Ensayo fundado sobre el
"De Abiponibus" de Dobrizhoffer y los manuscritos del Padre
J. Brigniel, S. J., con introduccion, mapa, notas y apendices.
Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. Cordoba, vol. 15, pp. 5-200, 253-423.
1897 a. Los indios Chanases y su lengua. Bel. Inst. Geogr. Argentine, vol.
18, p. 115.
1897 b. Apuntes sueltes de la lengua de los indios Caduveos del Chaco
paraguaye. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentine, vol. 18, pp. 367-371.
1898. Tesoro de catamarquenismos, con etimologia de nombres de lugares
y de personas en la antigua previncia de Tucuman. An. Soc.
Cient. Argentina, vol. 46, pp. 92-109.
638 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Lafone-Quevedo, Samuel A,—Continued
1905. La lengua Leca de los rios Mapiri y Beni segun los mss. de los PP.
Cardiis y Herrero. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 60, pp. 5-20,
49-64, 97-113, 168-180.
1910. Las lenguas de tipo guaycuru y chiquito comparadas. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 17 (2nd ser., vol. 4), pp. 7-68. (Also in Actas, Congr.
Int. Amen, Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910 (1912), pp. 228-231.)
1911. Etnografla argentina. Trabajos del cuarto Congreso cientifico (1"
Pan-americano) celebrado en Santiago de Chile del 25 de diciembre
de 1908 al 5 de enero de 1909, vol. 14: Ciencias naturales, antro-
pol6gicas y etnol6gicas, tomo 2, pp. 187-215. Santiago de Chile.
1912 a. Pronominal classification of certain South American Indian stocks.
Buenos Aires.
1912 b. The Great Chanca Confederacy, an attempt to identify some of the
Indian nations that formed it. Buenos Aires.
1917. Los t^rminos de parentesco en la organizaci6n social sud-americana.
1» parte: El Guayra. Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, vol. 37, pp. 5-42.
1919 a. Lenguas del Tucumdn. Primera reunidn nacional de la Sociedad
Argentina de Ciencias Naturales, Tucumdn, 1916, pp. 529-537.
Buenos Aires.
1919 b. Guarani kinship terms as index of social organization. Amer.
Anthrop., n. s., vol. 21, pp. 421-440.
1922. Escritos de don Ddmaso Antonio Larranaga. Instituto Hist6rico y
Geogrdfico del Uruguay. Montevideo. (See also Larranaga, Ddmaso
Antonio, 1924 a, 1924 b.)
1927. Tesoro de catamarquenismos, nombres de lugares y apellidos indies,
con etimologias y eslabones aislados de la lengua Cacana. Tercera
edici6n, complementada con palabras y modismos usuales en Cata-
marca, por Felix F. Avellaneda. Universidad Nacional de Tucu-
mdn. Buenos Aires.
See also Bdrcena, Alonso de, 1893; Ducci, Z., 1911-12; Hunt, R. J.,
1913 a, 1915 b; Orbigny, A. D. d', 1896; Pelleschi, J., 1896; Remedi,
J., 1896; Tavolini, P. F., 1893.
La Grasserie, Raoul de.
1890. De la famille linguistique Pano. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 7, Berlin,
1888, pp. 438-449.
1892. Esquisse d'une grammaire et d'un vocabulaire baniva, Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 8, Paris, 1890, pp. 616-641.
1894. Langues am^ricaines. Langue puquina. Textes puquina contenus
dans le Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum de Ger6nimo de Ore, public k
Naples en 1607 . . . Leipzig.
1898. . . . Langue auca (ou langue indigene du Chili) grammaire, diction-
naire, textes traduits et analyses. Bibl. Ling. Amdr. Paris, vol. 21.
1900. De la langue Allentiak (grammaire, textes, vocabulaires). Journ. Soc.
Am^r. Paris, vol. 3, o. s., pp. 43-100.
1904. Les langues de Costa Rica et les idiomes apparant^s. Journ. Soc.
Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 1, pp. 153-187.
1906. De la langue Tehuelche. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 14, Stuttgart,
1904, pp. 611-647.
Lahille, F.
1926. Mat^riaux pour servir k I'histoire des Oonas. Rev. Mus. La Plata,
vol. 29. (See also Lahille, 1934, below.)
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 639
Lahille, F.—Coutinued
1928. Vestigios griegos en el idioma de los Oonas. La trinidad humana y
el blas6n de la humanidad. Physis, vol. 9, No. 32, p. 124.
1929, Algunas ensenanzas del idioma de los Aonas. Buenos Aires.
1934. Mat^riaux pour servir a I'histoire des Oonas. An. Soc. Cient. Argen-
tina, vol. 117, pp. 38-47, 81-92. {See also Lahille, 1926, above.)
Landsteiner, K., and Levine, P.
1927. Further observations on individual differences of human blood. Proc.
Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., vol. 24, pp. 600, 941.
Lane, John.
1943. The geographic distribution of Sabethini (Dipt., Culicidae). Rev.
Entom. Sao Paulo, vol. 14, fasc. 3, pp. 409-429.
Lange, Algot.
1914. The lower Amazon. New York and London.
Larco Hoyle, Rafael.
1938-39. Los Mochicas. 2 vols. (Vol. 1, 1938; vol. 2, 1939.) Lima.
1944. La escritura peruana pre-Inca. El Mexico Antiguo, 6, Nos. 7-8, pp.
219-238. Mexico.
Lares, Jose Ignacio.
1918. Andes venezolanos. Vocabularios. De Re Indica, vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
35-36.
Larra5Jaga, Damaso, Antonio.
1924 a. Gramdtica ablpona, Escritos de Don Ddmaso Antonio Larranaga.
Vol. 3, pp. 177-210. (5 vols., 1922-30.) Instituto Hist6rico y
Geogrdfico del Uruguay. Montevideo.
1924 b. Compendio del idioma chand,. Escritos de Don Ddmaso Antonio
Larranaga. Vol. 3, pp. 161-174. Instituto Hist6rico y Geogrdfico
del Uruguay. Montevideo.
See also Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1922.
Larsbn, J. M. See Febres, A., 1882.
Lasch, Richard.
1901. Die Verstiimmlung der Zahne in Amerika und Bemerkungen zur
Zahndeformierung im Allgemeineu. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien,
vol. 31, pp. 13-22.
Latcham, Ricardo E.
1903. Notes on some ancient Chilian skulls and other remains. Rev. Chilena
Hist. Nat. vol. 7, pp. 203-217.
1904 a. Notes on some ancient Chilian skulls, and other remains. Journ.
Anthrop. Inst. Great Britain Ireland, vol. 34, pp. 234r-256.
1904 b. Notes on the physical characteristics of the Araucanos. Journ.
Anthrop. Inst. Great Britain Ireland, vol. 34, pp. 170-180.
1904 c. Notes on some ancient Chilian skulls. Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat., vol.
8, pp. 153-159.
1909. Antropologia Chilena. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 16 (2nd ser., vol. 3),
pp. 241-318.
1910. iQuienes eran los Changes? An. Univ. Chile., vol. 126, ano 68, pp.
25-439, Marzo-Abril.
1911. Antropologia Chilena. Trabajos del Cuarto Congreso Cientlfico (1°
Pan-Americano) celebrado en Santiago de Chile del 25 de Diciembre
de 1908 al 5 de Enero de 1909, vol. 14, pp. 24-84.
1912. Los crdneos de paredes gruesas. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., ano 2,
vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 346-358.
640 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Latcham, Ricardo E,—Continued
1915 a. Una estaci6n paleolitica en Taltal. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr.,
ano 5, vol. 14, No. 18, pp. 85-106.
1915 b. Bibliographia chilena de ciencias antropol6gicas. Rev. Bibl. Chilena
Extran., 3rd year, Nos. 6-7.
1922. Los animales dom6sticos de la America precolombiana. Publ. Mus.
Etnol. Antrop. Chile, vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-199.
1926. Los Indios de Copiap6 y Coquimbo. Rev. Univ. Cat. Chile, ano 11.
1928. La prehistoria chilena. Santiago.
1936 a. Atacameno archaeology. Anaer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 38, No. 4,
pp. 609-619.
1936 b. La agricultura precolombiana en Chile y los paises vecinos. San-
tiago.
1937. Deformaci6n del crdneo en la regi6n de los Atacamenos y Diaguitas.
An. Mus. Arg. Ciene. Nat., "Bernardino Rivadavia," vol. 39,
Publ. No. 79, pp. 105-123.
1938. Las ciencias antropol6gicas en Chile, Ziet. Rassenk., vol. 7., No. 1,
pp. 85-86.
1939 a. La edad de piedra en Taltal. Bol. Mus. Nac. Chile, vol. 17.
1939 b. Los primitivos habitantes de Chile. Direcci6n General de Prisiones.
Santiago.
1942. Antropogeografia del norte de Chile. Bol. Mus. Nac. Chile., vol. 20,
pp. 5-18.
Latham, R. G.
1851. Note upon the languages of Central America. Journ. Roy. Geogr.
Soc, vol. 20, pp. 189-190.
Lattes, L.
1932. The individuality of the blood. London.
Laurta, S. de
1922. El "Anthropodus" de Miramar. Estudios, vol. 23, pp. 33-36. Buenos
Aires.
Leakey, L. S. B.
1926. Stone Age Africa. Oxford.
Leal, O.
1895. Viagem a um pais de selvagens. Lisbon.
Lebzelter, Viktor.
1925. Ein Onashadel aus Feuerland. Zur Frage des Vorkommens eines Aus-
traloiden Rassenelementes in Siid-Amerika. Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924, vol. 2, pp. 422-434.
1933. Altindianische Schadel aus den Sambaquis bon Iguape bei Santos.
Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 63, pp. 326-333.
See also Gusinde, Martin, and Lebzelter, Viktor.
Leclerc, Charles. See Adam, Lucien, and Leclerc, Charles.
Leeris, Joane Burundo.
1592. Navigation in Brasilian America. In Bry, Theodor, Los Grandes
Viajes, III Parte, pp. 250-266. Francofurti ad Moenum Frankfort-
on-Main.
Lehmann, Henri.
1945. Un confesionario en lengua Paez de Pitayo. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac,
vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-13. Bogotd.
Lehmann, Henri, Duqtje G6mez, Luis, and Fornaguera, M.
1943. Grupos sangufneos entre los indios Guambiano-Kokonuko. Rev.
Inst. Etnol. Nac, vol. 1, pp. 197-208.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 641
Lehmann, Walter.
1910 a. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Indianersprachen Costa Rica's nach eigenen
Aufnahmen. Proc, Congr. Int. Amer., Wien, 1908, Sess. 16, vol.
2, pp. 627-644.
1910 b. Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise in Mittelamerika und Mexico
1907-1909. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 42, pp. 687-749.
1914. Vokabular der Rama-sprache nebst grammatischen abriss
. . . Ab-
handl. Philos.-Philol. Hist. CI. Akad. Wissen, vol. 28, No. 2.
1915. tlber die Stellung und Verwandschaft der Subtiaba-Sprache der Pazi-
fischen Kiiste Nicaraguas und die Sprache von Tapachula in Siid-
chiapas. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 47, pp. 1-34.
1920. Zentral-Amerika. Die Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas. 2 vols. Berlin.
Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert.
1898 a. El medico mds antiguo de la Republica Argentina. Primera Re-
uni6n del Congreso Cientifico Latino Americano, celebrada en
Buenos Aires del 10 al 20 de Abril de 1898, vol. 4, 3» seccion (Ciencias
M^dicas), pp. 363-365.
1898 b. iHa existido la lepra en America en la 6poca precolombiana? Pri-
mera Reuni6n del Congreso Cientifico Latino Americano, cele-
brada en Buenos Aires del 10 al 20 de Abril de 1898, vol. 4, 3*
secci6n (Ciencias M^dicas), pp. 365-368.
1899 a. j.Lepra Precolombiana? Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 9, pp. 337-370.
1899 b. Quelques observations nouvelles sur les indiens Guayaquis du Para-
guay. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 9, pp. 399-408.
1900. Altpatagonische Schadel mit eigenthiimlichen Verletzungen, wahr-
scheinlich Nage-Spuren. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Eth-
nol. Urg., pp. 547-566.
1902 a. Noch einiges zu den verstiimmelten peruanischen Thonfiguren und
ein Amputationsstumpf aneinem Gefasse aus Alt-Peru. Verhandl.
Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 341-343.
1902 b. Weitere Angaben viber die altpatagonischen Schadel aus dem
Museum zu La Plata. Verhandl. Berlin. Gessell. Anthrop.
Ethnol. Urg., pp. 343-350.
1902 c. Trois cranes, un trdpand, un lesionn6, un perfor(5, conserves au
Musee de La Plata et au Musee National de Buenos Aires. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 10, pp. 3-42.
1903. La arthritis deformans de los antiguos Patagones. Contribuci6n
d la Antropo-Patologia. Rev. Sud-Amer. Cienc. Med. Farm.,
vol. 1, pp. 3-5.
1904 a. La arthritis deformans de los antiguos Patagones. Contribuci6n
d la Antropo-Patologia. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 11, pp. 199-
203.
1904 b. Altpatagonische, angeblich syphilitische Knochen aus dem Museum
zu La Plata. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 36, pp. 854-862.
1904 c. Sammlung Boggiani von Indianertypen aus dem Zentralen Siid-
amerika. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 36, pp. 882-885.
1904 d. Braquifalangia de la mano derecha con sindactilia parcial del fndice
y dedo medio, observada en una India Ona de la Tierra del Fuego
Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 11, pp. 205-210.
1904 e. Etudes anthropologiques sur les Indiens Takshik (Groupe Guaicuru)
du Chaco Argentin. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 11, pp. 263-313.
1904 f. La Coleccion Boggiani de Tipos indigenas de Sudam^rica Central.
Photo card collection. Buenos Aires.
642 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert—Continued
1908 a. Estudios antropol6gicos sobre los Chiriguanos, Chorotes, Matacos
y Tobas (Chaco occidental). An. Mus. La Plata, vol. 1, entrega
2a (ser. 2).
1908 b. Relevamiento antropol6gico de una India Guayaquf. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 15 (ser. 2, vol. 2), pp. 91-101.
1910. Catdlogo de la Secci6n Antropol6gica del Museo de la Plata. Buenos
Aires.
1910-11. Vocabulario Chorote 6 Solote (Chaco occidental). Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 17 (ser. 2, vol. 4), pp. 111-130.
1912 a. Las obras lingiiisticas de Theophilus Schmid, sobre el idioma Patag6n
o Tehuelche, recien publicadas. Congr. Int. Amer., Buenos Aires,
1910, Sess. 17, pp. 224-226. Buenos Aires.
1912 b. El grupo Tshon de los pafses magalldnicos. Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, pp. 226-227.
1913. El grupo lingiiistico Tshon de los territorios magallanicos. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 22 (ser. 2, vol. 9), pp. 217-276.
1916 a. Dos crdneos Matacos. An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires,
vol. 28, pp. 253-255.
1916 b. Etudes anthropologiques sur les Indiens Ona (Groupe Tshon) de la
Terra de Feu. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 23, pt. 2 (ser. 2, vol. 10),
pp. 174-184.
1916 c. Relevamiento antropol6gico de una India Yagan. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 23, pt. 2 (ser. 2, vol. 10), pp. 185-187.
1916 d. Relevamiento antropoldgico de dos Indios Alacaluf. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 23, pt. 2 (ser. 2, vol. 10), pp. 188-191.
1916 e. Relevamiento antropol6gico de tres Indios Tehuelche. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 23, pt. 2 (ser. 2, vol. 10), pp. 192-195.
1918 a. El grupo lingiiistico Het de la pampa argentina. Sinopsis preliminar.
An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 85, pp. 324-327.
1918 b. El grupo lingiiistico Alakaluf de los canales magalldnicos. An. Soc.
Cient. Argentina, vol. 86, pp. 215-219.
1921. El grupo lingiiistico Alakaluf de los canales magalMnicos. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 25 (ser. 3, vol. 1), pp. 15-69.
1922. El grupo lingiiistico "Het" de la pampa argentina. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 27 (ser. 3, vol. 3), pp. 10-85.
1923. El grupo lingiiistico Tshon de los territorios magalMnicos; sinopsis
preliminar. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 96, pp. 209-211.
1924. Bases para la toponimia indigena de la Patagonia. Bol. Inst. Invest.
Hist. Buenos Aires, 2* ann(5e, Nos. 17-18, pp. 241-248, Mars-Abril.
1925 a. Vocabulario Toba (Rfo Pilcomayo y Chaco oriental) con bibliograffa
y una Mmina. Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba, vol. 28, fasc. 2,
pp. 179-196.
1925 b. Das Chechehet, eine isolierte und ausgestorbene, bisher unbekannte
Sprache der argentinischen Pampa. Congr. Int. Am^r., Sess. 21,
part 2, Goteborg, 1924, pp. 581-583. Goteborg.
1926. Vocabulario Mataco (chaco salteiio) con bibliografla. Bol. Acad.
Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba, vol. 28, fasc. 3-4, pp. 251-266.
1927. Estudios antropol6gicos sobre los Onas (Tierra del Fuego) . An. Mus.
La Plata, ser. 2, vol. 2, pp. 57-99.
1930 a. El idioma chechehet (Pampa bonaerense) . Nombres propios. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol. 32, pp. 277-291.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 643
Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert—Continued
1930 b. Toponimia colonial rioplatense: Chascomus. Azul, vol. 1. (Tirage
k part.)
1930 c. Un crdneo patag6n. Con pinturas geom^tricas en rojo y negro
procedente de San Bias (Costa Atldntica). Rev. Mus. La Plata,
vol. 32, pp. 293-297.
1936-37. Die sprachliche Stellung der Choropf (Gran Chaco). Zeit. EthnoL,
vol. 68, pp. 118-124, 303-304.
See also Hunziker, J. F., 1910; and Schmid, T., 1912 a.
Leigh, R. Wood.
1937. Dental morphology and pathology of pre-Spanish Peru. Amer. Journ.
Phys. Anthrop., vol. 22, pp. 267-296.
Lemos, R. Gustave.
1920. Semdntica o ensayo de lexicografia ecuatoriana, con un apendice sobre
nombres nacionales compuestos de raices quichuas. Guayaquil.
Lemos Barbosa, A.
1937. O locativo tupi na toponfmia brasileira. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao
Paulo, 4" ann^e, vol. 38, pp. 57-60.
Lengerke, Geo. von.
1878 a. Palabras del dialecto de los indios del Opone. Zeit. Ethnol., vol.
10, p. 306.
1878 b. Palabras indias dictadas por un indio de la tribu de Carare. Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 10, p. 306.
Lenz, Rodolfo.
1895-97. Estudios araucanos. An. Univ. Chile, vol. 90 (1895), pp. 359-385,
843-878; vol. 91 (1895), pp. 195-241; vol. 93 (1896), pp. 427-438,
507-555; vol. 94 (1896), pp. 96-120, 245-262, 691-719, 841-865;
vol. 97 (1897), pp. 331-352, 491-504, 623-662; vol. 98 (1897),
pp. 177-185, 188-207, 301-338, 499-525, 739-777.
1904-05. Los elementos indios del castellano de Chile. Estudio lingiifstico
y etno]6gico. Santiago.
1904-10. Diccionario etimol6jico de las voces chilenas derivadas de lenguas
indijenas americanas. 2 vols. Santiago.
See also Moesbach, E. W. de, 1936.
Le6n, AgustIn M.
1922. Explicaci6n catequetica en Quichua. Quito.
1927. Explicaci6n catequetica en el Quichua de Canelos. Quito.
1928-29. Breve vocabulario de las principales lenguas que se hablan en los
diferentes pueblos y jibarias de la Prefectura Apost61ica de Cane-
los y Macas. El Oriente Dominicano, vol. 1, 1928, p. 87; vol.
2, 1929, p. 21. Quito.
1929. Doctrina cristiana escrita y arreglada por el Rmo. p. Fr.-, O. P., segdn
el dialecto quichua de Canelos. Ambato, Ecuador.
1929-31. Explicaci6n catequetica en quichua. El Oriente Dominicano, vol.
2, 1929, pp. 63-64, 102-104, 137-140; vol. 3, 1930, pp. 24-27,
66-67, 111-113, 149, 151, 181-184; vol. 4, 1931, p. 106, Quito.
1930 a. Breve elenco de idiomas orientales. El Oriente Dominicano, vol. 3,
pp. 15-16. Quito.
1930 b. Comparacion del shimigae con el zdparo. El Oriente Dominicano,
vol. 3, pp. 207-208. Quito.
794711—50 42
644 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Le6n, AgustIn M.—Continued
1932-33. Doctrina cristiana, escrita y arreglada por el Romo. Padre Fray-
segun el dialecto quichua de Canelos. El Oriente Dominicano,
vol. 5, 1932, pp. 10, 61, 82, 130-131, 166; vol. 6, 1933, pp. 8, 70.
Quito.
1939. Vocabulario de palabras quichuas generalmente habladas por los indl-
genas en la misi6n del Oriente dominicano (suite). El Oriente
Dominicano, vol. 12, pp. 115-116. Quito.
1939-40. Compendio de gramdtica quichua (suite). El Oriente Dominicano,
vol. 12, pp. 240-242; vol. 13, pp. 12-14, 64-66. Quito.
Leon, J. A.
1939. Algunas consideraciones sobre los camelidos de los Andes. Bol. Mus.
Hist. Nat. "Javier Prado," vol. 3, No. 11, pp. 95-105.
L^RY, Jean de.
1599. Histoire d'un voyage fait en la terre du Bresil, autrement dite Am6-
rique. Geneve. (Nouvelle edition avec une introduction et des
notes par Paul Gafifarel, Paris, 1880.)
Levine, p. See Landsteiner, K., and Levine, P.
Ley, Willy.
1941. The lungfish and the unicorn. An excursion into romantic zoology.
Modern Age. New York.
LiLLo, Samuel A.
1928. Ercilla y la Araucana, An. Univ. Chile, 2« serie, vol. 6, pp. 59-116,
529-598.
Lima Junior, Andrade. See Ferraz, A., and Lima Junior, A.
Lima Junior, Andrade, and Ignacio, Luiz.
1939. Alguns Aspectos da Morfo-Fisiologia do Escolar Recifense. Of. graf.
do "Journal do Comercio." Recife, Pernambuco.
Linn:^, Sigvald.
1940. Dental decoration in aboriginal America. Ethnos, vol. 5, pts. 1-2,
pp. 2-28.
Lissauer, a.
1904 a. Schadel eines Schokl(5ng aus Santa Catharina, Brasilien. Zeit.
EthnoL, vol. 36, pp. 844-847.
1904 b. Schadel eines Bugre aus Blumenau, Santa Catharina, Brasilien.
Zeit. EthnoL, vol. 36, pp. 847-852.
LisTA, Ramon.
1883. El territorio de las Misiones. Buenos Aires.
1887. Viaje al pais de los Onas: Tierra del Fuego. Buenos Aires.
1896. Lenguas argentinas: Los Tehuelches de la Patagonia. An. Soc. Cient.
Argentina, vol. 42, pp. 35-43.
LiZONDO BORDA, MaNUEL.
1927. Estudios de voces tucumanas. I. Voces tucumanes derivadas del
Quichua. Publ. Univ. Nac. Tucumd,n.
1928. El Quichua de Santiago. La Brasa, 2« ann^e, n° 4, pp. 1-2.
1938. Tucuman indigena; diaguitas, lules y tonocotes, pueblos y lenguas
(siglo xvi). Publicaci6n Especial No. 2, Instituto de Historia,
Lingiilstica y Folklore, Departamento de Investigaciones Regionales,
Universidad Nacional de Tucumdn. Tucumdn, Argentina.
Llisa, F. P. DE. See Pinart, A. L., and Carranza, Eds, 1890.
Llosa, Enrique S.
1906. Tribu de los Arazaires. Algunas voces de su dialecto. Bol. Soc.
Geogr. Lima, vol. 19, pp. 302-306.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 645
LoAYZA, Francisco A.
1930. Una ortografia para los idiomas indfgenas. El Comercio, 17 julio.
Lima.
LOBO DA SiLVA, ArTUR.
1928. A antropologfa no exercito Brasileiro. Arquiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de
Janeiro, vol. 30, pp. 1-209.
Lopes, Raimundo.
1925. Les Indians Arikemes. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924,
pt. 2, pp. 630-642.
1934. Os Tupis do Gurupy. (Ensaio comparativo.) Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 25, La Plata, 1932, vol. 1, pp. 139-171. Buenos Aires.
Lopez Aranguren, Dolores J.
1930. Camelidos f6siles argentinos. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 109,
pp. 15-35, 97-126.
LoRENA, Antonio.
1911. Algunos materiales para la antropologia del Cuzco. Trabajos del
Cuarto Congreso Cientffico (1° Pan-Americano) , Santiago de Chile
1908-09, vol. 14, tomo 2, pp. 216-226.
LoRENz, Francisco Wladimiro.
1939. El idioma Katfo. Rev. Univ. Cat. Bolivariana, vol. 4, pp. 11-13.
Loth, Edward.
1931. Anthropologie des parties molles. Paris.
LoTHROP, Samuel Kirkland.
1928. The Indians of Tierra del Fuego. Contrib. Mus. Amer. Ind., vol. 10.
1932. Indians of the Parand, Delta, Argentina. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 33,
pp. 77-232.
LoTSY, J. P., and Kuiper, K.
1923-24. A preliminary statement of the results of Mr. Houwink's experi-
ments concerning the origin of some domestic animals. Genetica,
vol. 5, 1923, No. 1, pp. 1-50; vol. 5, 1923, No. 2, pp. 149-176;
vol. 5, 1923, Nos. 3-4, pp. 357-375; vol. 6, 1924, Nos. 2-3,
pp. 221-277.
LOUKOTKA, CeSTmIr.
1929. Le Setd, un nouveau dialecte tupi. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 21, pp. 373-398.
1929-30. Vocabularios in^ditos o poco conocidos de los idiomas Rankelche,
Guahibo, Piaroa, Toba, Pilagd, Tumanahd, Kaduveio, etc . . .
Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 1, pp. 75-106.
1930. Vocabularios in^ditos o poco conocidos de los idiomas Camakoko,
Sanapand, Angaite y Sapuki. Contribuciones a la lingufstica sud-
americana (suite). Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucuman, vol. 1,
pp. 557-592.
1931 a. Die Sprache der Zamuco und die Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse der
Chaco-Stamme. Anthropos, vol. 26, pp. 843-861. St. Gabriel-
Modling.
1931 b. Les Indiens Kukura du rio Verde, Matto Grosso, Br(3sil. Journ.
Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 23, pp. 121-125.
1931-32 a. La familia lingiiistica Masakali (estudios de lingtiistica comparada
americana). Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 2,
pp. 21-47.
1931-32 b. La familia lingiiistica Kamakan del Brasil (segunda parte del
estudio de los Ze). Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn,
vol. 2, pp. 493-524.
646 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
LotTKOTKA, CestmIr—Continued
1933. Nouvelle contribution h I'etude de la vie et du language des Kaduveo.
Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 25, pp. 251-277.
1935. Clasificaci6n de las lenguas sudamericanas. Edici6n "Lingiifstica
sudamericana," N° 1. Prague.
1937. La familia lingiifstica Coroado. Journ. Soc. Am4r. Paris, n. s., vol.
29, pp. 157-214.
1938. Observaciones sobre la lengua de los Indios Guayaberos. Idearium,
2« ann^e, pp. 15-17. Pasto, Colombia.
1939 a. Linguas indigenas do Brazil. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo,
vol. 54, pp. 147-174.
1939 b. Intrusi6n de los idiomas centroamerlcanos en la America del Sur.
An, Univ. Narino, 2« serie, No. 2, pp. 243-264.
1939 c. A lingua dos Patachos. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 5« ann^e,
vol. 55, pp. 5-15.
LowiE, Robert H.
1933. Selk'nam kinship terms. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 35, pp. 546-548.
LowRiE, Samuel Harman.
1938. O elemento negro na populagao de Sao Paulo. Rev. Arquiv. Mun.
Sao Paulo, vol. 48, pp. 5-56.
LozANO, Pedro.
1941. Descripci6n corogrdfica del Gran Chaco Gualamba. Publ. Univ. Nac.
Tucumdn, No. 288.
LozANO Machuca, Juan.
1885. Carte del factor de Potosi Juan Lozano Machuca al Virey del Peril, en
donde se describe la provincia de los Lipes. In Rel. Geogr. Indias,
vol. 2, apendice No. 3, p. 21 et seq.
LUDEWIG, H. E.
1858. The literature of American aboriginal languages. London.
Lugo, Fray Bernardo.
1619. Gramdtica de la lengua general del Nuevo Reino, llamada Mosca.
Madrid.
Lund, P. W. See Mattos, Anibal, 1935; Lutken, C. F., 1884, 1888.
LUSCHAN, F. VON.
1896. Defecte des Os tympanicum an kiinstlich deformierten Schadeln von
Peruanern. Verhandl. BerUn Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp.
69-74.
LtJTKEN, ChR. Fr.
1884. Des cranes et des autres ossenments humains de Minas Gera^s dans
le Brcsil Central, decouverts et d6terr4s par le feu Professeur P. W.
Lund. Congr. Int. Am^r., Sess. 5, Copenhagen, 1883, pp. 40-48.
1888. Indledende Bemaerkninger om Menneskelevninger i Brasiliens Huler
og i de Lundske Semlinger, etc. E Museo Lundii, vol. 1, No. 4,
pp. 1-29. Copenhagen.
Lydekker, Richard.
1896. A geographic history of mammals. Cambridge.
Maccagno, Luis.
1932. Los auchenidos peruanos; publicaci6n del Ministerio de Fomento,
Direcci6n de agricultura y ganaderia, secci6n de defensa y propo-
ganda. Lima.
MacCurdy, George Grant.
1918. Surgery among the ancient Peruvians. Art and Archaeology, vol, 7.
No. 9, pp. 381-394.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 647
MacCurdy, George Grant—Continued
1923. Human skeletal remains from the highlands of Peru. Amer. Journ.
Phys. Anthrop., vol. 6, pp. 217-329.
MacDonagh, Emiliano J.
1940. Observaciones sobre guanacos cruzados con llamas en Barreto (Cor-
doba). Rev. Mus. La Plata, n. s., vol. 2 (zooL, 10), pp. 63-84.
Macedo y Pastor, Celso.
1931-35. La esfinge. Coni Pacha Camaj ilia wirakocha pascha yachachij
tijsi tijsi capaj a la luz de la ciencia lingiifstica. Rev. Hist.
Lima, vol. 9, pp. 357-380.
1936. Una hermosa poesia en quechua. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 10, pp.
284-288.
1939.
. . . Disquisiciones filol6gicas sobre terminos mfticos de los Incas.
Lima.
Machado d'Oliveira, J. J.
1936. Vocabulario elementar da lingua geral brasilica. Rev. Arquiv. Mun.
Sao Paulo, 3« ann^e, vol. 25, pp. 129-174.
Machoni de CerdeS^a, Antonio.
1732. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua Lule, y Tonocot6 compuestos con
Facultad de sus Superiores . . . Madrid. (Reprinted in Buenos
Aires in 1877 by P. E. Coni.)
1894. Calepino Lule-Castellano. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 15,
pp. 305-385.
See also Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1894.
Mackie, W. W.
1943. Origin, dispersal, and variability of the lima bean, Phaseolus lunatus.
Hilgardia, vol. 15, No. 1.
Madoo, R. M, See Boza Barducci, Teodoeo, and Madoo, R. M.
Maduejjo, C. Gutierrez.
1912. Monografia de la vicuna. Cuarto Congreso Cientffico (1° Pan-
americana), Santiago de Chile, 1908, Trabajos de la IX secci6n:
agronomia y zootecnia, vol. 16, tomo 2, pp. 5-30. Santiago de
Chile.
Magalhaes, BAsfLio de.
1919. Vocabulario da Kngua dos Bororos-Coroados do Estado de Mato-
Grosso. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 83 (1918), pp. 5-67.
Magalli, Jose M.
1890. Colecci6n de cartas sobre las misiones dominicanas del Oriente. (2»
ed.) Quito.
1891. Cart6n en lengua Jibara para la Misi6n de Macas. Riobamba.
(Reprinted, 1912, by Rodolfo Schuller.)
Magic, P. Antonio.
1880. Arte de la lengua de los indios Baures de la provincia de los Moxos.
Bibl. Ling. Am^r. Paris, vol. 7.
See also Adam, Lucien, and Leclerc, Charles, Eds.
Maglio, B.
1890. La lengua Atacama. Santiago.
Mahn, E.
1933. Anatomia del reci^n nacido. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 1.
Maldonado, a. See ValdizXn, Hermilio, and Maldonado, Angel.
Maldonado de Matos, Manuel.
1918 a. Vocabulario de la lengua Szinca. Edici6n Fotostdtica. Boston.
1918 b. Arte de la Lengua Szinca. Edici6n Fotostdtica. Boston.
648 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
MALf , Jifif.
1926. Umele deformovane lebky z Tiahuanaco v Bolivii. (Artificially
deformed skulls from Tiahuanhaco in Bolivia—In Czech with
French r^sum^). Anthropologic, vol. 4, pp. 251-348. Prague.
1928. La deformation artificielle du crane et son influence sur la morphologie
de I'orbite. Inst. Int. Anthrop., sess. 3, Amsterdam, 1927, pp.
133-139.
Mamiani, Luiz Vincencio.
1877. Arte de gramd,tica de lingua brasilica da nagao Kiriri. Rio de Janeiro.
Mangelsdorf, Paul Christopher, and Reeves, R. G.
1939. The origin of Indian corn and its relatives. Bulletin 574, Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station. College Station, Tex.
Mangelsdorf, Paul Christopher, and Cameron, James W.
1942. . . . Western Guatemala a secondary center of origin of cultivated
maize varieties. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University,
vol. 10, No. 8. Cambridge, Mass.
Manizer (Maniser), Henri Henrihovitch.
1919. Les Botocudos d'apres les observations receuillies pendant un s6jour
chez eux en 1915. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 22, pp.
243-273.
Manouvrier, Leonce.
1881. Sur les Fuegiens du Jardin d'Acclimatation. Bull. Soc. Anthrop.
Paris, 3d ser., vol. 4, pp. 760-774.
1883. Sur les Araucans du Jardin d'Acclimatation. Bull. Soc. Anthrop.
Paris, 3d ser., vol. 6, pp. 727-732.
1889. Note sur les effets d'une deformation artificielle du crane chez un
nouveau—n^ Bolivien. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 3d ser., vol.
12, pp. 567-572.
Manrique, Julio.
1937. Datos para la antropologia colombiana. Revista del Colegio Mayor de
Nuestra Senora del Rosario, vol. 32, No. 311, pp. 67-78. Bogotd,
Colombia.
Mantegazza, Paolo.
1886. La Trapanazione dei Cranii nell'Antico Peru. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol.,
vol. 16, pp. 99-109.
Mantegazza, Paola, and Regalia, Ettore.
1886. Studio sopra una serie di crani di Fuegini. Archiv. Antrop. EtnoL,
vol. 16, pp. 463-515.
Marangoni, Matted E.
1907. Ricerche sul Perone. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 37, pp. 305-320.
Marban, Pedro.
1894. Arte de la lengua Moxa con un vocabulario y cathecismo . . . publicado
de nuevo par Julio Platzmann. Ed. facsimilar. Leipzig.
Marbut, C. F.
1924. Physiographia e solos: Brasil, Com. Bras, junto a Missao Of. Norte-
Amer. de Estudos do Valle do Amazonas, Relatorio. Pt. 2, Cap. 2
and 3, pp. 372-416. Rio de Janeiro.
Marcano, G.
1890 a. Ethnographic pr^colombienne du Venezuela; Indiens Piaroas et
Guahibos. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 4th ser., vol. 1, pp. 857-865.
1890 b. Ethnographie pr^colombienne du Venezuela. Indiens Goajires,
Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 4th ser., vol. 1, pp. 883-895.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 649
Marcano, G.—Continued
1891. Ethnographic pr^colombienne du Venezuela. Note sur les Cuicas et
les Timotes. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 4th ser., vol. 2, pp. 238-254.
1893 a. Ethnographie pr^colombienne du Venezuela. Valines d'Aragua et de
Caracas. Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 2d ser., vol. 4, pp. 1-86,
1893 b. Ethnographie pr^colombienne du Venezuela. Region des Raudals
de rOr^noque. M6m. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 2d ser., vol. 4, pp.
99-218.
Marcgrav de Liebstad, Georg.
1648. Historiae rerum naturalium Brasiliae libri octo . . . cum appendice de
Tapuyis, et Chilensibus. In Historia naturalis Brasiliae. Leyden
and Amsterdam. (Portuguese trans., Sao Paulo, 1942).
See also Piso, Gulielmus, and Marcggravi de Liebstad, George.
Marcoy, Paul.
1867. Voyage de I'oc^an Pacifique a I'ocean Atlantique a travers de 1'Am6rique
du Sud. Le Tour du Monde, vol. 15. Paris. (Vol. 14 publ. 1866;
other ed., 2 vols., Paris, 1869.)
1875. Travels in South America from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic
Ocean. 2 vols. London.
Mardones B., Carlos.
1937. Contribucion al estudio de la antropologfa Chilena. VIII: Observa-
ciones somatol^gicas e histol6gicas acerca de la mancha mong61ica
en la poblacion Chilena. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 11, pp.
2&-43.
Marelli, Carlos A.
1909. La complicaci6n y sinostosis de las suturas del crdneo cerebral de los
primitivos habitantes de la Republica Argentina. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 16 (ser. 2, vol. 3), pp. 353-487.
1912. Craneologia de los Antiguos Patagones enterrados en el Valle Del
Rfo Negro. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, pp.
156-160.
1913 a. Contribuci6n d la craneologia de las primitivas poblaciones de la
Patagonia. An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 26, pp.
31-91.
1913 b. Observaciones referentes 6. los huesos supernumerarios del crdneo
cerebral. Bol. Soc. Physis, vol. 1, pp. 278-283.
1931. Los vertebrados exhibidos en los zoologicos del Plata. Mem. Jardfn
Zool. La Plata, vol. 4, pp. 1-274.
Marguin, G.
1875. La Terre de Feu. Bull. Soc. G4ogr. Paris, ser. 6, vol. 10.
Maria, Antonio.
1914. Essai de grammaire kaiap6, langue des Indiens kaiap6, Br^sil. Anthro-
pos, vol. 9, pp. 233-240. Wien.
Markham, Clements Robert.
1864 a. Contributions towards a grammar and dictionary of Quichua.
London.
1864 b. Introduction to translation of Cieza de Le6n: La Cr6nica del Perfi.
Hakluyt Soc, vol. 33. London.
1871. On the geographical positions of the tribes which formed the Empire
of the Yncas. Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 41, pp. 281-338.
650 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. BulH43
Markham, Clements Robert—Continued
1894-95. A list of the tribes in the valley of the Amazon, including those on
the banks of the main streams and of all its tributaries. Journ.
Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Or. Brit. Ireland, vol. 24, pp. 236-284.
(Later ed. Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol.
40, pp. 73-140, 1910.)
See also Cieza de Le6n, P. de, 1864; Garcilaso de la Vega (El Inca),
1723.
Marli^re, Guido Thomaz.
1825 a. Idiomas ou Knguas dos Indios. Lingua Botocudo. Abelha do
Itaculumy, no. 15 de fevereiro. Ouro Preto, Brazil.
1825 b. Vocabuldrio das tribus de Botocudos, apelidadas Krakmun, Pajau-
rum e Naknamuk, habitantes nas vertentes [do rio Doce e
Gequitinhonha. Abelha do Itaculumy, nos. de 29 de abril a
27. Ouro Preto, Brazil.
MS. Vocabulario portugues-botocudo. (Manuscrito original e in^dito na
Biblioteca Nacional do Rio de Janeiro).
Marques, Buenventura.
1903. Vocabulario de los idiomas indicos conocidos por Cunibos y Pando 6.
S6teba. Trabajado por el R. P. Predicador Apost61ico J. Fr.
Buenaventura Marques, obsequiado por D. Jos6 Maria de C6rdova
y Urrutia en el ano de 1848. Gaceta Cientifica, ano 14, No. 8
Lima.
See also Romero, C. A., 1931.
1931. Fragmentos del arte del idioma conivo, setevo, sipivo y casivo o comavo,
que hablan los Indios asf llamados, que residen a las mdrgenes del
famoso rio Paro, alias Ucayali, y de sus tributarios Manoa, Cushi-
batay, Pisqui, Aguaytia y Pachitea. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 9, pp.
117-228.
Marquez Miranda, Fernando.
1943. Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia. Rev. Mus. La Plata,
vol. 2, p. 190 ff.
1944. Un importante hallazgo para la lingliistica aborfgen. Rel. Soc. Argen-
tina Antrop., vol. 4, pp. 193-229.
Martial, Louis F.
1888. Mission scientifique du cap Horn, 1882-83. Vol. 1, Histoire du
voyage. Paris.
Martin, Rudolf.
1892. Ein Beitrag zur Osteologie der Alakaluf. Viertel. Naturf. Gesell.
Ziirich, vol. 37, pp. 302-313.
1893-94. Zur physischen anthropologie der Feuerlander. Archiv. Anthrop.,
vol. 22, pp. 155-218. Braunschweig.
1896. Altpatagonische Schadel. Separatabdruck aus der Viertel. Naturf.
Gesell. Zurich, vol. 41, pp. 496-537.
[1902?] Wandtafeln fur den Unterricht in Anthropologie, Ethnologie und
Geographic. 3 vols. Zurich.
1928. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematisches Darstellung mit beson-
derer Berucksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden fiir
Studierende, Arzte und Forschungsreisende. 2d. ed. 3 vols. Jena.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 651
MartInez, Benigno Teixeira.
1904. Os indios Guayanas. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 6, pp. 45-52.
1917. EI Tavantisiiyu. Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, 4« ann^e, vol. 2, pp. 3-64.
1919. Elementos de clasificaci6ii y ubicaci6n de las tribus del rio de la Plata,
en el perfodo colonial 1516-1810. Rev. Univ. Nac. C6rdoba, 6«
ann^e, n<" 9-10.
MARTfNEZ, T. Alfredo.
1916. Orfgenes y leyes del lenguaje aplicadas al idioma guaranf. Buenos
Aires.
MartInez del Rio, Pablo.
1936. Los orfgenes americanos. Mexico, D. F. (2d ed., 1943.)
MARTfNEZ Orozco, Josf:.
1938. Origen del "che." 11° Congreso internacional de historia de America
reunido en Buenos Aires en los dias 5 a 14 de julio de 1937, vol. 3,
pp. 678-686. Acadernia Nacional de la Historia. Buenos Aires.
Martius, Karl Friedrich Philipp von.
1823-50. Historia Naturalis Palmarum. 3 vols. Leipzig.
1824-32. Nova Genera et Species Plantarum. 3 vols. Munich.
1824. Specimen materiae medicae brasiliensis. Denk. Math.-Phys. Cl.
K. Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich, vol. 9.
1840-1906. Flora brasiliensis. 45 vols. Munich and Leipzig.
1847. Palmetum Orbignianum. In D'Orbigny, Voyage dans TAmerique
Meridonale, 1847, vol. 7, p. 3.
1858. Nomina Plantarum in Lingua Tupi.
1867. Beitrage zur Ethnographic und Sprachenkunde Amerika's, zumal
Brasiliens. 2 vols. Leipzig.
1939. . . . Natureza, doengas, medicina e remedios dos indios brasileiros
(1844) . . . Sao Paulo. (Reproduction of original, "Das naturell,
die krankheiten, das arztthum und die heilmittel der urbewohner
Brasiliens . . ." Munich, 1844.)
Martyr, Peter. See Anghiera, Pietro Martire d'.
Mason, Gregory.
1940. South of Yesterday. New York.
Mason, J. Alden.
1940. The native languages of Middle America. In The Maya and their
neighbors, pp. 52-87. New York.
1945. The status and problems of research in the native languages of South
America. Science, vol. 101, No. 2620.
Mason, Otis T.
1885. The Chaclacayo trephined skull. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., pp. 410-412.
Massei, El Padre Inocencio. See Lafone-Quevedo, Samuel A., 1895 b.
Mata, Fr. Pedro de la.
1923. Arte de la lengua Cholona. Inca, vol. 1, pp. 690-750.
Matallana, Fray B. de. See Armellada, Fray C. de, and Matallana,
Fray B. de.
Matienzo, Juan de.
1910. Gobierno del Peru. Obra escrita en el siglo XVI por el Licenciado
Don Juan Matienzo, Oidor de la Real Audiencia de Charcas. Ed.
J. N. Matienzo. Publ. Secc. Hist. Fac. Filos. Letr.
Matson, GxrsTAVE Albin, and Schrader, H. F.
1933. Blood grouping among the "Blackfeet" and "Blood" tribes of Ameri-
can Indians. Journ. Immunol., vol. 25, p. 155.
652 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Matta, a. a. de.
1913. Flora Medica Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro.
Matthew, William Diller.
1939. Climate and evolution. (2d ed. revised and enlarged.) Special Pub-
lication, N. Y. Acad. Sci., vol. 1.
Matto de Turner, Clotilde.
1926. Vocabulario quechua. Rev. Archiv. Santiago del Estero, vol. 6, No.
10, pp. 147-149.
Mattos, Anibal.
1935. O sabio Dr. Lund e estudos sobre a pre-historia brasileira. Bello
Horizonte.
1941. ... A raga de Lagoa-Santa; velhos e novos estudos sobre a homen
f6ssil americano. Brasiliana, Bibl. Pedag. Brasil., ser. 5", vol. 206.
Sao Paulo.
See also Walter, A. V., Cathoud, A., and Mattos, A.
Matus, L.
1912. Vida y costumbres de los indios araucanos. Rev. Chilena Hist.
Geogr., vol. 4.
Maurel, M.
1873. Etude anthropologique et ethnographique sur deux tribus d'Indiens
vivant sur les vives du Maroni. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, vol. 2,
ser. 2, pp. 369-395.
MATNTZHnSEN, F. C.
1917. Stellung der Guayaki-Indianer in der Volkerfamilie der Guaranf.
Verhandl. Schweiz. Natur. Gesell., vol. 99.
1919-20. Die Sprache der Guayaki. Zeitschrift fiir Eingeborenensprachen,
vol. 10, pp. 2-22. Berlin.
Mazza, Salvador.
1939. Los factores M y N en sangre de indfgenas del Chaco Argentino com-
parados con los de nativos de Buenos Aires. Sociedad Argentina
de Patologia Regional, Novena Reuni6n, Mendoza, 1935, vol. 3,
No. 141, pp. 1916-1918. Buenos Aires.
McGee, W J
1894. Primitive trephining, illustrated by the Muniz Peruvian collection.
Bulletin, Johns Hopkins Hospital, vol. 5, pp. 1-3. Baltimore.
1903. American Indians. New International Encyclopedia, vol. 9. New
York.
See also Muniz, M. A., and McGee, W J
McKiNNEY, H. Cromwell, Trans. See Bible, N. T. Mark. Aymara. 1930.
McMillin, Stewart E.
1927. The heart of Aymard land. Nat. Geogr. Mag., Feb., vol. 51, pp. 213-
256.
Meakins, J. C. See Barcroft, J., et al., 1923.
Means, P. A. See Montesinos, F., 1920.
Medina, Angel, Trans. See Bible, N. T. Mark. Aymara. 1930; PeSa-
RANDA, N., and Medina, A.
Medina, Josfi Tobibio.
T882. Los aborfgenes de Chile. Santiago.
1918. Fragmentos de la doctrina cristiana en lengua Millcayac del P. Luis
de Valdivia, unicos que hasta ahora se conozcan, sacados de la
edici6n de Lima, de 1607, y reimpresos en facsfmil. Vol. 36.
Santiago de Chile, Chile.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 653
Medina, Jos^ Toribio—Continued
1930 a. Bibliograffa de las lenguas Quechua y Aymard. Contrib. Mus.
Amer. Ind., vol. 7, No. 7.
1930 b. Bibliograffa de la lengua guaranf. Publ. Inst. Invest. Hist., No, 51.
Medina, MartIn.
1919-20. Nonabres indfgenas. Archive Hist6rial, vol. 2, pp. 137-144.
Manizales, Colombia.
1920-21. Nombres indigenas. Bol. Hist. Antig., vol. 8, pp. 373-374,
1920-21; Archive Hist6rial, No. 35, 1921, pp. 325-335, Manizales,
Colombia.
Mehnert, Ernst.
1893. Catalog der Anthropologischen Sammlung des Anatomischen Instituts
der Universitat Strassburg, I. E. Die Anthropologischen Samm-
lungen Deutschlands, Pt. 15.
Meigs, J. Aitken.
1857. Catalogue of human crania in the collection of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. Based upon the 3d Edition of Dr. Mor-
ton's "Catalogue of skulls," etc.
1866. Observations upon the cranial forms of the American aborigines,
based upon specimens contained in the collection of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Acad. Natur. Sci. Phila-
delphia, pp. 197-235.
Meillet, a. See Rivet, P., 1924 a.
Meillet, a., and Cohen, M.
1924. Les langues du monde. Paris.
MEjfA Xesspe, Toribio. See Poma de Ayala, Felipe Gdaman, 1939.
Mello, R. F. See Ubisch, G. von, and Mello, R. F.
Mello Leitao, C. de.
1937. Zoo-geografia do Brasil. Biblio. Pedag. Brasil., ser. 5, vol. 77, pp.
1-416.
Melo, Mario.
1927. Os Carnij6s de Aguas Belas. Di^rio de Pernambuco, 20-30 Juin;
5-6 Juillet.
1929. Os Carnij6s de Aguas Bellas. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 16, pp. 793-846.
MEMBREfJo, Alberto.
1897. Hondurenismos. Vocabulario de los provincialismos de Honduras.
(2d ed.) Tegucigalpa.
Mendes-Corr^a, Antonio Augusto.
1928. Nouville hypothese sur le peuplement primitif de I'Amdrique du Sud.
Annaes de Faculdade de Sciencias de Porto, vol. 25.
1941-46. Cranes de Sambaquis du Brdsil. L'Anthrop., vol. 50, pp. 331-364.
Mercante, V.
1924. Ollantay. Biblos. Azul, V^ annee, No. 3, Juin-Juillet, pp. 11-19.
M6REJK0WSKY, C. DE.
1882. Sur quelques cranes Am^ricains. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, ser. 3,
vol. 5, pp. 170-180.
MeRIZALDE DEL CaRMEN, BERNARDINO.
1921. Estudio de la Costa Colombiana del Paclfico. Bogotd.
654 SOUTPI AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
MiiTRAUX, Alfred.
1929. Les Indiens Waitaka (a propos d'un manuscrit in6dit du cosmographe
Andr^ Thevet). Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 21, pp. 107-126.
1930. Les Indiens Kamakan, Pataso et Kutaso d'apres le journal de route
in6dit de I'explorateur frangais J. B. Douville. Rev. Inst. Etnol.
Univ. Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 1, pp. 239-293.
1936 a. Contribution k I'ethnographie et k la linguistique des Indiens Uro
d'Ancoaqui (Bolivia). Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 28,
pp. 75-110.
1936 b. Les Indiens Uro-Cipaya de Carangas; La langue Uru. Journ. Soc.
Am6r. Paris, vol. 28, pp. 337-394.
1940. Los indios Chapakura. An. Inst. Etnogr. Amer., vol. 1.
1942 a. The native tribes of Eastern Bolivia and Western Matto-Grosso.
Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 134.
1942 b. The linguistic affinities of the Enimagd (Cochaboth) group. Amer.
Anthrop., vol. 44, pp. 720-721.
1944. "Tapirage," a biological discovery of South American Indians. Proc.
Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 252-254.
Meyer, L.
1930. Die Menschen am La Plata. Archiv. Rassen- Gesell.-Biol., vol. 22,
pp. 39^404.
Meza, F., Sanhtjeza, H., and Dussert, E.
1930. Sobre grupos sanguineos y sueros etalones. Rev. M^d. Chile, ano.
58, pp. 451-455.
Michelson, Truman.
1936. Mammoth or "stiflf-legged bear." Amer. Anthrop., vol. 38, No. 1,
Jan.-Mar., pp. 141-143.
MiDDENDORF, E. W.
1890. Worterbuch des Runa simi oder der Keshua-Sprache . . . Leipzig.
1891. Die Aimard-sprache . . . Leipzig.
1892. Das Muchik oder die Chimu-sprache . . . Leipzig.
Mies, Joseph.
1896. Die Schadel in der Grossherzoglichen Anatomischen Anstalt zu Heidel-
berg, mit Angabe der Von Herrn Geheimrath Schaaflfhausen Gemach-
ten Aufzeichungen. Die Anthropologischen Sammlung Deutsch-
lands, pt. 11.
Milanesio, Domenico.
1898. La Patagonia: lingua, industria, costumi e religione dei patagoni.
Buenos Aires.
1917. Estudios y apuntes sobre las lenguas en general y su origen divino;
particularidades sobre los idiomas de la Patagonia. Buenos Aires.
Milanesio, Domingo.
1918. Etimologfa araucana. Buenos Aires.
MiLiCE, Albert.
1922. Sur la d^couverte d'un hominien fossile dans le Br6sil central. Comptes
Rendus, Assoc. Frang. Avance. Sci., 45th Sess., Rouen, 1921, pp.
950-953. Paris.
Miller, Gerrit Smith, Jr.
1912. Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe (Europe exclusive of
Russia) in the collection of the British Museum. British Museum.
London.
1910. The teeth of a monkey found in Cuba. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol.
66, No. 13, pp. 1-3.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 655
Miller, Gerrit Smith, Jr.—Continued
1927. The rodents of the genus Plagiodontia. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol.
72, Art. 16, pp. 1-8.
1929. Mammals eaten by Indians, owls, and Spaniards in the coast region
of the Dominican Republic. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 82, No. 5,
pp. 1-16.
Miller, Gerrit Smith, Jr., and Krieger, Herbert W.
1929. Expedition to Samana Province, Dominican Republic. Explorations
and Field Work, Smithsonian Institution, 1928, pp. 43-54.
MisSAO Salesiana.
1908. Elementos de grammatica e diccionario da lingua dos Bororos. Cuiabd.
Mitre, Bartolome.
1894. Lenguas americanas. Estudio bibliogrdfico-lingiifstico de las obras del
P. Luis de Valdivia sobre el araucano y el allentfak, con un vocabu-
lario razonado del allentiak, por Bartolom^ Mitre . . . Rev. Mus.
La Plata.
1909-10. Cat^logo razonado de la secci6n lenguas americanas, Museo
Mitre. 3 vols. Buenos Aires. (Cover and colophon of
vol. 3 dated 1911.)
MocHi, Aldobrandino.
1902-03. I popoli dell Uaupe e la famillia etnica Miranha. Archiv. Antrop.
Etnol., vol. 32, pp. 437-541; vol. 33, pp. 97-130.
1912. Crani e Scheletri di Indigeni del Chaco. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 17,
Buenos Aires, 1910, pp. 161-163.
Moena, a.
1933. Frecuencia y mortalidad por tumores malignos en la Provincia de
Concepci6n. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 7, pp. 29-43.
MoESBACH, Ernesto Wilhelm de.
1929-31. Vida y costumbres de los indigenas araucanos en la segunda mitad
del siglo XIX. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol. 62, 1929, pp.
347-367; vol. 63, 1929 (1930), pp. 237-266; vol. 64, 1930, pp.
369-424; vol. 65, 1930, pp. 282-320; vol. 67, 1930 (1931), pp.
318-341; vol. 67, 1931, pp. 277-325.
1936. Vida y costumbres de los indigenas araucanos en la segunda mitad del
siglo XIX. Pr61ogo, revisi6n y notes del Dr. Rodolfo Lenz. San-
tiago.
Molina, Juan Ignacio.
1776. Compendio de la historia geografica, natural y civil del reino de Chile.
(First ed.) Bologna. (Later ed., 1878.)
1787. Saggio sulla storia civile de Chile. Bologna.
Moller-Holst, Gtjnnar.
1932. Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise nach Chile-Bolivien. 3. Der
aiissere knocherne Gehorgang siidamerikanischer Schadel. Zeit.
Morph. Anthrop., vol. 31, pp. 63-122.
Mollien, G.
1824. Voyage dans la Republique de Colombie en 1823. Paris. (English
ed., London, 1924.)
Monardes, N.
1925. JoyfuU newes out of the newe founde world. (Reprint.) London.
MONOYER, E.
1905. Les Indiens Guato du Matto-Grosso. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 2, pp. 155-158.
I
656 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Montagu, M. Francis Ashley.
1929. The discovery of a new anthropoid ape in South America. Scientific
Monthly, vol. 29, pp. 275-279, September.
MONTANDON, GeORGE.
1929 a. D6couverte d'un singe d'apparence anthropoide en Amerique du
Sud. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 21, pp. 183-195.
1929 b. A propos de I'anthropoide am^ricain. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 21, pp. 411-412,
1929 c. Un singe d'apparence anthropoide en Amerique du Sud. Compt.-
Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 188, pp. 815-817.
MoNTEJO Y RoBLEDo. See Williams, Herbert U., Rice, John P., and Lacato,
Joseph Renato.
MoNTESiNos, Fernando.
1920. Memorias antiguas historiales del Peru. Trans, and ed. by P. A.
Means. Hakluyt, 2d ser.. No. 48, London.
MONTOLIEU, F.
1882. Vocabulario de la lengua Barre. In Crevaux, J. N., Grammaires et
vocabulaires roucouyenne, arrouague, piapoco et d'autres langues
de la region des Guayanes . . . Bibl. Ling. Am^r. Paris, vol. 8, pp
274-280.
1895. In Ernst, A., Upper Orinoco Vocabularies. Amer. Anthrop., o. s.,
vol. 8, pp. 393-401.
MooDiE, Roy L.
1921. A variant of the sincipital T in Peru. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
vol. 4, pp. 219-222.
1923. Paleopathology. An introduction to the study of ancient evidences of
disease. University of Illinois Press. Urbana.
1926 a. Studies in paleopathology, XIV. A prehistoric surgical bandage
from Peru. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 8, pp. 69-72.
1926 b. Studies in paleopathology. XVIII. Tumors of the head among
pre-Columbian Peruvians. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 8, pp. 394-412.
1927 a. Studies in paleopathology. XXI. Injuries to the head among the
pre-Columbian Peruvians. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 9, pp. 277-307.
1927 b. Pott's disease in early historic Peru. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 9, p. 356.
1927 c. Mastoiditis in pre-Columbian Peru. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 9, p. 357.
1928 a. The paleopathology of Patagonia. Ann. Med. Hist., vol. 10, pp.
314-315.
1928 b. Studies in paleo-odontology. I. Materials for a study of prehistoric
dentistry in Peru. Journ. Amer. Dent. Assoc, vol. 15, pp. 1826-
1850.
1928 c. Studies in paleo-odontology, VI. The palate in a pre-Columbian
skull with a huge tumor of the cranial vault. Pacific Dent. Gaz.,
vol. 36, pp. 457-465.
1928 d. Studies in paleo-odontology. VIII. Dental caries in pre-Colum-
bian Peru, Pacific Dent. Gaz., vol. 36, pp. 669-674.
1928 e. Studies in paleo-odontology. IX. Definite association of rheu-
matic lesions with disease of the teeth in an ancient Peruvian,
Pacific Dent, Gaz., vol. 36, pp. 757-759.
1928 f. Studies in paleo-odontology. X. A supernumerary tooth in a pre-
Columbian Peruvian skull. Pacific Dent. Gaz., vol. 36, pp,
759-761.
1928 g. Studies in paleo-odontology. XI. Antral fistulae in the palates of
prehistoric Peruvians. Pacific Dent. Gaz., vol. 36, pp. 762-766.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 657
MooDiE, Roy L.—Continued
1929 a. Archaeological evidences of the antiquity of disease in South America.
Scientific Monthly, vol. 24, pp. 193-211.
1929 b. Studies in paleo-odontology. XII. Edentulous palates from pre-
historic Peru. Pacific Dent. Gaz., vol. 37, pp. 461-468.
1929 c. Studies in paleopathology. XXII. Surgery in pre-Columbian
Peru. Ann. Med. Hist., n. s., vol. 1, pp. 698-728.
1930. Studies in paleopathology. XXIII. An unusual skull from pre-
Columbian Peru. Amer. Journ. Surg., n. s., vol. 8, pp. 903-904.
1931 a. Studies in paleo-odontology. Excessive deposits of salivary calculus
on the teeth of pre-Columbian Peruvians. Pacif. Dent. Gaz.,
vol. 39, pp. 24-29.
1931 b. Roentgenologic studies of Egyptian and Peruvian mummies. Field
Mus. Nat, Hist. Anthrop. Mem., vol. 3.
MooRE, T. H.
1878. La lengua Atacamena. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 2, Luxembourg, 1877,
vol. 2, pp. 44-54.
MoRAis Rego, Aurora Ramos de.
1944. O peixe-boi. Rev. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 10-12.
Morales, Ernesto.
1929. Las ensenanzas de Pacaric. Ejemplos, narraciones, didlogos y fdbulas
quichuas. El Ateneo. Buenos Aires.
Morales Macedo, Carlos.
1917 a. La deformaci6n artificial del crdneo, en el antiguo Peru. Proc. 2d
Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr., Washington, 1915-16, Sec. 1, vol. 1, pp.
235-251.
1917 b. La fosita cerebelosa mediana en los antiguos crdneos Peruanos.
Proc. 2d Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr., Washington, 1915-16, Sec. 1,
vol. 1, pp. 251-265.
1917 c. La trepanaci6n del crdneo y su representacidn en la cerdmicaPeruana.
Proc. 2d Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr., Washington, 1915-16, Sec. 1,
vol. 1, pp. 265-267.
1917 d. Variaciones del lambda en los antiguos crdneos Peruanos. Proc.
2d Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr., Washington 1915-16, Sec. 1, vol. 1,
pp. 267-283.
1939. La regi6n del lambda en los antiguos crd,neos peruanos. Bol. Mus.
Hist. Nat. Lima, ano 3, No. 8, pp. 71-80; No. 9, pp. 98-113; No. 10,
pp. 98-111.
MoRDiNi, Antonio.
1935. Lingua Aura' an el lingua geral. II Nazionale, 13« ann(5e. No 478, pp.
141-143, Novembre-decembre.
Moreira-Pinto, Alfredo.
1894. Apontamentos para o Diciondrio Geogrdfico do Brazil. "Anamb6,"
vol. I, Rio de Janeiro.
Moreno, P. Fr.
1880. Sur deux crdnes pr6historiques rapportes du Rio-Negro. Bull. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris, ser. 3, vol. 3, pp. 490-497.
Moreno-Mora, Manuel.
1922. Contribuci6n al estudio de la lingiifstica y etnologfa canaris. Rev.
Col. Nac. Benigno Malo, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 32-35.
1934. El reino preincdico de Quito. America, 9« ann^e. No. 58, pp. 277,
317-343.
658 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
MoRfNiGO, Marcos A.
1931. Hispanismos en el guaranl. Estudio sobre la penetraci6n de la cultura
espanola en la guaranf, segun se refleja en la lengua. Bajo la direc-
ci6n de Amado Alonso. Col. Estud. Indig. vol. 1.
1935. Las voces guaranfes del diccionario acad^mico. Buenos Aires. (Ti-
rage k part des Bol. Acad. Arg. Let., vol. 3, janvier-mars.)
MoRONG, Thomas.
1892. The Rio de La Plata: its basin, geography and inhabitants. Bull.
Amer. Geogr. Soc, vol. 24, pp. 479-509.
Morton, Samuel George.
1839. Crania Americana; or, a comparative view of the skulls of various
aboriginal nations of North and South America: to which is prefixed
an Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species. Philadelphia.
1846. Some observations on the ethnography and archaeology of the American
aborigines. Amer. Journ. Sci. Arts, sec. ser., vol. 2, pp. 1-17.
See also Meigs, J. A., 1857.
MoscHBN, Lamberto. See Canestrini, Giovanni, and Moschen, Lamberto;
Sergi, G., and Moschen, L.
Mosquera, Tomas Cipriano de.
1866. Compendio de geografla general, poHtica, fisica y especial de los Estados
Unidos de Colombia. London.
Moss, W. L., and Kennedy, J. A.
1929. Blood groups in Peru, Santo Domingo, Yucatan and among the Mexi-
cans at the Blue Ridge prison farm in Texas. Journ. Immunol.,
vol. 16, p. 159.
Mossi, Miguel A.
1916. Ollantay. Drama Kj^chua en verso, de autor desconocido. [Publica-
tion of the] Universidad de Tucumdn. Buenos Aires.
See also Wechsler, T., 1917.
Mostajo, Francisco.
1923. Apuntes etnol6gicos. Modalidades Idxicas, usos y costumbres andinos.
Inca, vol. 1, pp. 410-420, 751-760.
MouRA, J. T. de.
1928. Do homen americano. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr, Brasil, vol. 100,
pp. 479-803.
MoussY, Martin de. See Rupz, Broca, and Moussy, Martin de.
Muelle, J. See Yacovleff, Eugenio, and Muelle, Jorge C.
MiJLLER, Franz.
1928. Drogen und medikamente der Guaranf- (Mbyd,, Pai und Chiripd)
Indianer im ostlichen waldgebiete von Paraguay. In Festschrift,
publication d'hommage oflferte au P. W. Schmidt, pp. 501-514.
Wien (Vienna).
1934-35. Beitrage zur Ethnographic der Guaranf-Indianer im ostlichen
Waldgebiet von Paraguay. Anthropos, vol. 29, 1934, pp.
177-208, 441-460, 695-702; vol. 30, 1935, pp. 151-164, 433-450,
767-783. St.-Gabriel-Modling.
MuLLER, Frederick.
1882. Grundris der Sprachwissenschaft. Wien (Vienna).
MuNiz, Manuel Antonio, and McGee, W J
1897. Primitive trephining in Peru. 16th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. Ethnol.,
1894^95, pp. 3-72.
Vol. C] BIBLIOGRAPHY 659
MuSoz, N.
1933. Variedades de cayado a6rtico en la mujer. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 1.
1934. Anatomfa pulmonar (Contribuci6n a su Estudio). Soc. Chil. Flsiol.
MuNOz, R.
1936. Observaciones de algunos cardcteres morfol6gicos en la dentadura de
los indios mapuches. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 10.
Mufioz, W.
1935. Ramas terminales del nervio maxilar inferior. Archiv. Chil. Morf.,
vol. 1.
MuRDOCK, George Peter.
1936. The Witoto kinship system. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 38, pp.
525-527.
Mttrphy, Robert Cushman.
1936. Oceanic birds of South America. 2 vols. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.
MuRR, Christoph Gottlieb von. See Veigl, F. X., 1785 a, 1785 b.
Murrieta, Pedro M. Benvenutto.
1936. El lenguaje peruano. Vol. 1. Lima.
Myers, George S.
1938. Fresh-water fishes and West Indian zoogeography. Ann. Rep. Smith-
sonian Inst., 1937, pp. 339-364.
Narvaez, a. Salomon.
1944. Lengua Paisa. Rev. Hist. Colombia, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 69-71.
Navarro, Manuel.
1903. Vocabulario Castellano-Quechiia-Pano con sus respectivos gramdticoa
Quechua y Pana. Lima.
Nehring, Alfred.
1888. liber alt-peruanische Hausthiere. Compte Rendu, Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888, pp. 308-321.
1889. tlber die Herkunft des Meerschweinchens (Cavia cobaya Marcgr.).
Sitzung. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, No. 1, pp. 1-7.
1891. Uber die Fortpflanzung und Abstammung des Meerschweinchens
(Cavia cobaya Marcgr.). Zool. Gart., vol. 32, pp. 65-77.
1893. Uber Kreuzungen von Cavia aperea und Cavia cobaya. Sitzung.
Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, No. 10, pp. 247-252.
1894. Kreuzungen von zahmen und wilden Meerschweinchen. Zool. Gart.,
vol. 35, pp. 1-6, 39-43, 74-78.
1895 a. Menschenreste aus einem Sambaqui von Santos in Brasilien, unter
Vergleichung der Fossilreste des Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois.
Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 710-722.
1895 b. Ein pithecanthropos-ahnlicher Menschenschadel aus den Sambaquis
von Santos in Brasilien. Naturwiss. Wochen., vol. 10, pp.
549-552.
Nf:LE. See Nordenskiold, Erland, 1928-30.
Nelson, Nels Christian.
1936. The antiquity of man in America in the light of archeology. Ann.
Rep. Smithsonian Inst. 1935, pp. 471-506.
Netto, Baptista.
1942. Contribuigao d antropologia brasileira. Um crduio de indio guajdjara.
Arquiv. Inst. Benjamin Baptista, anno 8, vol. 8, p. 69.
Newman, Marshall T.
1943. A metric study of undeformed Indian crania from Peru. Amer.
Journ. Phys. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 1, pp. 21-45.
794711—50 43
660 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
NiLSSON, E.
1932. Quaternary glaciations and pluvial lakes in British East Africa.
Stockholm.
NiMUENDAJu, Curt.
1914 a. Die Sagen von der Erschaffung und Vernichtung der Welt als
Grundlagen der Religion der Apapocuva-Guaranf. Zeit. Ethnol.
vol. 46, pp. 284-403.
1914 b. Vokabular der Parin-Sprache. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 46, pp. 619-625.
1914 c. Vocabularios da Lingua Geral do Brazil nos dialectos dos Manaje
do Rio Ararandcua, Teml^e do Rio Acard Pequeno e Turiwdra do
Rio Acard Grande, Est. do Pard. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 46, pp.
615-618.
1914 d. Vokabular und Sagen der Crengez-Indianer (Taje). Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 46, pp. 626-636.
1915. Vocabulare der Timbiras vonMaranhao und Pard. Zeit. Ethnol., vol.
47, pp. 302-305.
1923-21. Zur Sprache der Sipdia-Indianer. Anthropos, vols. 18-19, pp.
836-857. St. Gabrel-Modling.
1924. Os Indios Parintintin do Rio Madeira. Jouru. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 16, pp. 201-278.
1925. As Tribus do Alto Madeira. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 17,
pp. 137-172.
1926. Die Palikur-indianer und ihre Nachbarn. Goteborgs Kungl. Vet.
Vitt. Handl., fjarde serie, vol. 31, No. 2.
1928-29. Wortliste der Sipdia-Sprache. Anthropos, vol. 23, 1928, pp. 821-
850; vol. 24, 1929, pp. 863-896. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1929 a. Lingua ser6nte. Journ. Soc. Ani6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 21, pp. 127-130.
1929 b. Zur sprache der Maue-Indianer. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 21, pp. 131-140.
1931. Zur sprache der Kurudya-Indianer. Journ. Soc. Amdr. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 22, pp. 317-345.
1931-32. Idiomas indigenas del Brasil. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Tucumdn,
vol. 2, pp. 543-618.
1932 a. Wortlisten aus Amazonien. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 24,
^
pp. 93-119.
1932 b. A propos des Indiens Kukura du Rio Verde (Br6sil). Journ. Soc.
Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 24, pp. 187-189.
1946. The Eastern Timbira. Univ. Calif. Publ. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol.,
vol 41.
NiMTJENDAJtJ, Curt, and Valle Bentes, E. E.
1923. Documents sur quelques langues peu connues de I'Amazone. Journ.
Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 15, pp. 215-222.
Nino, Fb. Bernardino de.
1917. Conversaci6n entre Chiriguanos. Bol. Soc. Geogr. La Paz, 15» ann^e,
No. 43, pp. 51-60.
Nordenskiold, Erland.
1905. Beitrage ziir Kenntnis einiger Indianerstamme des Dio Madre de
Dios gebietes. Ymer, vol. 25, pp. 265-312. (Reviewed in Globus,
1906, vol. 89, p. 228.)
1910 a. Sind die Tapiete ein guaranisierter Chacostamm? Globus, vol. 98,
pp. 181-186.
1910 b. Indianlif i El Gran Chaco (Siidamerika) . Stockholm.
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 661
NoKDENSKioLD, Erland—Continued
1911 a. Die Siriono-Indianer in Ostbolivien. Petermanns Mitt., vol. 1, pp.
16-17.
1911 b. Indianer och hvita i nordostra Bolivia. Stockholm. (German
translation, "Indianer und weisse in Nordostbolivien," Stuttgart,
1923.)
1912. Indianerleben, El Gran Chaco (Siidamerika) . Leipzig.
1915 a. Die religiosen Vorstellungen der Itonama-Indianer in Bolivia.
Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 47, pp. 105-113.
1915 b. Forskningar och avertyr i Sydamerika, 1913-14. Stockholm,
1918. Om Indianernes avendelse af Gummi i Sydamerika. Geografisk tid-
scrift, vol. 24, pp. 80-86, Copenhagen.
1919. An ethno-geographical analysis of the material culture of two Indian
tribes in the Gran Chaco. Comp. Ethnogr. Stud., vol. 1.
1920. The changes in the material culture of two Indian tribes under the
influence of new surroundings. Comp. Ethnogr. Stud., vol. 2.
1922. Deductions suggested by the geographical distribution of some post-
Colombian words used by the Indians of South America. Comp,
Ethnogr, Stud., vol. 5.
1924 a. The ethnography of South America seen from Mojos in Bolivia.
Comp. Ethnogr. Stud., vol. 3.
1924 b. Forschungen und Abenteuer in Siidamerika. Stuttgart.
1928. Indianerna po Panamanaset. Ymer, vol. 48, pp. 85-110.
1928-30. Picture-writings and other documents by Ndle, Paramount chief
of the Cuna Indians and Reuben Perez Kantule, his secretary,
published by Erland Nordenskiold. Comp. Ethnogr. Stud., vol.
7, pt. 1.
1929 a. The American Indian as an inventor. The Huxley Memorial Lec-
ture for 1929, Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Gr, Brit. Ireland, vol.
59, pp. 273-309.
1929 b. Les rapports entre I'art, la religion et la magie chez les Indiens Cuna
et Choco. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 21, pp. 141-158.
1930. Modifications in Indian culture through inventions and loans. Comp.
Ethnogr. Stud., vol. 8.
1931. Origin of the Indian civilization in South America. Comp. Ethnogr.
Stud., vol. 9.
1932. La conception de I'amc chez les Indiens Cuna. (La signification de
trois mots Cuna: purba, niga et kurgin.) Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris,
n. 8., vol. 24, pp. 5-30.
1938. An historical and ethnological survey of the Cuna Indians. In col-
laboration with the Cuna Indian Ruben Perez Kantule. Arranged
and edited from the posthumous manuscript and notes, and original
Indian documents at the Gothenburg Ethnographical Museum, by
Henry Wassen. Comp. Ethnogr. Stud., vol. 10.
See also Wass6n, Henry, 1933.
NORDENSKJOELD, OtTO.
1896. Das Feuerland und seine Bewohner. Geogr. Zeit., vol. 2.
NORONHA TORREZAO, AlBERTO DE.
1889. Vocabulario Puri. Rev. Trim. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil, vol. 52, pp.
511-512.
662 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
NUSSER-ASPORT, ChR.
1890. Vom Madre de Dios zum Acre. Ausland, vol. 63, pp. 792-796.
1897. Die Stamme der ostlichen Indianergrenze in Bolivia (Tobas, Chiri-
guanos, Matacos und Sirionos). Globus, vol. 71, pp. 160-162.
Oefner, Luis M.
1942. Apuntes sobre una tribu salvaje que existe en el Oriente de Bolivia.
Anthropos, vols. 35-36, pp. 100-108.
Oetteking, B.
1928. The skeletal remains of American Indians in the Museum fiir Volker-
kunde, Hamburg, Germany. Ind. Notes, vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 79-92.
1932. Morphologie und Menschliches altertum in Amerika. Anthropos,
vol. 27, pp. 899-903.
OlTICICA, JoSE.
1933. Do metodo no estudo das linguas sul-americanas. Bol. Mus. Nac.
Rio de Janeiro, vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 41-81.
1934. Do metodo no estudo das linguas sulamericanas. Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 24, Hamburg, Sept. 1930, pp. 272-297. Hamburg.
Olea, Bonifacio M» de.
1928. Ensayo gramatical del dialecto de los indios Guaraunos, compuesto por
el R. P.
—
, O. M. C, misionero apostdlico del Caroni. Caracas.
O'Leary, Juan. See Coleman, N. R., 1921.
Olivares, Miguel de.
1864. Historia Militar, civil y sagrada del Reino de Chile. Santiago.
Oliveira, Carlos Estevao de.
1930. Os Apinag6 do Alto Tocantins. Bol. Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro,
vol. 6, pp. 61-110.
Oliveira, J. Feliciano de.
1913 a. The Cherentes of Central Brazil. Notes for a sketch. Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 18, London, 1912, pt. 2, pp. 391-396.
1913 b. The Cherents. Linguistics. Proc. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 18,
London, 1912, vol. 2 (appendix), pp. 539-566.
Oliveira Vianna, Francisco Jose de.
1938. Evolugao do povo Brasileiro. Colegao Brasiliana, vol. 10, S6rie 5a.
(Reprint ed.) Bibliotheca Pedagogica Brasileira. Sao Paulo.
Oliver, C.
1932. Los Indios de Chile. Concepci6n.
Oliveres, Francisco M.
1934-35. Vocabulario con notas historicas, correspondiente a las designaciones
topogrdficas en los departamentos de Cerro Largo y Treinta
y Tres. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Uruguay, vol. 11, pp. 217-222.
Ollanta.
1878. Ollantai'; drame en vers quechuas du temps des Incas, Texte origi-
nal . . , Tr. et commente par Gavino Pacheco Zegarra. Col.
Ling. Amer., vol. 4. (Many editions and translations.)
See also Barranca, Jose S., 1868; Ruiz Palazuela, A., 1927;
Velasco Aragon, L., 1923; Wechsler, T., 1917.
Onetto, E., and Castillo, J.
1930. Sobre grupos sanguineos en los araucanos. Rev. Inst. Bact. Chile.
vol. 1.
Oppenheim, Victor. See Rivet, P., and Oppenheim, Victor.
Vol. G] BIBLIOGRAPHY 663
Oramas, Luis R.
1909. Contribuci6n al estudio de la lengua Yaruro. An. Univ. Cent. Vene-
zuela, vol. 10, pp. 144-155.
1913 a. Contribuci6n al estudio de la lengua Guajira. Publicaciones de la
"Revista T^cnica del Ministerio de Obras Piiblicas" de los EE. UU.
de Venezuela. Caracas.
1913 b. Contribuci6n al estudio de los dialectos Puinave y Maquiritare.
Gaceta de los Museos Nacionales, vol. 1. Caracas.
1914. Gramdtica, diccionario y catecismo de la lengua Saliba, segiin manus-
crito inddito, con anotaciones comparativas en el diccionario.
Caracas.
1916. Materiales para el estudio de los dialectos Ayaman, Gay6n, Jirajara,
Ajagua. Caracas.
1918 a. Patronimicos quiriquires y vocabulario paraujano comparado con el
Guajiro. De Re Indica, vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 23-28.
1918 b. Vocabulario paraujano. De Re Indica, vol. 1, No. 2, p. 43.
1920. Etnograffa Venezolana. Caracas.
Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines d'
1835-47. Voyage dans I'Amerique Meridionale ... 9 vols. Paris.
1S39. L'homme Am6ricain (de TAmerique Meridionale), consider^ sous ses
rapports physiologiques et moraux, Paris.
1896. Lenguas Argentinas. Grupo Mataco-Mataguayo del Chaco, dialecto
Vejoz vocabulario y apuntes . . . con introducci6n, notas, etc., por
Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 17,
pp. 121-176.
See also Cueva, R. P. de la, 1893; Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1896 b.;
Martius, K. F. P. von, 1847.
Ore, L. J. DE.
1607. Rituale seu Manuale Peruanorum et forma brevis administrandi apud
indos Sacrasanta Baptismi, Poenitentiae Eucharistiae, Matrimonii
et Extremae Unctionis Sacramenta. Napoles.
Orejuela T., Manuel.
1934. Linguistique equatorienne. Communication relative a la bibliogra-
pliie de linguistique equatorienne presentee par le delegue de I'Uni-
versite Centrale de I'Equateur au IV« Congres International de
Linguistique Romane. An. Univ. Cent. Quito, vol. 53, pp. 425-453.
(En Frangais et en Espagnol.)
OrtIz, Sergio ElIas.
1937. Clasificaci6n de las lenguas indfgenas de Colombia. Idearium, vol. 1,
p. 79 ff. Pasto.
1938. Antroponimia, toponimia y dialectologia indfgenas del suroeste de
Colombia. Lengua Pasto. Idearium, vol. 1, Nos. 11-12, pp.
539-559; vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 89-98, 140-150, No. 16, pp. 195-216.
Pasto.
1938-39 a. Antroponimia, toponimia y dialectologia indfgenas del suroeste
de Colombia. An. Univ. Narino, 2^ serie, No. 1, 1938, pp.
42-53; No. 2, 1939, pp. 265-286.
1938-39 b. Vocabularios de los idiomas totor6, guambiano y panikitd.
Idearium, vol. 2, pp. 247-248. Pasto.
1940 a. Lingiifstica Colombiana. Familia Zaparo o Gae. Universidad Cat61ica
Bolivariana, vol. 5, No. 15, pp. 97-108. Medellfn, 1 Colombia.
1940 b. Lingiifstica Colombiana. Familia Ctioko. Universidad Cat61ica
Bolivariana, vol. 6, No. 18, pp. 46-77. Medellfn, Colombia.
664 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
OrtIz, Sergio ElJas—Continued
1940 c. Linguistica Colombiana. I^amilia Kechua o Runa-Simi. An.
Univ. Narino, vol. 2, pp. 105-122. Pasto.
1941 a. Linguistica Colombiana. Familia Mocoa o Koche. Universidad
Cat61ica Bolivariana, vol. 7, No. 21, pp. 25-55. Medellfn, Col-
ombia.
1941 b. Lingiiistica Colombiana. Familia Kahaupana o Xebero. An.
Univ. Marino, vol. 2, pp. 344-352.
1942. Lingiiistica Colombiana. Familia Witoto. Universidad Cat61ica
Bolivariana, vol. 8, Nos. 27-28, pp. 379-409. Medellin, Colombia.
1943. Lingiiistica Colombiana. FamlliaJ^Guahibo. Universidad Cat61ica
Bolivariana, vol. 9, Nos. 30-31, pp. 155-181. Medellin, Colombia.
1944. Lingiiistica Colombiana. Familia Guahibo. Rev. Hist., Colombia,
Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 39-62.
1946. Los indios Yurumanguies. Acta Amer., vol. 4, pp. 10-25.
Orton, James.
1871. The Andes and the Amazon; or across the continent of South America.
New York,
OSBORN, H. F.
1936. Proboscidea. Vol. 1. New York.
OSCULATI, GaETANO.
1854. Esplorazione delle regioni equatoriali lungo il Napo e il fiume delle
Amazzoni. (2d ed.) Milan.
Osgood, Wilfred H.
1915. New mammals from Brazil and Peru. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Publ.
185, Zool. Ser., vol. 10, No. 13, pp. 187-198.
1934. The genera and subgenera of South American canids. Journ. Mamm.,
vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 45-50.
OssA v., Peregrino.
1938. Vocabulario de los Indios Guayaberos. Idearium, l^* ann^e, Nos.
11-12, pp. 537-538. Pasto.
OSUNA, T.
1921. Alfabeto guarani. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
30-32.
1923 a. Notas guaraniticas. El verbo "ser" guarani. An. Gimn. Parag-
uayo, vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 321-328, d^cembre 1923.
1923 b. Notas guaraniticas. Juventud, 1" ann^e, No. 12, pp. 5-8, 31
juillet. Asunci6n.
1924 a. Notas guaraniticas. Las Raices, ta y po; su fonologia e ideologfa.
An. Gimn. Paraguayo, vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 23-29, f^vrier 1924.
1924 b. Notas guaraniticas. La raiz e. Juventud, 2 ann4e, No. 34, l*'
sept. 1924, pp. 296-299.
1924 c. Notas guaraniticas. Las raices u y i. Juventud, 2« ann^e, No.
39, 15 Nov. 1924, pp. 383-387. Asunci6n.
1925. Notas guaraniticas. La raiz a. Juventud, 2« ann^e, No. 43, 15
Janvier 1925, pp. 446-448; 3« ann^e, 15 f6vrier 1925, Nos. 44-45.
1926 a. Notas guaraniticas. Genesis de los pronombres personales. Rev.
Paraguaya, 2» ann^e. No. 2, janvier-fevrier, pp. 56-58.
1926 b. Notas guaraniticas. La rdiz o. Minerva, 1'° ann^e, No. 2, 30
avril 1926, pp. 16-17. Asunci6n,
Otero, Jesus M.
1938-39. Los dialectos indigenas del Departamento del Cauca. Idearium,
vol. 2, pp. 321-330. Pasto.
Vol. G] BIBLIOGRAPHY 665
Otis, George A.
1880. List of the specimens in the anatomical section of the U. S. Army
Medical Museum.
OuTES, Felix F.
1908. Observaciones sobre la complicaci6n y sinostosis de las suturas del
crdneo cerebral de los primitivos habitantes del sur de Entre Rios.
An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 66, pp. 286-300.
1909. Comunicaci6n preliminar sobre los resultados antropol6gicos de mi
Primer Viaje d Chile. Universidad Nacional de La Plata en el IV°
Congreso Cientffico (1° Panamericano), Buenos Aires, pp. 216-221.
1911-12. Variaciones y anomalias en los huesos del crdneo de los primitivos
habitantes del sur de Entre Rios. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 18
(2d series, vol. 5), pp. 53-144.
1912. Craneos indigenas del departamento de Gualeguaychu (Provincia de
Entre Rios). An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 73, pp. 5-37.
1913 a. Vocabularios in^ditos del patagon antiguo. Rev. Univ. Buenos
Aires, vol. 21, pp. 474-494.
1913 b. Sobre las lenguas indigenas rioplatenses; materiales para su estudio.
Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, vol. 24, pp. 231-237.
1914. Un texto y un vocabulario en dialecto Pehuenche de fines del siglo
XVIII, con introducci6n y notas. Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, vol. 25,
pp. 68-73.
1915. La gruta sepulcral del Cerrito de las Calaveras. An. Mus. Nac. Hist.
Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 27, pp. 365-400.
1924. Descripci6n de un crdneo Sirion6. Physis, vol. 7, pp. 190-212.
1926. Los trabajos lingiiisticos atribuidos a Te6filo F. Schmid y la labor de
Federico Hunziker. Bol. Inst. Invest. Hist. Buenos Aires, vol. 5,
pp. 193-227.
1926-27 a. Sobre el idioma de los Yamana de Walaia (isla Navarino).
Materiales reunidos por el misionero Rau con anterioridad a
1866. Publicalos-, con una introducci6n, ordenados alfabetica
y sistemdticamente y acompanados de una bibliografia del
Yamana. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 30, pp. 1-47.
1926-27 b. Datos sobre la ergologia y el idioma de los Yamana de Wulaia
(isla Navarino) reunidos por el misionero R. R. Rau, con
anterioridad a 1866 y anotados por don Jorge Claraz. Publi-
calos, ordenados alfabdtica y sistematicamente, con una
introducci6n y notas. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 30, pp. 49-77.
1928 a. Vocabulario y fraseario Genakenn (Puelche) reunidos por Juan
Federico Hunziker en 1864, publicalos-, precedidos de una intro-
ducci6n y ordenados alfabetica y sistemdticamente. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 31, pp. 261-297.
1928 b. Versiones al Aontiktin'k (Patag6n meridional) de la oraci6n dominical
y del versiculo 8° del Salmo II, adaptadas por Te6filo F. Schmid
en 1863. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 31, pp. 299-333.
1928 c. Un texto Aoniikiin'k (Patag6n meridional) para incitar a la caza,
obtenido por Juan Federico Hunziker en 1861. Publicalo-,
precidido de una introducci6n y notas aclaratorias. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, vol. 31, pp. 353-369.
1928 d. Las variantes del vocabulario Patag6n reunido por Antonio Pigafetta
en 1520. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 31, pp. 371-380.
OuTES, Felix, and Bruch, Carlos.
1910. Los aborigenes de la Republica de Argentina. Buenos Aires.
666 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
OviEDO Y Vald:6s, Gonzalo Fernandez de.
1851-55. Historia general y natural de las Indias, islas y tierra-firme del Mar
Oceano. Jos6 Amador de los Rios, ed. 4 vols. Publ. Real Acad.
Hist. Madrid. ("La historia general de las Indias," publ.
Sevilla, 1535.)
Owen, R.
1853. Descriptive catalogue of the osteological series contained in the
Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Vol. 2.
London.
Oyarzun, Aureliano.
1916 a. Estaci6n paleolitica de Taltal. Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop. Chile,
vol. 1, pp. 19-30.
1916 b. Estacion paleolitica de Taltal. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol. 19,
pp. 48-59.
1917. Estaci6n paleolitica de Taltal. Proc. 2d. Pan-Amer. Sci. Congr.,
vol. 1, pp. 377-382.
1927 a. Puntas de lanzas paleoliticas de la isla de Pascua, encontradas en un
cemeterio prehistorico de la costa de Chile. Publ. Mus. Etnol.
Antrop. Chile, vol. 4, pp. 273-276.
1927 b. Los aborigenes de Chile. Rev. Univ. Cat. Chile.
1940. Esqueletos sin crd,neos y crdneos sin esqu^letos. Rev. Mus. Hist.
Nac. Chile, ano 1, No. 2, pp. 180-185.
Pablo del SantIsimo Sacramento.
1933. El idioma Katfo. Medellin.
Pachano, A. See Popenoe, W., and Pj^chano, A.
Pacheco Zegarra, Gavino. See Ollanta, 1878.
Paez, C. p., and Freudenthal, K.
1944. Grupos sanguineos de los Indies Sibundoy, Santiagueiios, Kuaiker e
Indios y mestizos de los alrededores de Pasto. Rev. Inst. Etnol.
Nac. Bogota, vol. 1, pp. 411-415.
Palavecino, Enrique.
1921. Nota sobre el endocrdneo de "Diprothomo platensis." Physis, vol. 5,
p. 62.
1926. Elementos ocednicos en el Quechua. Gaea, vol. 2, pp. 256-203.
1928. Glosario comparado Kechua-Maori. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22,
Rome, 1926, vol. 2, pp. 517-525. Rome.
1930. Observaciones etnograficas y lingiiisticas sobre los indios Tapiete.
Rev. Soc. "Amigos Arqueol.," vol. 4, pp. 1-9, 211-217.
1931-33. Los indios Pilagd del rio Pilcomayo. An. Mus. Arg. Cienc. Nat.,
vol. 37, pp. 517-581.
1939. Relevamiento antropomdtrico de un Indio Ashlushlai. Notas Mus.
La Plata, vol. 4, Antropologia, No. 16, pp. 413-414.
Pan American Union.
1935-40. American Nation Series.
Panconcelli-Calzia, G.
1921. Experimentalphonetische Untersuchungen. Art. 3: Ueber zwei
phonetische Erscheinungen im Guayaki. Zeitshcrift fiir Einge-
borenensprachen, vol. 11, fasc. 3, pp. 185-186. Berlin.
Pape, Eduard.
1935. Die Tschoropf. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 67, pp.158-176. (1936.)
Pardal, Ram6n.
1937. Medicina aborfgena americana. Humanior, Secc. C, vol. 3.
Vol. C] BIBLIOGRAPHY 667
Paris, R. P. Julio.
1924. Gramdtica de la lengua Quichua actualmente en uso entre los indfgenas
del Ecuador. Nueva edici6n, revisada y aumentada, con los voca-
bularios Quichua-Espajnol y Espanol-Quichua por Padres de la misma
congregaci6n. Cuenca, Ecuador.
Parodi, Lorenzo R.
1935. Relaciones de la agricultura prehispdnica con la agricultura argentina
actual. An. Acad. Nac. Agron. Vet., vol. 1, pp. 115-167.
Paso, Juan Roberto. See Sussini, I\I., Paso, J. R., and Zauchinger, Z.
Pastore, Jole.
1933-34. Quale 6 la costola piu lunga dell'uomo? Variazioni di lunghezza
delle costole nei Fuegini. Riv. Antrop., vol. 30, pp. 437-443.
1935-37. Costometria del Fuegini. Riv. Antrop., vol. 31, pp. 33-160.
Patr6n, Pablo.
1918. La Quichua en Santiago. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 6, pp. 27-40.
Patr6n, Pablo, and Romero, Carlos A.
1923. La tribu Tampu y la lengua especial de los Inkas. Inca, vol. 1, pp.
432-439.
Paula, Josf; MARfA de.
1924. Mem6ria sobre os Botocudos do Parand e Santa Catarina, Organisada
pelo Servico de Protecgao aos Indies. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 20,
Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 117-137.
Paula Martins, M. de L. de.
1941. Contribuigao para o estudio do Teatro Tupi de Anchieta—Didlago
e Trilogia (Segundo manuscritos originais do Seculo XVI.) Univer-
sidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade de filosofia, ciencias e letras.
Etnografia e lingua tupf-guarani, No. 3. Siio Paulo.
1945 a. Poesias Tupis (S6culo XV). Universidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade
de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Etnograffa e lingua tupi-guaranf.
No. 6. Sao Paulo.
1945 b. Nota sobre relagoes verificadas entre o Dicionario BrasiHano e o
Vocabuldrio na Lingua Brasilica. Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Faculdade de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Etnografia e lingua tupl-
guaranf, No. 7. Sao Paulo.
Paula Pontes, Alvaro de.
1939. Variedades supra-aorticas no Brasil, Separata da Rev. Univ. Rio de
Janeiro, serie 2, No. 7.
See also Pontes, Alvaro.
Paula-Souza, Geraldo H. de.
1918. Notas sobre uma visita a acampamentos de indios Caingangs. Rev.
Mus. Paul., vol. 10, pp. 737-758.
Paulotti, Osvaldo L. See Dembo, Adolfo, and Paulotti, Osvaldo L.
Paulotti, Osvaldo L., and Gonzales, L. A.
1943. Grupos sangufnos de los nativos de la Puna Jujena. An. Mus. Arg.
Cienc. Nat., vol. 41, pp. 21-28.
Pauly, Antonio.
1928. Ensayo de etnograffa americana. Viajes y exploraciones. Buenos
Aires.
Payer, Richard.
1906. Reisen in Jauapiry-Gebiet. Petermanns Mitt., vol. 52, pp. 217-222.
Paz SoldAn, M. F. (Mariano Felipe).
1877. Diccionario geogrdfico estadfstico del Peru. Lima.
See also Raimondi, A., 1862.
668 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Paz y MiSo, Luis T.
1936-37. Contribuci6n al estudio de las lenguas indfgenas en el Ecuador.
Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 14, 1936, pp. 40-54; vol. 15,
1937, pp. 9-41.
Peccorini, Attilio.
1910. Dialecte Chilanga. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 7, pp. 123-130.
Peckolt, Th.
1871. Historia das plantas uteis e de gozo do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro.
Pelleschi, Juan (Giovanni).
1881. Otto mesi nel Gran Ciacco. Firenze (Florence).
1896. Los indios Matacos y su Icngua. Con introducci6n por Samuel A.
Lafone Quevedo. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 17, pp. 559-622;
vol. 18, pp. 173-350.
PeSaranda, Nestor, Trans. See Bible. N. T. Mark. Aymara. 1930.
PeSaranda, Nestor, and Medina, Angel.
1923. Evangelio k6chunaka. La Paz, Bolivia.
Penard, Arthur Philip.
1928-29. De Caraibsche Taal. De Periskoop, Nos. 175, 178, 182, 184, 191,
198, 203, 209, 213, 214, 224. 3 Mars, 24 Mars, 27 Octobre,
1928. Paramaribo.
See also Penard, T. E., and Penard, A. P.
Penard, Thomas E.
1926-27. Note on words used by South Americans for banana. De west-
indische Gids, vol. 8, pp. 375-377. The Hague.
1927-28. Remarks on an old vocabulary from Trinidad. De west-indische
Gids, vol. 9, pp. 265-270. The Hague.
Penard, Thomas E., and Penard, Arthur P.
1926-27. European influence on the Arawak language of Guiana. De west-
indische Gids, vol. 8, pp. 164-176. The Hague.
Perea y Alonso, Sixto.
1937. Apuntes para la prehistoria indfgena del Rio de la Plata y especial-
mente de la banda oriental de Uruguay, como introducci6n a la
filologia comparada de las lenguas y dialectos arawak. Bol. Filol.
Montevideo, vol. 1, pp. 217-245.
1938 a. Filologia comparada de las lenguas y dialectos arawak. Bol. Filol.,
Montevideo, vol. 2, pp. 87-104.
1938 b. Transcripci6n tipografica y exegesis filol6gica provisional del Codice
"Vilardeb6" versando sobre lengua y costumbres de los Charruas.
Bol. Filol. Montevideo, vol. 2, pp. 7-18.
1942. Filologia comparada de las lenguas y dialectos arawak. Institute de
Estudios Superiores de Montevideo. Vol. 1, Montevideo. (Con-
tains Perea y Alonso, 1937 and 1938 a, as first two parts.)
Perez, Manuel Cipriano.
1935. Vocabulario del dialecto guahibo del Vichada. An. Univ. Cent.
Venezuela, vol. 23, pp. 209-237.
Perez de Barradas, Jose.
1937. Crdneos antiguos deformados de Belalcazar y Araiijo. Chap. 5 (pp.
73-86). "Arqueologia y Antropologia Precolombinas de Tierr-
adentro." Publ. Secc. ArqueoL, No. 1, Min. Educ. Nac. Colombia.
1938. Estuiio antropol6gico de los dos primeros crdneos humanos de la
cultura de San Agustfn. Rev. Acad. Colombia Cienc. Exact. Fis.
Natur., vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 371-376.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 669
P^REZ Guerrero, Alfredo.
1934. El lenguaje quiteno. America, 9« annee, No. 58, pp. 452-463.
Perez Kantule, Ruben (Reuben). See Nordenskiold, Erland, 1928-30,
1938.
Pericot y GARcfa, Luis.
1936. Am(5rica Indfgena. El hombre americano. Los pueblos de America.
(Vol. 1 of series, Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos;
dirigida por Antonio Ballesteros y Beretta.) Barcelona.
Perret, Jacques.
1933. Observations et documents sur les indiens Emerillon de la Guyane
francaise. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 25, pp. 65-97.
Petersen, R.
1933. Frecuencia y formas de la cirrosis hepdtica en Concepci6n. Bol. Soc.
Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 7, pp. 61-83.
Peterson, O. A.
1904. Osteology of Oxydactylus. Ann. Carnegie Mus. Pittsburgh, vol. 2,
No. 3, art. S, pp. 434-476.
Petrullo, Vincenzo M.
1932. Primitive peoples of Matto Grosso. Mus. Journ. Univ. Pennsylvania,
vol. 23, pp. 84-179.
1939. The Yaruros of the Capanaparo River of Venezuela. Bull. Bur.
Amer. Ethnol., No. 123, Anthrop. Pap. No. 11, pp. 161-291.
Pfaff, Franz.
1890. Die Tukanos am oberen Amazonas. Verhandl. Berlin Gesell. Anthrop.
Ethnol. Urg., Jahrgang, 1890, pp. 596-606.
Philippi, Rudolfo a.
1860. Viaje al desierto de Atacama. Halle. (Other ed., Santiago de Chile,
1863.)
1872. Ueber chilenische Schadel. Verhandl. Berlin Gesell. Anthrop., p. 195.
Philipson, J.
1946 a. Nota s6bre a interpretagao sociol6gica de alguns designativos de
parentesco do tupi-guarani. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade
de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Etnografia e lingua tupf-guarani,
No. 9. Sao Paulo.
1946 b. O parentesco tupi-guaranf. Universidade de Sao Paulo, Faculdade
de filosofia, ciencias e letras. Etnograf(a e lingua tupf-guarani, No.
11. Sao Paulo.
Phillips, John C.
1922. A natural history of the ducks. Vols. 1-4. Boston.
PiERiNi, Francisco.
1908. Los Guarayos de Bolivia. Anthropos, vol. 3, pp. 875'-880. Vienna.
PiGAPETTA, Antonio. See Outes, F. F., 1928 d.
Pilares Polo, V. M.
1939. Nuevos puntos de vista sobre trepanaci6n incana: Una practica de
card.cter ctnica atribuida al incanato. Cuzco.
Pinart, Alphonse Louis.
1887. Les indiens de I'etat de Panamd. Rev. Ethnogr. Paris, vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 33-56; vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 117-132.
1890 a. Vocabulario Castellano-Cuna . . . Panama 1882-84. Petite Biblio.
Amer., vol. 1.
1890 b. Vocabulario Castellano-Dorasque, dialectos chumulu, gualaca y
changuina. Petite Biblio. Amer., vol. 2.
670 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
PiNART, Alphonse Louis—Continued
1892 a. Deformations dentaires artificielles chez les Indiens de I'isthme de
Panama. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 8, Paris, 1890, p. 340.
1892 b. Vocabulario Castellano-Guaymie, dialectos move-valiente, norteno,
y guaymie-penonomeno. Petite Biblio. Amer., vol. 3.
1897. Vocabulario Castellano-Chocoe. Petite Biblio. Amer., vol. 5.
1900. Notes sur les tribus indiennes de families guarano-guaymie de I'isthme
de Panamd, et du Centre-Amerique. Chartres.
See also Franco, 1882.
PiNART, Alphonse Louis, and Carranza, Diego, Eds.
1890. Pequeno catecismo cristiano. Dios onomaque carta chenicua. Tra-
ducido en la lingua cuna 6 de los Indios de Darien. Panama, 1884.
(By F. P. de Llisa.) Paris.
Pindorama, Efes.
1937. Caingangnamen in der Geographie. Zeit. Ford. Brasil., vol. 1, pp.
7-14.
Pinell, Gaspar de.
1928. Excursi6n Apost61ica por los rios Putumayo, San Miguel de Succum-
bios, Cuyabeno, Caquetd,, y Cagudn . . , Etnogrdficos, Filol6gicos.
Bogotd.
Pinto, Estevao.
1938. Alguns aspetos da cultura artistica dos Pancarus de Tacaratu; Indios
dos sertoes de Pernambuco. Rev. Serv. Patr. Hist. Art. Nac,
vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 57-92.
Pig Corr^a, M.
1909. Flora do Brasil. Directorio Geral de Estatistica. Rio de Janeiro.
1931. Diccionario das plantas uteis do Brasil. Rio de Janeiro.
Piso, GuLiELMUS (William; Guilherme), and Marcggravi (Marcgraf) de
Liebstad, George.
1648. Historia naturalis Brasiliae . . . Leyden and Amsterdam.
Pi-SuNER Bayo, J.
1933 a. Studies in racial metabolism. Basal metabolism of the Araucanian
Mapuches. Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. 105, pp. 383-388.
1933 b. Estudios de metabolismo racial. El metabolismo minimo de los
mapuches de la Araucania. An. Med. Int. Madrid, vol. 2, pp.
483-494 (Cited in Quarterly Cumulative Index Medicus, 1933,
vol. 14, p. 1,000.)
1933 c. El metabolisme minim dels Indis Mapuches de I'Araucania. Treb.
Soc. Biol. Barcelona, vol. 15, pp. 141-157.
1933 d. Le metabolisme basal chez les Indiens Mapuches de I'Araucania.
Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol., vol. 114, pp. 112-113.
Pi-Su5fER, J., and Reyes, G.
1935. La repartici6n del pelo en los indios mapuches de la Araucania. Rev.
M6d. Barcelona.
PiTTIER (de FaBREGA), HeNRY FrANQOIS.
1898. Die Sprache der Bribri-Indianer in Costa Rica. Sitzung. Philos.-
histor. Kl. K. Akad. Wissen. Vienna, vol. 138, paper No. 6.
1903. Die Tirub; Terribes oder Terrabas, ein im Aussterben begriflfener
Stamm in Costa Rica. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 35, pp. 702-708.
1907. Ethnographic and linguistic notes on the Pd,ez Indians of Tierra
Adentro, Cauca, Colombia. Mem. Amer. Anthrop. Assoc, vol, 1,
No. 5, pp. 301-356.
1926. Manual de las plantas usuales de Venezuela. Caracas.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 671
PiTTiER (de Fabrega), Henry FRANgois—Continued
1935. Degeneration of cacao through natural hybridization. Journ. Hered.,
vol. 26, No. 10, pp. 385-390.
PiTTiER, Henry FRANgois, and Gagini, Carlos.
1892. Ensayo lexicogrdfico sobre la lengua de Terraba. San Jose de Costa
Rica.
Platzmann, Julius.
1882. Glossar des Feuerlandischen Sprachen. Leipzig.
1888. Algunas obras raras sobre la lengua Cumanagota. Leipzig. (Julius
Platzmann, ed.)
1896. O diccionario anonymo da lingua geral do Brasil, publicado de novo
como o seu reverso ijor Julio Platzmann. Leipzig.
1901. Das anonyme Worterbuch Tupi-Deutsch and Deutsch-Tupi. Leipzig.
See also Bertonio, Ludovico, 1879 a, 1879 b; Falkner, T., 1899; Figueira,
L., 1878; Hestermann, F., 1925; Marbdn, P., 1894; Quandt, C,
1900; Ruiz Blanco, M., 1888 a; Ruiz de Montoya, 1876 a, 1876 b,
1876 c, 1876 d; Santo Tomiis, D. de, 1891; Tapia, D. de, 1888;
Tauste, F. de, 1888; Valdivia, L. de, 1887; and Yangues, M. de, 1888.
PocH, Hella.
1938. Beitrag zur kenntnis von den fossilen menschlichen funden von Lagoa
Santa (Brasilien) und Fontezuelas (Argentinien). Mitt. Anthrop.
Gesell. Wien, vol. 68, No. 3-4, pp. 310-335.
PococK, R. I.
1923. The external characters of the pygmy hippopotamus (Choeropsis
liberiensis) and of the Suidae and Camelidae. Proc. Zool. Soc.
London, pt. 3, pp. 531-549.
Poeppig, Eduard.
1942. Los indios Pehuenches en 1828. Rev. Mus. Hist. Nac. Chile, vol. 1.
Pohl, Johann Emanuel.
1832-37. Reise im Innern von Brasilien . . . 1817-1821. 2 vols. Vienna,
Poindexter, Miles.
1930. The Ayar-Incas. New York.
Polar, J. E. R.
1894. A grammar and a vocabulary of the Ipurind language. London.
Polo, Jose Toribio.
1901. Indios Uros del Peru y Bolivia. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 10, pp.
445-482. (Also in Bol. Ofic. Nac. Estad., La Paz, 1910, vol. 6, pp.
481-517.)
PoMA DE Ayala, Felipe [Phelipe] GuamXn.
1936. . . . Nueva cor6nica y buen gobierno. (Codex p^ruvien illustr^.)
Trav. Mem. Inst. Ethnol. Paris, vol. 23.
1939. . . . Las primeras edades del Peru . . . Versi6n al castellano de los
terminos indfgenas, por Toribio Mejia Xesspe . . . Publ. Mus.
Antrop. Lima, vol. 1, No. 1.
POMBO, ROCHA.
1931. O tupi e o portugues nos tempos da Colonia. Rev. Philol. Hist. Rio
de Janeiro, vol. 1, pp. 421-426.
POMPEU SOBRINHO, ThOMAS.
1919. Etimologia de algumas palavras indigenas. Rev. Trim. Inst. Ceard,,
vol. 33.
1928. Contribuigao parao estudo das affinidades do Kariri. Rev. Trim. Inst.
Ceard, vol. 42, pp. 1-20.
672 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
PoMPEU SoBRiNHO, Thomas—Continued
1930. Merrime: indios Canellas; ethnographia, grammdtica e vocabulario.
Fortaleza, Ceara.
1931. Indios merrime. Rev. Trim. Inst. Cear^, vol. 45, pp. 5-35.
1933. Significagao de algumas palavras indigenas. Rev. Inst. Ceard, vol. 47,
pp. 179-184.
1934. Kariris. Rev. Philol. Hist. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 2, fasc. 3-4, pp. 289-
305.
1935. Indios Fulnios, Karnij6s de Pernambuco. Rev. Inst. Ceard, vol. 49,
pp. 31-58.
1936. Vocabuldrio dos Indios Matuans do Yamundd. Rev. Inst. Ceard, vol.
50, pp. 69-77.
1939. Os Tapuias do Nordeste. Rev. Inst. Ceard, vol. 53, pp. 221-235.
Pontes, Alvako.
1937. O modo de emergencia das coIlatera.es do arco a6rtico em individuos
Brasileiros. I: Contribuigao Baseada em 100 casos Pessoaes.
Brasil-medico, vol 51, No. 3, pp. 163-189. Rio de Janeiro.
See also Paula Pontes, Alvaro de.
PorENOE, Wilson.
1921. The native home of the cherimoya. Journ. Hered., vol. 12, No. 7, pp.
331-336.
1924. Economic fruit-bearing plants of Ecuador. Contrib. U. S. Nat. Herb.,
U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 101-134.
PoPENOE, Wilson, and Jimenez, Otr6n.
1921. The pejibaye; a neglected food-plant of tropical America. Journ.
Hered., vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 154-166.
PoPENOE, Wilson, and Pachano, A.
1922. The capulin cherry. Journ. Hered., vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 51-62.
PopovA, G. M. See Ditmer, Erna Ernastovich, Ivanov, N. R., and Popova,
G. M.
Porter, Carlos E.
1911. Bibliografia chilena de antropologia y etnologia. An. Mus. Nac.
Buenos Aires, vol. 20 (ser. 3, vol. 13), pp. 147-188.
PORTNOY, A.
1936. Supervivencias lingiiisticas indigenas en nuestro vocabulario (argentino).
Bol. Acad. Arg. Let., vol. 4, pp. 435-443.
PosNANSKY, Arthur.
1915. La lengua Chipaya. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 19, 2nd meeting. La Paz
(Bolivia), 1914. La Paz. (One of the papers prepared for the 2d
meeting of the 19th Congr. Int. Amer., which was postponed. This
paper, however, was publislied separately.)
1918. Los Chipayas de Carangas. (2d ed.) La Paz, Bolivia. (Also in
Bol. Soc.Geogr. La Paz, vol. 16, No. 47, pp. 137-145.)
1924. Ueber Trepanieren und Kiinstliche Verunstaltungen an Aymara-
schadeln. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 56, pp. 158-169.
1925. Die Erotischen Keramiken der Mochicas und deren Beziehungen zu
occipital deformierten Schadeln. Abhandl. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg.,
vol. 2, pp. 67-74.
1931. Los Urus y su lengua. Los Principios., 26 avril, p. 2. La Paz.
1934. Los Urus o Uchumi. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess 25, La Plata, 1932, vol.
1, pp. 234-300. Buenos Aires.
1937. Antropologia y sociologfa de las razas interandinas y de las regiones
adyacentes. La Paz, Bolivia.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 673
PoTjRCHET, Maria Julia.
1939. Contribuigao ao estudo antropofisico da Creanga de cor (Bahia,
Bra.sil). Rio de Janeiro.
1942. Contribuigao ao estudo antropofisico da creanga de cor (Bahia-Brasil).
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess 27, Mexico, 1939, vol. 1, pp. 186-203.
See also Bastos d'Avila, Jos6, Pourchet, Maria Julia, and Secco
Abilio.
Preston, Harry.
1939. Instrucciones sobre enfermedades de animales en el Peru. Ministerio
de Fomento, Direcci6n de Agricultura y Ganaderia. (2d ed.)
Lima, Peru.
Pretto, J. C.
1938. Estudios de metabolismo bdsico en Lima. Valores normales en
hombres adultos. Rev. M6d. Peruana, vol. 10, pp. 237-247,
277-291.
Preuss, Konrad Theodor.
1919-27. Forschungsreise zu den Kiigaba-Indianern der Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta in Kolumbien. Anthropos, vols. 14-22. St.-
Gabriel-Modling.
1921-23. Religion und Mythologie der Uitoto. Textaufnahmen und
Beobachtungen bei einem Indianerstamm in Kolumbien,
Siidamerika. 2 vols. Leipzig and Gottingen.
1925. Das Verbum in der Spraclie der Kdgaba in der Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta, Kolumbien, auf Grund meiner Textaufnahmen.
Congr. Int. Amer., compte-rendu, Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924., pt. 2,
pp. 348-387.
Price, Weston A.
1939. Nutrition and physical degeneration: A comparison of primitive and
modern diets and their effects. New York.
Prieto, Antonio Jose.
1885. Descripci6n de la provincia de los Jivaros, su religi6n, costumbres y
producciones. In Compte, Francisco Maria, "Varones ilustres de
la orden Serd,fica en el Ecuador," vol. 2, pp. 63-68. (2d ed.) Quito.
Prince, Carlos.
1905. Idiomas y dialectos indfgenas del continente hlspano sud-americano,
con la n6mina de las tribus indianas de cada territorio. Lima.
Prince, J. Dyneley.
1912. Prolegomena to the study of the San Bias language of Panama.
Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 14, pp. 109-126.
1913 a. A text in the Indian language of Panama-Darien. Amer. Anthrop.,
n. s., vol. 15, pp. 298-326.
1913 b. The Tule language of Panama. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 15,
pp. 480-528.
Pruner-Bey.
1863. Instructions anthropologlques por le Chili. Bull. Soc. Anthrop.
Paris, vol. 4, pp. 81-104.
PucciONi, Nello.
1904. Delle deformazioni e mutilazioni artificiali etniche Piil in Uso.
Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 34, pp. 355-402.
1912. Cranii Araucani e Patagoni. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 42, pp.
13-62.
674 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
PULGAR VlDAL, JaVIER.
1937. Algunas observaciones sobre el lenguage en Hudnuco. Rev. Univ.
Cat. Peru, vol. 5, pp. 801-819.
PUTDT, LtJCIEN DE.
1868. Account of scientific explorations in the Isthmus of Darien. Journ.
Roy. Geogr. Soc, vol. 35.
QUAIN, BUELL.
n. d. The Trumai. MS. 2 vols.
QUANDT, ChRISTLIEB.
1807. Nachricht von Suriname und seinen einwohnern, sonderlich den
Arawaken, Warauen und Karaiben . . . und von der Sprache der
Arawaken, von den Gewachsen und Thieren des Landes, und
Geschaften der dortigen Missionarien . . . Gorlitz.
1900. Des Herrnhuter glaubensboten Christlieb Quandt Nachricht von der
arawackischen Sprache, besonders und unverandert hrsg. von J.
Platzmann. Leipzig.
Quatrefages, a. de, and Hamy, Ernest T.
1882. Crania Ethnica. Paris; London; Madrid.
Quenstedt, Werner, and Annemarie.
1936. Hominidae fossiles. Fossilium catalogus, I: Animalia, pars 74, pp.
419-435. 's- Gravenhage.
QuBVEDo A., Sergio A.
1941-42. Ensayos de antropologia ffsica. Los antiguos pobladores del
Cuzco (regi6n de Calca) . Reprinted from Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima,
vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 282-309; vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 58-96.
1943. La trepanaci6n Incana en la regi6n del Cuzco. Rev. Univ. Cuzco,
Ano 32, pp. 1-191. {Also in Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 12, pp. 8-13,
181-211.)
Quiring, D. P. See Crile, George Washington, and Quiring, D. P.
RABL-RtJCKHARD, H.
1881-82. Das Anthropologische Material des Anatomischen Museums der
Koniglichen Universitat Berlin. Die Anthropologischen Samm-
lungen Deutschlands, pt. 5, Sec. 2 (1).
Radwan, E.
1929. Einiges iiber die Sirion6. Zeit, Ethnol., vol. 40, pp. 291-296.
Rahm, G.
1931 a. Das Feuerland und seine Bewohner. Verhandl. Deutscher Wiss.
Ver. Santiago N. F., vol. 1.
1931 b. Expedici6n cientffica en la region Magalldnica. Santiago.
1931 c. Los grupos sanguineos de los Araucanos (Mapuches) y de los Fuegui-
nos. Investigaci6n y Progreso, vol. 5, p. 160. Madrid.
Raimondi, Antonio.
1862. Apuntes sobre la provincia literal de Loreto. Lima. {Also in Paz
Soldan, Mateo, "Geografia del Peru," vol. 1, pp. 593-713, Paris,
1862; and Larrabure i Correa, Carlos, "Colecci6n de leyes, decretos,
resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento
de Loreto [1777-1908] formada de orden suprema . . . ", Lima,
1905-09, vol. 7, pp. 118-278 [1905] as "Estudio [InformeJ sobre la
provincia literal de Loreto . . . ") {Trans, by William Bollaert in
Anthrop. Rev., 1863, vol. 1, pp. 33-43.)
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 675
Raimundo, Jacques.
1934. Vocabuldrios indfgenas de Venezuela. Da importdncia dos idiomas
amerindios nas relagoes com o portugues-brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro.
Ramos de Morais Rego, Aurora. See Morais Rego, Aurora Ramos de.
Ranke, .Johannes.
1900. Ueber Altperuanische Schadel von Ancon und Pachacamac gesammelt
von I. K. H. Prinzessin Therese von Bayern. Abhandl. Math.-
Physik. CI. K. Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich, vol. 20, pp. 629-750,
1909. tJber Altperuanische Schadel von Ancon und Pachacamac. II.
Abhandlung: Die Schadel der Gaffronschen Sammlung. Abhandl.
Math.-Physik. CI. K. Bayer. Akad. Wissen. Munich, vol. 23, pp.
547-658.
Rat, Joseph Numa.
1897-98. The Caril) language as now spoken in Dominica, West Indies.
Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol. 27, pp. 293-315.
Rau, p. p. See Outes, F. F., 1926-27 a, 1926-27 b.
Recalde, Juan Francisco.
1924. Nuevo metodo de ortografia guaranf. Sao Paulo.
1937 a. Estudo critico sobre "Termos tupis no portugues do Brasil." Rev.
Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 4« annee, vol. 42, pp. 39-77.
1937 b. Vocabulos designativos de relagoes e contactos sociais, nas Imguas tupi
ou guarani. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 4« ann6e, vol. 39,
pp. 59-68.
Redfield, a. C. See Barcroft, J., et al., 1923.
Reeves, R. G. See Mangelsdorf, P. C, and Reeves, R. G.
Regalia, Ettore. See Mantegazza, Paola, and Regalia, Ettore.
Reich, Alfred.
1903. Die Kampa und die Kunibo des Urubamba. Globus, vol. 83, pp.
134-135.
Reich, Alfred, and Stegelmann, Felix.
1903. Bei den Indianern des Urubamba und des Envira. Globus, vol. 83,
No. 9, pp. 133-137.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, a. and G.
1944. Grupos sanguineos entre los Indios Pijao del Tolima. Rev. Inst.
Etnol. Nac. Bogota, vol. 1, pp. 507-520.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerard.
1944. La cultura material de los indios Goahibo. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac.
Bogotii, vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 437-506.
1945 a. Bibliografia lingiiistica del grupo Choco. Bol. Arqueol. Bogotd,
vol. 1, pp. 625-627.
1945 b. Los Indios Motilones, Etnograffa y Lingiiistica. Rev. Inst. Etnol.
Nac. Bogotd, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 15-115.
Reinburg, p.
1921. Contribution a I'etude des boissons toxiques des Indiens du Nord-
ouest de I'Amazone. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, vol. 13, pp. 25-54,
197-216.
See also Rivet, P., and Reinburg, P.
Reiss, W. See Stubel, A., and Reiss, W.
Relaciones geogrX.ficas de Indias.
1881-97. 4 vols, published by Marcos Jimenez de la Espada. Madrid.
794711—50 44
676 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
ReMEDI, JoAQUfN.
1896. Los indios Matacos y su lengua . . . con vocabularios ordenados por
Samuel A. Lafone-Quevedo. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 17,
pp. 331-362.
1904. Vocabulario mataco-castellano. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina, vol. 58,
pp. 28-34, 119-132, 171-181, 202-305.
See also Lafone-Quevedo, S. A., 1896 a.
Renault, Pedro Victor.
1904. Vocabulario da lingua dos Botocudos Nacnamuk e Giporocaa. Belle
Horizonte.
Rengger, Johann Rudolph.
1830. Naturgeschichte der saugethiere von Paraguay. Basel.
Requena, Rafael.
1932. Vestigios de la Atldntida. Caracas.
Restivo, Paulo, See Ruiz de Montota, Antonio, 1892.
Restrepo Canal, Carlos.
1936. Florecimiento y desaparici6n de la lengua muisca. Conferencias dic-
tadas en la Academia colombiana de historia, con motivo de los feste-
3 OS patrios. Editorial Selecta, pp. 285-322. Bogotd.
Rey, Philippe-Marius.
1880. fitude anthropologique sur les Botocudos. Paris.
1884. Notes sur les Botocudos et sur les Purys. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris,
ser. 3, vol. 7, pp. 89-101.
Reyes, G. See Pi-Suner, J., and Reyes, G.
RiBECK, R. MUN^OZ.
1936. Contribuciones al estudio de la antropologia Chilena. V. Observa-
ciones de algunos cardcteres morfol6gicos en la dentadura de los
indios mapuches. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepcion, vol. 10, No. 1, pp.
35-63.
Ricardo, Cassiano.
1942. . . . Marcha para oeste (a influencfa da "bandeira" na forma^ao
social e politica do Brasil) . . . Colegao "Documentos brasileiros,"
vols. 25 and 25 a. Rio de Janeiro.
RiccARDi, Paola.
1886. Crani e Oggetti de gli antichi Peruviani appartenenti al Museo Civico
di Modena e al Museo di Anatomia Umana de la R. Universita di
Modena. Arcbiv. Anthrop. Ethnol., vol. 16, pp. 305-405.
Rice, Frederick John Duval.
1930. A pacificagao e identificagao das afinidades lingtiisticas da tribu Urubii
dos estados de Pard e Maranhao, 1928-29. Journ. Soc. Amer.
Paris, n. s., vol. 22, pp. 311-316.
1931. Short Aparai vocabulary. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 23,
pp. 115-120.
1934. O idioma Tembe (Tupi-Guarani) . Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 26, pp. 109-180.
Rice, John P. See Williams, Herbert U., and Lacayo, Joseph Renato.
RiCHTER, Hans.
1928. Beobachtungen tiber die Lebensweise der Yurakare Indianer. Der
Erdball, vol. 4. Berlin.
RiDouTT, Cesar A.
1942. La vicuna (Auchenia vigugna). Necesidad de conservar y propagar
esta especie aut6ctona. Bol. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lima, "Javier Prado,"
vol. 6, Nos. 22 and 23, pp. 400-409.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 677
RiED, Aq.
1863. Account of human remains from Patagonia in the Smithsonian Insti-
tution. Ann. Rep., Smithsonian Inst., 1862, pp. 426-429.
RiMBACH, A.
1897. Reise im gebiet des oberen Amazonas. Zeit. Gesell. Erd. Berlin, vol.
32, pp. 360-409.
RiPALDA, P.
1923. Catecismo-devocionai'io Castellano-Aimara. La Paz.
RippEN, Bene van.
1917. Pre-Columbian operative dentistry of the Indians of Middle and
South America: Tlie first record in liistory of the inlay procedure.
Dent. Cosmos, vol. 59, pp. 861-873.
1918. Mutilations and decorations of teeth among the Indians of North,
Central, and South America. Journ. AlUed Dent. Soc, vol. 13,
pp. 219-242.
RiVAs, Luis Antonio.
1944. Apuntaciones sobre la lengua Siona. Rev. Hist. Colombia, Nos. 3
and 4, pp. 71-76.
Rivet, Paul.
1905. Les Indiens Colorados. Recit de voyage et etude ethnologique.
Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 2, pp. 117-208.
1907-08. Les Indiens Jivaros. L'Anthropologie, vol. 18, pp. 333-368, 583-618;
vol. 19, pp. 69-87, 235-259. Paris.
1908. La race de Lagoa-Santa chez les populations precolumbiennes de
I'Equateur. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, ser. 5, vol. 9, pp.
209-271.
1909. Recherches anthropologiques sur la Basse-Californie. Journ. Soc.
Amer. Paris., n. s., vol. 6, pp. 3-109.
1910 a. Les langues guaranies du haut-Amazone. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris,
n. s., vol. 7, pp. 149-178.
1910 b. Sur quelques dialectes Panos peu counus. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris,
n. s., vol. 7, pp. 221-242.
1911 a. Affinites du Mirdnya. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 8, pp.
117-152.
1911 b. La famille linguistique Peba. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 8,
pp. 173-206.
1912 a. Les families linguistiques du Nort-ouest de TAmerique du Sud.
Ann. Ling. Paris, vol. 4, pp. 117-154.
1912b. Affinites du Tikuna. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 9, pp.
83-110.
1916. La famille Betoya ou Tukano. Mem. Soc. Ling. Paris, vol. 19, pp.
91-95.
1920 a. Affinites du Saliba et du Piar6a. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, ii. s.,
vol. 12, pp. 11-20.
1920 b. Les Katukina; 6tude linguistique. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 12, pp. 83-89.
1920 c. Les limites orientales de la famille Chibcha. Journ. Soc. Amer.
Paris, n. s., vol. 12, p. 199.
1921 a. Nouvelle contribution k I'^tude de la langue des Itouama. Journ.
Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 13, pp. 173-195.
1921 b. Aires de civilisation, aires linguistiques, aires anthropologiques.
L'Anthropologie, vol. 31, pp. 118-119. Paris.
678 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Rivet, Paul—Continued
1924 a. Langues Americaines. III. Langues de I'Am^rique du Sud et des
Antilles. In Meillet, A., and Cohen, Marcel, "Les Langues du
Monde," Coll. Ling. Paris, vol. 16, pp. 639-712.
1924 b. La langue Tunebo. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 16, pp. 19-92
1924 c. La langue Andakl. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 16, pp
99-110.
1924 d. Les Indiens Canoeiros. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 16, pp
169-181.
1924 e. Les M6Iano-Polynesiens et les Australiens en Am^rique. Comunic
Acad. Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, stance 12 d^cembre, 1924,
Paris.
1925 a. Les origines de Thomine am^ricain. L'Anthropologie, vol. 35, pp
293-319. Paris.
1925 b. Les malaneso-polynesiens et les australiens en Amerique. Anthropos
vol. 20, pp. 51-54. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1925 c. Les Australiens en Amerique. Bull. Soc. Ling. Paris, vol. 26, pp
23-63.
1925 d. Les elements constitutifs des civilisations du Nord-Ouest et de I'Ouest
Sud-am6ricain. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924, pt.
2, pp. 1-20.
1925 e. La langue Arda ou une plaisante meprise. Congr. Int. Amer.,
Sess. 21, Goteborg, 1924, pt. 2, pp. 388-390.
1926 a. Les malayo-polynesiens en Amerique. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris,
vol. 18, pp. 141-278.
1926 b. Migration australienne Amerique. La Geographic, vol. 46, pp.
100-102. Paris.
1926 c. Le role des Oc^aniens dans I'histoire du peuplement du monde et de
la civilisation. Annal. G6ogr., vol. 35, pp. 385-390. Paris.
1926 d. Le peuplement de I'Amerique precolombienne. Scientia, vol. 40,
pp. 89-100. Bologna.
1927 a. La famille linguistique Timote (Venezuela). Int. Journ. Amer.
Ling., vol. 4, Nos. 2-4, pp. 137-167.
1927 b. Relations commerciales precolombiennes entre la Polynesie et I'Ame-
rique. Compte rendu sommaire des seances de la Soci6t6 de
Biogeographie, Paris, 4« annee, No. 29, seance du 20 mai 1927,
pp. 65-68.
1927 c. Relaciones commerciales precolombianas entre Oceania y America.
Boletin de la Junta de Historia y Numismdtica Americana, vol. 4,
pp. 213-226. Buenos Aires.
1928. Relations commerciales precolombiennes entre 1' Oceanic et I'Amerique.
In Festschrift, publication d'hommage offerte au P. W. Schmidt
... Pp. 583-609. Wien (Vienna).
1929 a. Deux documents peu connus sur le Tukano. Journ. Soc. Am6r.
Paris, n. s., vol. 21, pp. 418-419.
1929 b. Une poesie en Mobima. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 21,
n. s., pp. 419-420.
1930 a. Les derniers Charruas. Rev. Soc. "Amigos Arqueol", vol. 4, p. 5.
1930 b. Contribution h I'etude des tribus indiennes de I'orient equatorien.
Bull. Soc. Amer. Belgique, Mars., 1930, pp. 5-19.
1934. Population de la province de Jaen, Equateur. Congr. Int. Sci. Anth-
rop. Ethnol., Compte rendu de la premiere session, Londres 1934.
Institut Royal d'Anthropologie, pp. 245-247. London.
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY - 679
Rivet, Paul—Continued
1937. El hombre en America. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 18, pp. 15-
37.
1941. Le groupe kokonuko. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 33, pp. 1-61.
1942. Un dialects hoka Colombian; le Yurumangi. Journ Soc. Am6r. Paris,
n. s., vol. 34, pp. 1-59.
1943 a. La influencia Karib en Colombia. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac. Bogota,
vol. 1, Entrega 1, pp. 55-93, 283-295.
1943 b. Los origenes del Hombre Americano. Cuadernos Americanos 5,
M(5.xieo.
1943-44. La lengua Choc6. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac. Bogotd, vol. 1, No. 1,
1943, pp. 131-196; No. 2, 1944, pp. 297-349.
See also Anthony, R., and Rivet, Paul; Beuchat, Henri, and Rivet,
Paul; Crequi-Montfort, G. de., and Rivet, Paul; Verneau, R.,
and Rivet, Paul.
Rivet, Paul, and Fathers Kok, P., and Tastevin, C.
1924-25. Nouvelle contribution a I'^tude de la langue Makii. Int. Journ
Amer. Ling., vol. 3, Nos. 2-4, pp. 133-192.
Rivet, Paul, and Oppenheim, Victor.
1943. La lengua Tunebo. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Nac. Bogotd, vol. 1, pp. 47-53,
Rivet, Paul, and Reinburg, P.
1921. Les Indiens Marawan. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 13, pp.
103-118.
Rivet, Paul, and Tastevin, Constant.
1919-24. Les langues du Puriis, du Jurud, et des regions limitrophes; 1. Le
groupe arawak pre-andin. Anthropos, vols. 14-15, 1919-20, pp.
857-890; vols. 16-17, 1921-22, pp. 298-325, 819-828; vols. 18-19,
1923-24, pp. 104-113. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1920. Affinit^s du Maku et du Puindve. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 12, pp. 60-82.
1921. Les tribus indiennes des bassins du Purus, du Jurud et des regions
limitrophes. La G^ographie, vol. 35, pp. 449-482. Paris.
1924. Les dialectes Pano du Haut Jurud et du Purus. Congr. Int. Am6r,
Sess 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 3, pp. 227-278. Rio de Janeiro.
1927-29. Les dialectes Pano du haut Jurud, et du haut Purus. Anthropos,
vol. 22, pp. 811-827; vol. 24, pp. 489-516. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1931. Nouvelle contribution h I'^tude du groupe Kahuapana. Int. Journ.
Amer. Ling., vol. 6, pp. 227-271.
1938-40. Les langues arawak du Puriis et du Jurud (groupe araud). Journ.
Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 30, 1938, pp. 71-114, 235-288; vol.
32, 1940, pp. 1-55.
Roberts, F. J., and Symes, S. P.
1936. Vocabulary of the Guajajara dialect. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 28, pp. 209-248.
ROBLEDO, EmILIO.
1922. Vocabulario de los Chamies. Rep. Hist. Medellin, 4« annde, Nos. 5-8,
pp. 603-607.
RoBLEDO, MoNTEJO Y. See Williams, Herbert U., Rice, John P., and Lacayo,
Joseph Renato.
Robuchon, Eugenic.
1907. En el Putumayo y sus afluentes. Lima.
ROCHA, JoAQUfN.
1905. Memorandum de viaje . . . regiones Amaz^nicos. Bogota.
680 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
ROCHEBRXJNE, AlPHONSE TrEMEAU DE.
1879. Recherches d'ethnographie botanique sur la flore des sepultures]
Peruviennes d'Ancon. Actes Soc. Linn. Bordeaux, vol, 3, pp.
343-358.
Rochefort, Charles de.
1658. Histoire naturelle et morale des lies Antilles de 1'Am6rique. Rotterdam.!
(Other eds.; 2<» ed., Roterdam, 1665; Lyon, 1667, of which vol. 21
carries title "Histoire morale des lies Antilles de rAm6rique";l
Roterdam, 1681; Eng. trans., London, 1666; Dutch trans., Rotter-j
dam, 1662.)
Rochereau, Henri J.
1924. Chez les indiens du haut Arauca (notes de voyages). L'Anthropologic,!
vol. 34, pp. 255-282. Paris.
1926-27. La lengua Tuneba y sus dialectos (ensayo gramdtical) . Pamplona,J
Colombia.
1932. El estudio de las lenguas indigenas. Rev. Mis. Colombia, 8« ann^e,1
pp. 501-506.
1938. Contribuci6n a la antropologia Colombiana. El Origen de los Indies
Tunebos. Rev. Acad. Colombia Cienc. Exact. Fis. Natur., vol.
2, No. 6, pp. 279-282.
RODRIGUES PeIXOTO, J.
1885. Novos estudos craniologicos sobre os Botocudos. Archiv. Mus.
Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 6, pp. 205-256.
See also Lacerda, (J. B.), and Rodrigues Peixoto, (J.).
RoDRfouEz, Mariano C.
1921. Gramiitica de la lengua quechua. Novfsima edici6n notablemente
corregida y enriquecida con muchas voces y ejercicios de aplicaci6n
prdctica para cada regla. Cuzco.
RODRfGUEZ, P.
1915. Plantas medicinales del Paraguay. Asunci6n.
RoDRfoUEZ, ZOROBABEL.
1875. Diccionario de Chilenismos. Santiago.
RoDWAY, James.
1912. Guiana: British, Dutch, and French. London.
Rogers, Spencer L.
1938. The healing of trephine wounds in skulls from pre-Columbian Peru.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 23, pp. 321-340.
ROJAS, RiCARDO.
1936. Investigaciones and,tomo-patol6gicas y estadisticas sobre la sifilis
congenita en Concepci6n. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepcidn, vol. 10,
pp. 159-192.
1942. Proyecto: plan detrabajos sobre la lengua Quichua. Rev. Univ. Cuzco
vol. 30, No. 80, pp. 38-41.
Romano, P. Santiago, and Cattunar, P. Herman.
1916. Diccionario Chiriguano-Espafiol y Espafiol-Chiriguano compilado
teniendo a la vista diversos manuscritos de antiguos misioneros del
Apost61ico Colegio de Santa Maria de Los Angeles de Tarija y
particularmente el Diccionario Chiriguano etimol6gico del R. P.
Dorot^o Giannechini. Tarija.
ROMEIRO DA ROZA.
1920. Alguns dados antropologicos sobre os sorteados da zona da mata
(Minas). Bol. Soc. Med.-Cir. Mil. Rio de Janeiro, vol, 6, No. 2,
pp. 53-61.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 681
Romero, Carlos Alberto.
1931. Los trabajos lingiiisticos del P. Buenaventura Marques. Rev. Hist.
Lima, vol. 9, pp. 111-114.
Romero, Elias C.
1927. Llamas y alpacas, vicunas y guanacos. Montevideo.
Romero y Cordero, Remigio.
1930. Sinfonfa de la selva jlvara. El Oriente Dominicano, vol. 3, pp. 165-167.
Quito.
Rond6n, Candido Mariano da Silva.
1910. Ethnographia. Comissao de Linlias Telegraphicas estrat^gicas de
Matto Grosso ao Amazonas. Annexo 5. Rio de Janeiro.
1915. . . . Relat<3rio apresentado d, Divisao geral de engenharia (G. 5) do
Departmento da guerra e a Directoria geral dos telegraphos. . . .
Vol. 3. Commissao de Linhas Telegraphicas estrat^gicas de Matto-
Grosso ao Amazonas. Publ. No. 26, 39. Rio de Janeiro.
Roquette-Pinto, Edgar.
1912. Os Indios Nambikuara do Brasil Central. A communication to the
International Congress of Americanists held in London in 1912.
Rio de Janeiro.
1915. Anthropologia. (Qui a das colegoes.) Mus. Nac. Rio de Janeiro.
1917. Rondonia. Anthropologia, Ethnographia. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio
de Janeiro, vol. 20. (1st ed., 1912.)
1923. Caracteristicas antropologicas da populagao do Brasil. Folha medica,
vol. 4, No. 4, p. 30. Rio de Janeiro.
1928. Nota sobre os typos antropologicos do Brasil. Archiv Mus. Nac.
Rio de Janeiro, vol. 30, pp. 303-331.
1935. Rondonia. "Colegao BrasiHana," Bibl. Pedag. Brasil., s6rie 5: vol. 39.
(3d ed.) Sao Paulo. (Reprinted 1938.)
1940. Contribuigao k antropologia do Brasil. Rev. Imig. Col. Rio de Janeiro,
vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 437-454.
1942. Contributions to the anthropology of Brazil. Proc. 8th Amer. Sci.
Congr., Washington, 1940, vol. 2, Anthropological Sciences, pp.
241-243. Washington.
RosELL, Enrique.
1916. Los Machigangas del Urubamba; estudios etnogrdficos. Rev. Univ.
Cuzco, 5« annee, No. 15, pp. 39-48; No. 16, pp. 2-18.
Rosen, Eric von.
1904. The Chorotes Indians in the Bolivian Chaco. A preliminary report
dedicated to the 14th Int. Congr. Amer. at Stuttgart, 1904. Stock-
holm.
Rosenblat, Angel.
1935. El desarollo de poblaci6n indfgena de America. Tierra Firme, vol. 1,
No. 1, pp. 115-133; No. 2, pp. 117-148; No. 3, pp. 109-141. Madrid.
1936. Los Otomacos y Taparitas de los llanos de Venezuela. Estudio etnogrd-
fico y lingiiistico. Tierra Firme, vol. 2, pp. 131-153, 259-304,
439-514. Madrid.
Roth, Walter Edmund.
1915. An inquiry into the animism and folklore of the Guiana Indians.
30th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. EthnoL, 1908-09, pp. 103-386.
1924. An introductory study of the arts, crafts, and customs of the Guiana
Indians. 38th Ann. Rep. Bur. Amer. EthnoL, 1916-17, pp. 25-745.
682 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
ROTHLISBERGER, EeNST VON.
1883-84. Zur indianer-sprache in den vereinigten staaten der republik Colom-
bia. [Vokabular von rio Atrato]. Jahresber. Geogr. Gesell.
Bern, vol 6, pp. 143-148.
RouMA, Georges.
1913. Les Indiens Quitchouas et Aymards des Haute-Plateaux de la Bolivie.
R^sultats de la Mission anthropologique de 1911. Brussels.
RouMAiN, Jacques.
1942. Contribution a I'etude de I'ethnobotanique precolombienne des
Grandes Antilles . . . Bull. Bur. Ethnol. Haiti, No. 1.
RouTiL, Robert.
1939. Erbbiometrische Studien an Feuerlandern. In Gusinde, Martin,
"Die Feuerland-Indianer, III (pt. 2) Anthropologie," pp. 464^474.
Modling bei Wien.
RowE, John Howard, and Escobar, Gabriel.
1943. Los sonidos quechuas de Cuzco y Chanca. Waman Puma, aiio III,
vol. 3, No. 15, pp. 21-35. Cuzco.
Rozo M., Dario.
1938. . . Mitologia y escritura de los chibchas. Bogotd,.
RUDINGER.
1889. Die Rassen-Schadel und Skelette in der Konigl. Anatomischen
Anstalt in Miinchen. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen Deutsch-
lands, pt. 10.
Rudolph, Bruno.
1909. Worterbuch der Botokudensprache. Hamburg.
RuFz, Broca, and Martin de Moussy.
1860. Instructions pour des etudes antlirojiologiques au Bresil. Bull. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris, vol. 1, pp. 308-319.
Rugendas, Johann Moritz.
1835. Voyage pittoresque dans le Bresil. Paris.
Ruiz Blanco, MatIas.
1888 a. Arte y tesoro de la lengua Cumanagoto. In "Algunas obras raras
sobre la lengua cumanagota," publicadas de nueva por Julio
Platzmann, vol. 3. Leipzig.
1888 b. Diccionario de la lengua de los Indios Cumanagotos y Palenques.
In Yangues, Manuel de, "Principios y reglas de la lengua Cumana-
gota," pp. 73-220. Leipzig.
1892. Conversi6n de Pirity . . . Colecci6n de libros raros o curiosos que
tratan de America, vol. 7. Madrid.
Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio.
1876 a. Arte de la lengua Guarani. (Arte, bocabulario, tesoro y catecismo
de la lengua guarani por Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, pub. . . . por
Julio Platzmann, vol. 1.) Leipzig.
1876 b. Vocabulario de la lengua Guarani. (Arte, bocabulario, tesoro y
catacismo de la lengua Guarani por Antonio Ruiz de Montoya,
pub . . . por Julio Platzmann, vol. 2.) Leipzig.
1876 c. Tesoro de la lengua Guarani. (Arte, bocabulario, tesoro y catecismo
de la lengua Guarani por Antonio Ruiz de Montoya, pub. . . .
por Julio Platzmann, vol. 3.) Leipzig.
187G d. Catecismo de la lengua Guarani. (Arte, bocabulario, tesoro y
catecismo de la lengua Guarani, por Antonio Ruiz de Montoya,
pub. . . . por Julio Platzmann, vol. 4.) Leipzig.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 683
Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio—Continued
1892. Linguae guarani gramatica, hispanice, a reverendo patre Jesuita
Paulo Restivo. . . . Stuttgardiae (Stuttgart).
Ruiz Palazuela, A.
1927. La mds antigua mistificaci6n literaria de America. El drama quechua
"Ollantoy." El Hogar, vol. 23, No. 900, 14 f^vrier 1927, pp. 7
and 61. Buenos Aires.
RuscoNi, Carlos.
1928. Sobre la presencia de huesos fdsiles en un paradero indfgena. An.
Soc. Cient. Argentina., vol. 104, pp. 197-204.
1930. La presencia del general "Platygonus" en tumulos indigenas de epocha
prehisp^nica. Addenda [to] "Las especies f6siles argentinas de
pecaries ('Tayassuidae') y sus relaciones con las del Brasil y Norte
America." An. Mus, Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 36, pp.
228-240.
1932. Probable posici6n estratigrafica de la calota de "Diprothomo Platensis"
Amegh. Publ. Mus. Antrop. Etnol. Fac. Filos. Letras, Ser. A, vol.
2, pp. 177-186.
1933. La vida animal a fines del Terciario superior en Buenos Aires. El
Mon. Educ. Comun. Buenos Aires, vol. 52, No. 728, pp. 1-65.
1935 a. Las especies de primates del oligoceno de Patagonia (gen. Homun-
culus). Rev. Argentina Paleon. Antrop. Ameghinia, vol. 1, pp.
39-68, 71-100, 103-125.
1935 b. Restos humanos f6sil de la provincia de Santiago del Estero. Rev.
Argentina Paleon. Antrop. Ameghinia, vol. 1, pp. 135-153.
1937-38. Contribuci6n al conocimiento de la geologia de la ciudad de Buenos
Aires y sus alrededores y referenda de su fauna. Actas Acad.
Nac. Cienc. C6rdoba, pt. 1, vol. 10, pp. 1-294; pt. 2, vol. 10, pp.
295-385.
1938. Restos humanos sub-f6siles de Mendoza. An. Soc. Cient. Argentina,
vol. 126, pp. 460-470.
1940. Parietal multiple en un craneo indfgena de Mendoza. La Semana
Medica, ano 47, No. 24. Buenos Aires.
1941. Frontal bipartido en un crdneo humano. La Semana M6dica, ano
48, No. 33, pp. 412-413, Buenos Aires.
RydIin, Stig.
1941. A study of the Siriono Indians. Goteborg.
See also Hultkrantz, J. V., 1936.
SX E Oliveira J. B.
1895. Craniometria comparada das especies humanas na Baia, sob o ponto
de vista evolucionista e medico-legal. Bafa.
Saavedra, Bautista.
1931. Difusi6n geogrdfica del Aimar^. BoL Soc. Geogr. La Paz, 34« an-
n^e, Nos. 61-62, pp. 41-54.
Sabatini, Arturo.
1933. Observations radiographiques sur I'astragale des Fu6giens. 2® Session
de la V« Assemblee G6n6rale de I'lnstitut International d'Anthro-
pologie, and of the XV« Congr. Int. Anthrop. Arch^ol. Prehist.
(Suite), Paris, 1931, pp. 150-157.
1933-34. Osservazioni radiografiche suU' astrogalo dei Fuegini. Riv. An-
trop., vol. 30.
684 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 1431
SXenz, Nicolas.
1876. Memoria sobre algimas tribiis del territorio de San Martin en loa
Estados Unidos de Colombia. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 8, pp. 336-342.
Safford, William Edwin.
1916. Identity of Cohoba, the narcotic snuflf of ancient Hayti. Journ.
Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 7, pp. 547-562.
1917 a. Food-plants and textiles of ancient America. Proc. Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, pp. 12-30.
1917 b. A forgotten cereal of ancient America. Proc. Congr. Int. Amer.;
Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, pp. 286-297.
1917 c. Food-plants and textiles of ancient America. Proc. 2nd Pan-Amer.
Sci. Congr., Washington, 1915-16, Section I, Anthropology, vol.
1, pp. 146-159.
1917 d. Narcotic plants and stimulants of the ancient Americans. Ann.
Rep. Smithsonian Inst., 1916, pp. 387-424.
1925. The potato of romance and of reality. Journ. Hered., vol. 16, No. 6,
pp. 113-230.
1927. Our heritage from the American Indians. Ann. Rep. Smithsonian
Inst., 1926, pp. 405-410.
Saffrat, Dr.
1872. Voyage a la Nouvelle-Grenade. Le Tour du Monde, vol. 24, pp. 81-
144. Paris.
Sagot, p.
1882. Vocabulaire Frangais Galivi. In Cr^vaux, J. N., Sagot, P., and Adam,
L., "Grammaires et vocabulaires Roucouyenne, Arrouague, Piapoco
et d'autres langues de la region des Guayanes," Bibl. Ling. Am6r.
Paris, vol. 8.
Saint-Hilaire, Augtjste de (Augustine Fran50I8 CjSsar Prouven5al de),
1827-32. Flora Brasiliae meridionalis, auctoribus Augusto de Saint-Hilaire
. . . Adriano de Jussieu . . . Jacobo Cambessedes . . . Acce-
dunt tabulae delineatae a Turpinio aerique incisae ... 3 vols.
Paris.
1830-51. Voyages dans I'interieur du Br^sil. I partie: Voyage dans ies
provinces de Rio de Janeiro et de Minas Geraes . . . [1830-33].
II partie: Voyage dans le district des diamans et sur le littoral
du Bresil . . . [1830-33]. Ill partie: Voyage aux sources du
Rio de S. Francisco et dans la province de Goyaz . . . [1847-
48]. IV partie: Voyage dans Ies provinces de Saint-Paul et
dc Sainte-Catherine . . . [1851]. Paris.
Sala, R p. Ant6nio Maria.
1920. Ensaio de gramdtica Kaiap6. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 12, pp. 393-429.
Sala, Gabriel.
1897. . . . Apuntes de viaje . . . : exploraci6n de los rios Pichis, Pachitea, y
alto Ucayali, y de la region del Gran Pajonal. Republica del
Peru. Ministerio de fomento. Lima.
1905-06. Diccionario, gramdtica y catecismo Castellano, Inga, Amueixa y
Campa. Bol. Soc. Geogr. Lima, vol. 17, pp. 149-227, 311-356,
469-490; vol. 19, pp. 102-120, 211-240; vol. 21, pp. 311-341;
vol. 23, pp. 81-101.
Salaman, Redcliffe N.
1939. Deformities and mutiliations of the face as depicted in the Chimu
pottery of Peru. Journ. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol.
69, pp. 109-122.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 685
Salas, Julio S.
1918. Los orfgenes. Sobre las lenguas indigenas americanas. Su corrupci6n.
Falsos derroteros. De Re Indica, voL 1, No. 3, pp. 73-76.
1919. Etnografia del Estado Merida; Indios Mucus, etc. De Re Indica,
vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 115-121.
1924. . . . Origines americanos, lenguas indias comparadas. Caracas.
Salath6, Georges.
1931-32. Les Indiens Karime. Rev. Inst. Etnol. Univ. Tucumdn, vol. 2,
pp. 297-316.
Saldias, Adolfo.
1912. Una gramatica y un diccionario de la lengua Pampa, original del
general Don Juan Manuel de Rosas. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 17,
Buenos Aires, 1910, p. 223. Buenos Aires.
Saller, Karl.
1939. Die Haare der Feuerlander. In Gusinde, Martin, "Die Feuerland-
Indianer. Ill (pt. 2) Anthropologie," pp. 475-483. Modling bei
Wien.
Salsbury, C. G.
1939. Personal communication to Crile and Quiring. In Crile, G. W., and
Quiring, D. P., "A study of the metabolism of the Maya Quich6
Indian," Journal of Nutrition, vol. 18, pp. 369-374. Springfield, 111.
Sampaio, a. J. de.
1916. A flora de Matto Grosso. Archiv. Mus. Nac. Rio dc Janeiro, vol. 19.
Sampaio, Theodoro Fernandes.
1890. . . . Consideragoes geograficas e economicas sobre o valle do Rio
Paranapanema. Bol. Inst. Geogr. Geol. Sao Paulo, No. 4, pp. 87-
156.
1912. Os Krdos do rio Preto no Estado da Baia. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr.
Brasil., vol. 74, pp. 145-205.
Sanchez Labrador, Jose.
1896. In Lafone-Quevedo, Samuel A., "Idioma Mbaya," An. Soc. Cient.
Argentina, vol. 41, pp. 339-364; vol. 42, pp. 44-58.
1910-17. El Paraguay Catolico. 3 vols. Buenos Aires.
Sandoval, L.
1941. Grupos sangufneos y su importancia para la criminologia. Rev.
Grim. Folic. Cient., pp. 1-9.
Sanhifeza, H. See Meza, F., Sanhueza, H., and Dussart, E.
Sankas, S. H.
1930. Relation of cranial module to capacity. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 305-318.
San Roman, Francisco J.
1890. La lengua Cunza de los naturales de Atacama. Santiago de Chile.
Santa Cruz, JoaquIn.
1913. Los indigenas del norte de Chile antes de la conquista espanola. Rev.
Chilena Hist. Geogr, vol. 7, trimestre 3, pp. 38-88.
1921. Los indigenas del Ecuador. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol. 38,
trimestre 2, pp. 483-499; vol. 39, pp. 12-60.
1922. Los indigenas del Peru y Bolivia. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol.
41, pp. 338-381.
1923 a. Los Indios del Ecuador. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr., vol. 45.
1923 b. El idioma Araucano. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito, vol. 6, pp. 67-
86.
686 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Santa Teresa, Severing de.
1924. Creencias, ritos, usos y costumbres de los Indies catfos de la prefectura
apost61ica de Urabd,. Bogotd,.
Santesson, Carl Gustap.
1929. Ein Pfeilgift mit Herzwirkung aus der Neuen Welt. Skandinavisches
Archiv fiir Physiologie, vol. 55. Berlin; Leipzig.
1935 a. A report in brief on an examination of Choc6 Indian poisons. In
Wassen, Henry, "Notes on southern groups of Choc6 Indians in
Colombia," Etnol. Stud. [vol. 1], pp. 105-107.
1935 b. Pharmacological examination of the Cayapa poison. In Wassen,
Henry, "Notes on southern groups of Choc6 Indians in Colombia,"
Etnol. Stud. [vol. 1], pp. 107-108.
Santiana, a.
1944. Los grupos sangufneos de los indios del Ecuador. Notas Mus. La
Plata, vol. 9, pp. 431-438.
SantIsimo Sacramento, Pablo del. See Pablo del SANTfsiMO Sacramento.
Santo Tomas, Domingo de
1891. Arte de la lengua quichua, compuesta por Domingo de Sancto Thomas,
publicado de nuevo por Julio Platzmann. Edicion facsimilar.
Leipzig.
Santos, Eurico.
1942. Anfibios e r^pteis do Brasil (vida e costumes). Rio de Janeiro.
Santos, Noel Carlos dos.
1934 a. Nomenclatura indigena. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" ann6e,
vol. 2, pp. 27-30.
1934 b. As localidades paulistas atraves da nomenclatura indigena. Rev.
Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, l^^ ann^e, vol. 4, pp. 31-32.
SaSudo, Jose Rafael.
1923. Razas indigenas de Nariiio. Don Quixote, vol. 1, pp. 45-48, 67-71.
Pasto, Colombia.
Sapir, Edward.
1925. The Hokan affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. Amer. Anthrop., vol.
27, pp. 402-435, 491-527.
Sapper, Karl Theodor.
1897. Mittelamericanische Caraiben. Int. Archiv. Ethnogr., vol. 10, pp.
53-60.
1901. Beitrage zur Ethnographic des siidlichen Mittelamerika. Petermanns
Mitt., vol. 47, No. 2.
1905. Der gegenwartige stand der ethnographischen kenntnis von Mittel-
amerika. Archiv. Anthrop., vol. 31, pp. 1-38.
Sarasin, p.
1928. Zur frage von der prahistorischen Besiedlung von Amerika, mit all-
gemeinen Bretrachtung iiber Stufenfolge der Steinzeit. Neue
Denkschr. Schweizer. Natur. Gesell., vol. 64, pp. 233-275.
Sarmiento de Gamboa, Pedro.
1768. Viaje al Estrecho de Magallanes por el capitdn Pedro Sarmiento de
Gamboa en los aiios 1579 y 1580. Ed. por B. de Iriarte. Madrid.
(English trans, in Markham, C. R., ed., "Narratives of the voyages
of Pedro Sarmiento de Gamb6a to the Straits of Magellan," Hakluyt
Society, vol. 91, London.)
Vol. G] BIBLIOGRAPHY 687
Sauer, Carl O.
1936, American agricultui'al origins: A consideration of nature and culture.
In Essays in anthropology, presented to A. L. Kroeber, pp. 279-297.
Univ. Calif. Press. Berkeley.
Saville, Marshall H.
1913. Precolumbian decoration of the teeth in Ecuador with some account
of the occurrence of the custom in other parts of North and South
America. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 15, pp. 377-394.
Schaaffhausen, H.
1877. Die Anthropologische Sammlung des Anatomischen Museums der
Universitat Bonn. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen Deutsch-
lands, pt. 1.
1879-80. Die anthropologische Sammlung des Museums der Senckenbergi-
schen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft und des Senckenbergischen
Anatomischen Instituts, Frankfurt A. M. Die Anthropologi-
schen Sammlungen Deutschlands, pt. 6.
ScHADEN, Egon. See Steinen, K. von den, 1940.
SCHAUBLE, J.
1939. Indianer und Mischlinge in Siidchile. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop., vol. 38.
SCHERMAIR, AnSELM.
1934. Kurze mitteilungen uber die Sirion6-Indianer im ostlichen Bolivien.
Anthropos, vol. 29, pp. 519-521. St. Gabriel-Modling.
See also Wegner, R. N. von, 1934 b.
ScHERZER, Karl Ritter von
1855. Sprachen des Indianer Central-Amerika's. Sitzung. Philos.-Histor.
lU. K. Akad. Wissen. Wien, vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 28-37.
ScHiAFFiNO, Rafael.
1927. Historia de la medicina en el Uruguay. Montevideo.
ScHMiD, Te6filo (Theophiltjs).
1860. Vocabulary and rudiments of grammar of the Tsoneca Language.
Bristol.
1912 a. Two linguistic treatises on the Patagonian or Tehuelche language
. . . Edited by R. Lehmann-Nitsche. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess.
17, Buenos Aires, appendix 1, pp. 1-58.
1912 b. Grammar of the Tsoneca language. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 17,
Buenos Aires, 1910, appendix 2, pp. 1-41.
See also Lehmann-Nitsche, R., 1912 a; Outes, F. F., 1926-1928 c.
Schmidt, Emil.
1886. Catalog der Im Anatomischen Institut der Universitat Leipzig Aufge-
stellten Craniologischen Sammlung. Die Anthropologischen Privat-
Sammlungen Deutschlands, Pt. 1.
Schmidt, Max.
1902. Die Guat6. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 77-89.
1903. Guan^. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 35, pp. 324-336, 560-604.
1905. Indianerstudien in Zentralbrasilien; erlebnisse und ethnologische
Ergebnisse einer Reise in den Jahren 1900 bis 1901. Berlin.
1912. Reisen in Matto Grosso im Jahre 1910. Zeit. Etnol., vol. 44, pp. 130-
174.
1914 a. Die Paressi-Kabishi. Baessler-Archiv., vol. 4, pp. 167-250.
1914 b. Die Guat6 und ihr Gebiet. Ethnologische und archaologische
Ergebnisse der Expedition zum Caracara-Fluss im Matto-Grosso.
Baessler-Archiv, vol. 4, pp. 251-283.
688 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
Schmidt, Max—Continued
1917. Die Aruaken; ein Beitrag zum problem der kulturverbreitung.
Leipzig.
1929 a. Ergebnisse meiner zweijahrigen Forschungsreise in Matto Grosso,
Sept. 1926 bis August 1928. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 60, pp. 85-124.
1929 b, Kunst und Kultur von Peru. Berlin.
1936 a, Los Makkd en comparaci6n de los Enimagd, antiguos. Rev. Soc.
Cient. Paraguay, vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 152-157.
1936 b. Los Guarayu. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 158-190.
1937 a. Los Guisnais. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 1-35.
1937 b. Vocabulario de la lengua makd,. Rev. Soc. Cierit. Paraguay, vol. 4,
No. 2, pp. 68-85.
1937 c. Los Tapietes. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 36-67.
1938. Los Chiriguanos e Izoz6s. Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, vol. 4, No. 3,
pp. 3-116.
1941. Los Barbados o Umotinas en Matto Grosso (Brasil). Rev. Soc. Cient.
Paraguay, vol. 5, No. 4.
Schmidt, Wilhelm.
1905. Diccionario Sipibo
. , . herausgegeben von Karl von den Steinen.
Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 35, pp. 127-130. (Book review of
Steinen, K. von den, "Diccionario Sipibo," Berlin, 1904.)
1925. Die Stellung des Genitivs in den siidamerkanischen Sprachen und ihre
Bedeutung fur den Sprachaufbau. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21,
Goteborg, 1924, pp. 333-347.
1926. Die Spraclifamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde. Heidelberg.
See also Rivet, P., 1928.
ScHMiTT, Waldo L.
1931. Crustaceans. Smithsonian Scient. Ser., vol. 10, pt. 2, pp. 87-248.
Schneider, C. O.
1926. Mamiferos f6siles de Chile. Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat., vol. 30, pp.
144-156. Santiago.
1936. Mamiferos f6siles de Chile. Rev. Chilena Hist. Nat., vol. 39, pp.
297-304. Santiago.
SCHOMBURGK, RoBERT M,
1847-48. Reisen in Britisch Guiana. Leipzig.
1849. Remarks to accompany a vocabulary of eighteen languages and dialects
of Indian tribes inhabiting Guiana. Rep. British Assoc. Advance
Science, 18th meeting, Swansea, 1848, pp. 96-99. London.
Schrader, H. F. See Matson, Gustave Albin, and Schrader, H. F.
SCHREIBER, WiTOLD.
1909. Beitrag zur Kraniologie der Altperuanischen Schadel. Zeit, Morph.
Anthrop., vol. 12, pp. 243-260.
Schrotter, Hermann von.
1898. Demonstration von zwei deformirten Peruanerschadeln. Mitt.
Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 28, Sitzungsberichte No. 2, pp. 46-49.
SCHULLER, RODOLFO (RuDOLF, RuDOLPh) R.
1906. Sobre el orijen de los Charrua; replica al doctor Jorje Friederici, de
Leipzig. An. Univ. Chile, vol. 118.
1907 a. El vocabulario araucano de 1642-43, con notas criticas i algunas
adiciones a las bibliografias de la lengua Mapuche. Santiago.
1907 b. Sobre al supuesto autor del Arte de la lengua de los Indies Campa 6
Antis. Bol. Min. Agric. of Colon. Bolivia.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 689
ScHULLER, RoDOLFO (RuDOLF, Rudolph) R.—Continued
1908. Vocabularios y nuevos materiales para el estudio de los Indies Lika-
nantai (Atacamenos) Calchaqui. Santiago de Chile.
1911 a. Weitere Erganzungen zur Bibliographie der Nusprachen (Pano-
Gruppe). Anthropos, vol. 6, heft 3-4, p. 640.
1911 b. Las lenguas indigenas de la cuenca del Amazonas y del Orinoco.
Rev. Amer. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 5, pp. 622-661; vol. 6. pp. 25-84.
1912 a. Ilallazgo de documentos acerca de la lengiia Saliba. Anthropos,
vol. 7, pp. 761-764.
1912 b. Fragmentos del Arte Idioma Conivo, Setevo, Sipivo y Casivo o
Comova, que hablan los indios asi llamados, que residen a las
margenes del famoso Rio Paro alias Ucayali, y de sus tributaries
Manoa, Cuxiabatay, Tisqui, Aguaytia y Pachitea. An. Bibl.
Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 31.
1912 c. . . . Lingiiistica americana, notas bibliogrd.ficas. Madrid.
1912 d. "Yfierre" o "stammvater" dos indios maynas; esbogo ethnologico-
linguistico. An. Bibl. Nac. Rio de Janeiro, vol. 30, pp. 167-300.
1913 a. Discovery of a fragment of the printed copy of the work on the
Millcayac language by Luis Valdivia with bibliographical notice.
Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer. Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Univ., vol.
3, pp. 221-258.
1913 b. Paraguay native poetry. Journ. Amer. Folk-lore, vol. 26, pp.
338-350.
1913 c. Zur Affinitat der Tupaya-Indianer des "Theatrum rerum natura-
lium Brasiliae." Int. Archiv. Ethnogr., vol. 21, pp. 78-98.
1913 d. Zur sprachlichen Stellung der Millcayac-Indianer. Int. Archiv.
Ethnogr., vol. 21, pp. 177-188.
1916, Discovery of new materials of the Moseten idiom. Amer. Anthrop.,
n. s., vol. 18, pp. 603-604.
1917. The only known words of the Charriia language of Rio de La Plata.
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 19, Washington, 1915, pp. 552-554. Wash-
ington.
1917-18. Contribution to the native poetry of Peru. Anthropos, vol. 12-13,
pp. 351-354.
1919-20 a. Zur sprachlichen Verwandtschaft der Maya-Qu'itse mit der
Carib-Aruac. Anthropos, vol. 14-15, pp. 465-491. St.
Gabriel-Modling.
1919-20 b. Die Calchaqui-frage. Anthropos, vol. 14-15, pp. 572-573.
St. Gabriel-Modling.
1921. The linguistic and ethnographical position of the Nambicudra Indians.
Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 23, pp. 471-477.
1925. Apuntes para una bibliografia de las lenguas indigenas de la America
del Sur. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 8, Nos. 1-2, pp. 51-60.
1928. Las lenguas indigenas de Centro America con especial referencia a los
idiomas aborigines de Costa Rica. San Jose de Costa Rica.
1930 a. Die Sprache der Mongoy6-Indianer im Staate Bahia (Nordost-
Brasilien). Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 6, pp. 43-46.
1930 b. A vanished language of a vanishing Indian people. Ind. Notes,
vol. 7, pp. 312-320.
1930 c. Materiales para el estudio de las lenguas aborigenes del sur de
Colombia, Sur America. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol. 6, pp.
34-36.
690 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
ScHULLER, RoDOLFO (RuDOLP, Rudolph) R.—Continued
1933. The language of the Tacana Indians (Bolivia). Anthropos, vol. 28,
pp. 99-116, 463-484. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1936. Algunos impresos hoy ya muy raros sobre lenguas indigenas Ameri-
canas. Anthropos, vol. 31, pp. 943-948. St. Gabriel-Modling.
See also Bibolotti, Benigno, 1917; Magelli, J. M., 1891.
SCHULTZ, A. H.
1926. Anthropological studies on the Nicaraguan Indians. Amer. Journ.
Phys. Anthrop., vol. 9, pp. 65-80.
ScHULTZ, Rev. Theodor.
1850. The Acts of the Apostles translated into the Arrawack tongue. New
York. (Other ed. Amer. Bib. Soc, 1816.)
ScLATER, William Lutley, and Sclater, Philip Lutley.
1899. The geography of mammals. London.
ScoLNiDE Klimann, Elena. See Klimann, Elena Scolni de.
Scott, William Berryman.
1937. A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere, (Rev. ed.)
New York.
Secco, Abilio. See Bastos d'Avila, Josfi, Pourchet, Maria Julia, and
Secco, Abilio.
Seemann, Berthold Carl.
1853. The aborigines of the Isthmus of Panama. Trans. Amer. Ethnol.
Soc, vol. 3, pp. 173-182.
See also Pirn, Bedford.
Segers, Polidoro a..
1891. Tierra del Fuego: Hdbitos y costumbres de los Indios Aonas. Bol.
Inst. Geogr. Argentino, vol. 12, Cuadernos 5-6, pp. 56-82.
Seguin.
1863. In Burmeister, H., 1866; Gervais, P., 1867 and 1872.
Seitz, Johannes.
1883. tJber die Feuerlander. [Virchow's] Archiv. Path. Anat. Phys. lOin.
Med., vol. 91, pp. 154r-189, 346-349.
1886. Zwei Feuerlander-Gehirne. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 18, pp. 237-284.
Seler, Eduard.
1885. Notizen iiber die Sprache der Colorado von Ecuador. Ethnol. Abt.
Konigl. Mus., vol. 1, pp. 44-56. {Also in Gesammelte Abhand-
lungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, vol. 1,
pp. 3-17, Berlin, 1902.)
1902 a. Die Sprachen der Indianer von Esmeraldas. In Gesammelte
Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde,
vol. 1, pp. 49-64. Berlin.
1902 b. Die Verwandten Sprachen der Cayapa und der Colorados von
Ecuador. In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen
Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, vol. 1, pp. 18-48. Berlin.
Sellards, a. W. See Strong, R. P., Tyzzer, E. E., et al, 1915.
Sellards, Elias Howard.
1940. Early man in America. Index to localities and selected bibliography.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 51, pp. 373-431.
1947. Early Man in America. Index to localities and selected bibliography,
1940-1945. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 58, pp. 955-978.
Selva, Juan B.
1922. Voces de origen indfgena. Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, 19® ann^e,
vol. 49-50, juUleiHaoAt 1922, N<>. 152.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 691
SemalliS, de.
1869. Note sur les Patagons. Bull. Soc, Anthrop. Paris, 2d ser., vol. 4,
pp. 552-554.
Seneze, Pierre Vidal.
1877. Perforations crdniennes sur d'anciens cranes du haut P^rou. Bull.
Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 2d ser., vol. 12, pp. 561-563.
Senna, Nelson de.
1922. Chorographia do Estado de Minas-Gerais. Vol. 10 da Geographia
do Brasil. Ed. Pimenta de Mello. Rio de Janeiro.
1932. Brasilidade idiomdtica. Nomenclatura indfgena brasileira. Congr.
Int. Amer., sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 3, pp. 73-118. Rio
de Janeiro.
Sera, G. L.
1912. L'altezza del cranio in America. Induzioni antropologiche ed antro-
pogeografiche. Archiv. Antrop, Etnol., vol. 42, pp. 64-124, 161-251,
297-329.
Sergi, Giuseppe.
1886-87. Antropologia fisica della Fuegia. Atti Accad. Med. Roma. vol. 3,
2d ser., pp. 33-70.
1887. Crani di Omaguaca. Boll. R. Accad. Med. Roma, anno 13, pp. 403-
416.
1888. Antropologia fisica della Fuegia (Nuove osservazioni). Bull. R. Accad.
Med. Roma, 1887-88, vol. 14, pp. 52-62. {Also in Archiv. Antrop.
Etnol., 1888, vol. 18, pp. 25-32.)
1891. Crani Africani e Crani Americani. Considerazioni Generali Craniolo-
giche e Antropologische. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 21, pp. 215-
268.
1906. Contribute al I'Antropologia Americana. Atti Soc. Rom., Antrop.,
vol. 12.
Sergi, G., and Moschen, L.
1887. Crani Peruviani Antichi del Museo Antropologico Nella University di
Roma. Archiv. Antrop. Etnol., vol. 17, pp. 5-26.
Sergi, Sergio.
1928. II Volume delle Vertebre dei Fuegini. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22,
Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 427-447.
Serrano, Antonio.
1930. Los primitives habitantes del territorio argentine. Arqueologfa y
etnologfa argentinas. Buenos Aires.
1931. . . . Arqueologia del Literal, conferencia dada en la Junta de histeria
y numismdtica americana . . . Mem. Mus. Parang, No. 4, pp. 3-15.
1936 a. Etnegraffa de la antigua previncia del Uruguay. ParanA.
1936 b. Observaciones sobre el Kakan; el extinguide idiema de les Diaguitas.
Vol. 4. Buenos Aires.
1936 c. Filiagao lingiiistica charrua. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geegr. Rio Grande do
Sul., vol. 16, pp. 103-108.
1938. Les sambaqufs o concheres brasilenes. Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ.
Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 1, pp. 43-89.
1941. Clasificaci6n de les aborigines argentinos. C6rdeba, Argentina.
Serrano Montaner, Ram6n.
1880. Diario de la excursi6n a la Isla Grande de la Tierra del Fuego. An.
Hydrogr. Mar. Chile, vol. 6, pp. 151-210.
Serrano t Sanz, Manuel. See Caballero, Lucas, 1933.
794711—50 4 3
692 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Shattuck, George Cheever, and Benedict, Francis Gano.
1931. Further studies on the basal metabolism of Maya Indians in Yucatan.
Amer. Journ. Physiol., vol. 96, pp. 518-528. (Also in Shattuck,
George Cheever, "The peninsula of Yucatan; medical, biological,
meteorological and sociological studies," Carnegie Inst. Wash., Publ.
No. 431, pp. 307-317. Washington.)
Shaw, M. M.
1933. The basal metabolism of some American Indian girls. Journ. Amer.
Dietet. Assoc, vol. 9, pp. 120-123.
SiGIFREDO, P.
1942-45. Fiinf Araukaner-mythen. Anthropos, vols. 37-40, pp. 332-335.
Silva Coutinho, Joao Martin da.
1906. Sobre Podocnemis expansa, a tartaraga do Amazonas. In Goeldi,
Emilio A., "Chelonios do Brasil," pp. 733-745.
Silva, Irene. See Castro, Josue de, and Silva, Irene.
SiLVEIRA, AlVARO AsTOLPHO DA.
1921. Memorias chorographicas. ... 2 vols. Hello Horizonte.
SiLVEIRA, EnZO DA.
1935. O tupi. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao Paulo, 1" annee, vol. 12, pp. 57-61.
SiLVEIRA, Graco.
1938. Alguns tra^os do dialeto caipira e do sub-dialeto da Ribeira. Anais
do primeiro Congresso da lingua nacional cantada, pp. 503-510.
Sao Paulo.
SiMOEs DA Silva, Ant6nio Carlos.
1924. A tribu dos indios Crenaks (Botocudos do Rio Doce). Congr. Int.
Amer., sess. 20, Rio de Janeiro, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 61-84.
Simon, F. A. A.
1887. Vokabular des Tucurd. Zeit. EthnoL, vol. 19, p. 302.
Simpson, George Gatlord.
1934. Attending marvels; a Patagonian Journal. New York.
1940 a. Mammals and land bridges. Journ. Washington Acad. Sci., vol. 30,
No. 4, pp. 137-163.
1940 b. Review of the mammal-bearing Tertiary of South America. Proc.
Amer. PhUos. Soc, vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 649-709.
1940 c. Los Indios Kamarakotos: Tribu Caribe de la Guyana Venezolana.
Trans, from English by J. Villanueva-Ucalde. Revista de Fomento
(Venezuela), Ano 3, Nos. 22-25.
1943. Turtles and the origin of the fauna of Latin America. Amer. Journ.
Sci., vol. 241, No. 7, pp. 413-429.
1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull.
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 85.
Sxmson, Alfred.
1879 a. Notes on the Piojes of the Putumayo. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr.
Brit. Ireland, vol. 8, pp. 210-222.
1879 b. Vocabulary of the Zaparo language. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit.
Ireland, vol. 8, pp. 223-226.
1886. Travels in the wilds of Ecuador, and the exploration of the Putumayo
River. London.
1899. Voyage d'Exploration d'un Missionaire Dominicain chez les tribus
sauvages de I'Ecuateur. Paris.
Skewes, E. See Henckel, C, and Skewes, E.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 693
Skinner, Alanson Buck.
1920. Notes on the Bribri Indians of Costa Rica. Ind. Notes Monogr., vol.
6-6, No. 3, pp. 43-106.
Skottsberg, Carl.
1910. Einige Beobachtungen uber die Eingeborenen Westpatagoniens.
Ymer, vol. 30.
1913. Observations on the natives of the Patagonian Channel Region.
Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 15, pp. 376-413, 578-616.
1915. Some additional notes on the language of the natives of the Pata-
gonian channels. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 17, pp. 411-413.
Smith, Albert C. See Killip, Ellsworth P., and Smith, Albert C.
Smith, Grafton Elliot.
1915. Pre-Columbian representations of the elephant in America. Nature,
vol. 96, pp. 340-341. London.
1916. The influence of ancient Egyptian civilization in the East and in
America. Manchester; New York. (i?epnn<ed /rom "The Bulletin
of the John Rylands Library, Jan.-March.)
1916-17. The origin of the pre-Columbian civilization of America. Science,
vol. 44, 1916, No. 1128, pp. 190-195; vol. 45, 1917, No. 1158,
pp. 241-246.
Snethlage, Emilie.
1910. Zur Ethnographic der Chipaya und Curuahe. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 42,
pp. 609-637.
Snethlage, Emil Hbinrich.
1931. Unter nordostbrasilianischen Indianern. Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 62, pp.
111-205.
1932 a. Chipaya—und Curuaya—worter. Aus dem literarischen nachiass
von Dr. Emilie Snethlage, hrsg. von Dr. E. Heinrich Snethlage.
Anthropos, vol. 27, pp. 65-93. St. Gabriel-Modling.
1932 b. Worte und Texte der Temb^-Indianer. Rev. Inst. Ethnol. Univ.
Nac. Tucumdn, vol. 2, pp. 347-394.
1936. Nachrichten iiber die Pauserna-Guarayd, die Siriono am Rio Baures
und die S. Simonianes in der Nahe der Serra S. Simon. Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 67, pp. 278-293.
Snow, William Parker.
1857. Two years' cruise off Tierra del Fuego, the Falkland islands, Patagonia,
and in the river Plate. 2 vols. London.
Scares de Souza, Gabriel.
1851. Tratado descriptivo do Brazil em 1587. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr.
Brasil, vol. 14, pp. 1-423. (2d ed. 1879.)
Socrates, Ed. Arturo.
1892. VocabuMrios indigenas. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol. 60, pp.
87-96.
SOENKSEN, O.
1936. Contribuciones al estudio de la antropologfa Chilena. VII. Observa-
ciones macrosc6picas acerca de la mucose lingual en la poblaci6n
de la Provincia de Concepci6n. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 10.
Solari, BenjamIn T.
1928. Ensayo de filologfa. Breve vocabulario Espanol-Guaranf, con laa
relaciones etimol6gicas del idioma Americano. Buenos Aires.
694 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. E. Bull. 143
SoLis, Felipe.
1923. Obras franciscanas en Aymard. Manual del pArroco aymarista. Com-
prende: Catecismo, Nociones gramaticales, Platicas y Cantos
populates. La Paz.
1928, Pequeno manual cat61ico Aymara-Castellano. La Paz.
SOLIZ RoDRfGUEZ, Abd6n.
1926. Doctrina cristiana e instrucci6n civica boliviana en Aymara y Quichua.
La Paz,
SouzA, Antonio Pyreneus de.
1916 a. Exploragao de Rio Paranatinga . . . Comissao das Linhas Tele-
grdphicas Estrategicas de Mato Grosso ao Amazonas. Publicagao
No. 34. Annexo No, 2, Rio de Janeiro.
1916 b. Os indios do Rio Telles Pires, Exploragao do Rio Paranatinga.
Comissao das Linhas Telegraphicas Estrategicas de Mato Grosso
ao Amazonas, Publicagao No. 34, Rio de Janeiro.
1920. Notas s6bre os costumes dos indios Nhambiquaras. Rev. Mus. Paul.,
vol. 12, pt. 2, pp. 389-410.
SouzA, CoNEGo Francisco Bernardino.
1875. Pard e Amazonas (Comissao Madeira). Vol. 2. Rio de Janeiro.
Speck, Frank G.
1924. Two Araucanian texts. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, The Hague, 1924,
pp. 371-373. The Hague.
1935. Mammoth or "stiflf-legged bear." Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 37,
No. 1, pp. 159-163.
Spegazzini, Carlos.
1882. Costumbres de los habitantes de la Tierra del Fuego. An. Soc. Cient.
Argentina, vol. 14.
1888. Apuntes filol6gicos sobre las lenguas de la Tierra del Fuego. An. Soc.
Cient. Argentina, vol. 18,
Spengel, J. W.
1874. Die von Blumenbach Gegriindete Anthropologische Sammlung der
Universitat Gottingen. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen
Deutschlands, pt. 2.
Spillmann, F.
1928. Estudio comparado de crdneos humanos antiguos procedentes de la
Provincia del Carchi, Ecuador. An. Univ. Cent. Chile, vol. 40, No.
264, pp. 235-240.
1936. In Osborn, H. F. "Proboscidea," vol. 1, pp. 571-574. New York.
Spix, Johann Baptist von, and Martius, Karl Friedrich Phil. von.
1823-31. Reise in Brasilien . . . 1817 bis 1820 ... 2 vols, and atlas
(1825). Munich.
Spruce, Richard.
1908. Notes of a botanist on the Amazon and Andes ... 2 vols. London.
Squier, Ephraim George,
1852. Nicaragua; its people, scenery, monuments, and the proposed inter-
oceanic canal, 2 vols. New York; London.
1853. Observations on the archaeology and ethnology of Nicaragua. Trans.
Amer, Ethnol, Soc, vol. 3, pp. 101-113,
1858. The states of Central America; their geography, topography, climate,
population, resources, productions, commerce, political organization,
aborigines, etc. New York; London.
Vol, 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 695
Staden, Hans.
1928. . . . The true history of his captivity, 1557. (The Broadway Travel-
lers.) London, (Several eds., including New York, 1929.)
Stahel, Gebold,
1944, Notes on the Arawak Indian names of plants in Surinam. Journ.
N, Y, Bot. Garden, vol, 45, No. 540, pp, 268-275.
Standlet, Paul Carpenter.
1920-26.
. . . Trees and shrubs of Mexico, Contrib. U. S, Nat, Herb,,
vol, 23, (Issued in 5 parts,)
1928, . . . Flora of the Panama Canal Zone. Washington.
1937-38. Flora of Costa Rica. Field Museum of Natural History, Botan-
ical Series, vol. 18, pts. 1-4. Chicago.
Steebb, J. B.
1903. Narrative of a visit to Indian Tribes of the Purus River, Brazil. Ann.
Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1901, pp. 359-393.
Steffan, Paul, and Wellisch, Siegmund.
1933, 1936. Die geographische Verteilung der Blutgruppen. Zeit. Rassen-
physiol. Munich, vol. 6, 1933, pp. 28-35; vol. 8, 1936, pp. 38-47.
Steffen, Hans.
1923. Ethnologische Forschungen im Feuerlande. Petermanns Mitt., 69»
annee, p. 30.
Stegelmann, Felix.
1903. Die Indianer des Rio Envira. Globus, vol. 83, pp. 135-137.
Steggerda, Morris.
1932. Anthropometry of adult Maya Indians, a study of their physical and
physiological characteristics. Carnegie Inst, of Washington, Publ.
No. 434.
See also Carpenter, T. M., and Steggerda, Morris.
Steggerda, Morris, and Benedict, F. G.
1932, Metabolism in Yucatan: a study of the Maya Indian. Amer, Journ.
Physiol,, vol, 100, pp, 274-284,
Stegmann, R,
1904. Knochensystemerkrankungen siidamerikanischer Indianer (mit Be-
riicksichtigung altperuanischer Vasen), Mitt, Anthrop, Geseil.
Wien, S,, 3d ser,, vol, 4, Sitzungsberichte, pp, 68-89,
Steinen, Karl von den,
1886, Durch Central-Brasilien, Leipzig, (Portuguese trans., Sao Paulo,
1942.)
1892, Die Bakairi sprache, Leipzig,
1894. Unter den Naturvolkern Zentral-Brasiliens. Berlin. (Another ed.
1897; Portuguese trans., Sao Paulo, 1940.)
1895, Die Schamakoko-Indianer nach Guido Boggianis "I Ciamacoco,"
Globus, vol, 67, pp, 325-330,
1901. Die Guayaqui-Sammlung des Hrn. Dr. v. Weickhmann. Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol, 33, pp, 267-271,
1904. Diccionario sipibo. Castellano-deutsch-sipibo, Apuntes de gramdtica,
Sipibo-castellano. Abdruck der handschrift eines franziskaners, mit
beitragen sur kenntnis der Pano-stamme am Ucayali, Berlin,
1906, Der Verfasser der Handschrift "Arte de la lengua de los indios antis
6 campas," Congr, Int. Amer,, sess, 14, Stuttgart, 1904, vol, 2,
pp, 603-605,
1912, Ein manuskript: arte de la lengua Zamuca, Congr, Int, Amer,,
Sess, 17, Buenos Aires, 1910, p, 192,
696 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
Steinen, Karl von den—Continued
1940. Entre os aborfgenes do Brasil central. Separata da Rev. Arquiv.
Mun. Sao Paulo, Nos. 34-68. (Trans, from orig. German by Egon
Schaden.)
1942. . . . O Brasil Central; expedigao em 1884 para e exploragao do rio
Xingu. Tradugao de Catarina Baratz Cannabrava. Colegao
Brasiliana, vol. 3. Bibl. Pedag. Brasil. Sao Paulo.
Steinmann, G.
1924. Zur urbesiedelung Amerikas. Proc. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21, The
Hague, 1924, pt. 1, pp. 63-70. The Hague.
Steinthal, (Heymann).
1890. Das Verhaltniss, das zwischen dem Ketschua und Aimard besucht.
Congr. Int. Amer., Compte-Rendu, Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888, pp. 462-465.
Stewart, Dr.
1889. On the Inhabitants of Paraguay. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit.
Ireland, vol. 18, pp. 174-176.
Stewart, T. D.
1931. Dental caries in Peruvian skulls. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol.
15, No. 2, pp. 315-326.
1939. Negro skeletal remains from Indian sites in the West Indies. Man,
vol. 39, Art. 52, pp. 49-51.
1942 a. Anthropometric nomenclature: II. The indices of head height.
Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 29, pp. 23-39.
1942 b. Persistence of the African type of tooth pointing in Panama. Amer.
Anthrop., vol. 44, n. s., pp. 328-330.
1943 a. Skeletal remains with cultural associations from the Chicama,
Moche, and Viru Valleys, Peru. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 93,
pp. 153-185.
1943 b. Review: Gusinde, Die Feuerland-Indianer, vol. 2, pt. 2. Amer.
Journ. Phys. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 1, pp. 116-119.
1943 c. Skeletal remains from Paracas, Peru. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
n. s., vol. 1, pp. 47-63.
1943 d. Distribution of cranial height in South America. Amer. Journ.
Phys. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 143-155.
1943 e. Relative variability of Indian and white cranial series. Amer.
Journ. Phys. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 261-270.
Stiglich, German.
1908. La region peruana de los bosques. In Colecci6n de leyes, decretos,
resoluciones i otros documentos oficiales referentes al departamento
de Loreto formada de orden suprema por el doctor Carlos Larrabure
1 Correa, vol. 15, pp. 308-495. Lima.
Stirling, Matthew Williams.
1938. Historical and ethnographical material on the Jivaro Indians. Bull.
Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 117.
Stoll, Otto.
1884. Zur Ethnographic der Republik Guatemala. (Die Caraiben und ihre
Sprache, pp. 29-37.) Zurich.
Stolthwo, Casimir (Kazimierz).
1906. Crdnes P^ruviens. Bulletin de 1'Academic des Sciences de Cracovie,
Classe des Sciences math^matiques et Naturelles, pp. 109-138.
Cracow, Poland.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 697
Stolyhwo, Casimir (Kazimierz)—Continued
1934 a. La influencia del medio de la America del Sur sobre la variabilidad
de la estatura humana. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25, La Plata,
1932, vol. 1, pp. 6^-74.
1934 b. Sur rhomme fossile en Argentine. Przeglad Antropologiczny, vol. 8,
pp. 19-22, 84-85.
Storni, Julio Juan de Mata Santiago.
1944. Hortus Guaranensis. Univ. Nac. Tucumdn. Gabinete de Etnologfa
Biol6gica. 272 pp. Tucumdn.
Stout, D. B.
1938. Culture types and culture areas in South America. Pap. Michigan
Acad. Sci. Arts Let., vol. 23.
1947. Ethno-linguistic observations on San Bias Cuna. Int. Journ. Amer.
Ling., vol. 13, pp. 9-12.
Stradelli, Ermano.
1910. Pequenos vocabularies, grupo de linguas Tocanas. 3* reuniao do
Congresso Cientffico Latino-Americano, vol. 6, pp. 254-317. Rio de
Janeiro.
1929. VocabuMrios da lingua geral portuguSz-nhe^ngatu e nheengatd-portu-
guez, precedidos de um esbogo de grammatica nheenga-umbue-sdua
mirl e seguidos de contos em lingua geral nheengatii poranduua.
Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brazil, tomo 104, vol. 158, pp. 5-768.
Stromer, C. von.
1932. Die Sprache der Munduruku. Collection Internationale de Mono-
graphies Linguistiques, BibliothSque Linguistique Anthropos, vol.
11. St. Gabriel-Modiing.
Strong, Richard P., Tyzzer, Ernest E., Sellards, A. W., Brues, Charles T.,
and Gastiaburu, J. C.
1915. Harvard school of tropical medicine; Report of first expedition to South
America, 1913. Cambridge.
Strong, Richard Pearson.
1942. Stitt's diagnosis, prevention and treatment of tropical diseases. 2 vols.
Philadelphia.
Strong, William Duncan.
1934. North American Indian traditions suggesting a knowledge of the
mammoth. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 81-88.
Strook, Sylvan Irving.
1937 a. Llamas and Uamaland. (Privately printed.) New York.
1937 b. Vicuna. The world's finest fabric. (Privately printed. New York.
Stuart, C. Leonard. See Chamberlain, Alexander Francis, [1903].
Stubel, a., and Reiss, W.
1888. Indianer-Typen aus Ecuador und Colombia. 28 Lichtdruck-Bilder.
Den Mitgliedern, Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888. Berlin.
Studart, Jorge.
1926. Ligeiras no^oes de lingua geral. Rev. Trim. Inst. Ceard,, vol. 40, pp.
26-38.
Suarez, A. Humbert©.
1930. El idioma de los Inkas oficialmente debe escribirse Keswa y no
Quechua. Evoluci6n bibliogrdfica de este nombre. El Comercio.
13 juillet 1930. Lima.
SuIrez de Cepeda, Juan.
1923. Relaci6n de los indios Colimas de la Nueva Granada. An. Mus. Nac.
Arqueol. Hist. Etnol., vol. 4, pp. 505-529.
698 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
SuAZo, Luis.
1933. Estudio sobre la frecuencia y formas andtomopatol6gicas del bocio en
Concepci6n. Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 7, pp. 85-109.
Sullivan, Louis R.
1920. The fossa pharyngea in American crania. Amer. Anthrop., n. s., vol.
22, pp. 237-243.
1922. The frequency and distribution of some anatomical variations in
American crania. Anthrop. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 23,
pt. 5, pp. 203-258.
Sullivan, Louis R., and Hellman, Mild.
1925. The Punin calvarium. Anthrop. Pap. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 23,
pt. 7, pp. 309-337.
1938. El crdneo de Punin. An. Univ. Cent. Quito, vol. 60, No. 304, pp.
729-742.
SussiNi, Miguel, Paso, Juan Roberto, and Zauchingeb, Zedla.
1937. Veinte anos de biodemografia Argentina, 1911-30. Gaea, vol. 5, pp.
381-394.
Swadesh, Morris.
1939. Sobre el alfabeto Quechua-Aymard. Bol. Bibl. de Antrop. Amer..
vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 14-15.
Swales, Bradshaw H. See Wetmore, Alexander, and Swales, Bradshaw H.
Swanton, John R. See Thomas, C, and Swanton, John R.
Symes, S. p. See Roberts, F. J., and Symes, S. P.
Sympson, p. L.
1926. Gramdtica de lingua brasileira (BrasiUca, Tupi, ou Nhe^ngatu). (3«
edition.) Rio de Janeiro.
Szombathy, Josef.
1884. Schadel aus Peru und Ecuador. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, n. f.,
Bd. 4, Verhandl., pp. 113-114.
Tagliavini, Carlo.
1928. Di alcuni manoscritti riguardanti la lingua Chiquita conservati in
biblioteche itaUane. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol.
2, pp. 533-538.
Talbet, p. Amaury.
1926. A mistaken attribution in South American linguistics. Nature, vol.
117, p. 381. London.
Talbot, F.
1931-32. Ensayo de diccionario toponfmico del Azuay. Rev. Centr. Estud.
Hist. Geogr. Cuenca, vol. 6, No. 21, pp. 65-97; No. 22, pp. 163-
193; No. 23, pp. 279-286.
Tapia, Augusto.
1937. . . . Las cavernas de Ojo de Agua y Las Hachas; Historia geol6gica
de la regi6n de La Brava en relaci6n con la existencia del hombre
pre-hist6rico. RepubUca argentina. Ministerio de agricultura de
la Naci6n, Direcci6n de minas y geologfa, Boletin No. 43, pp. 1-126.
Tapia, Diego de.
1888. Confessionario mas breve en lengua Cumanagoto. In Platzmann,
Julio, "Algunas obras raras sobre la lengua cumanagota," vol. 5.
Leipzig.
Tapia, M.
1932. Relaciones entre la anatomia y la patologfa de la cisura superior
derecha del pulm6n. Memoria de prueba. Santiago.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 699
Tapia, M.—Continued
1939. Colon iliop^lvico y algunas consideraciones sobre el resto del intestino
en nuestro medio. Archiv. Chil. Morf., vol. 3.
Tappy, Elizabeth P.
1944. Sheep of the Andes. Agriculture in the Americas, vol. 4, pp. 46-50.
Ta8c6n, Leonardo.
1934. Quechuismos usados en Colombia. Edici6n hecha bajo la direcci6n
de Tulio Enrique y Jorge H. Tasc6n. Bogotd.
Tasso Yatahy, Pindaro.
1918. Die Ortsnamen Brasiliens und die Tupisprache. Mitteilungen des
deutsch-sixdamerikanischen Instituts, vol. 5, fasc. 1-2, pp. 57-90.
Stuttgart; Berlin.
Tastevin, Constant.
1908. Preface k un dictionnaire de la langue tapihiya, dite tupi ou ne^ngatu
(belle langue). Anthropos, vol. 3, pp. 905-915. Vienna.
1919. Note sur quelques mots frangais emprunt^s k la langue Tupi du Br^sil,
au Galibi de la Guyane, et h I'Aruac des Antilles. Bull. Mem. Soc.
Anthrop. Paris, ser. 6, vol. 10, pp. 133-144.
1923 a. Les Maku du Japurd. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 15, pp.
99-108.
1923 b. Gramdtica da lingua Tupi. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 8, pp. 535-597,
1279-1280.
1923 c. Vocabuldrio Tupi-Portugu6s. Rev. Mus. Paul., vol. 8, pp. 599-686,
1280-1282, 1285.
1923 d. Nomes de plantas e animals em lingua Tupi. Rev. Mus. Paul.,
vol. 8, pp. 687-763, 1282-1283, 1285-1286.
1924. Les etudes ethnographiques et linguistiques du P. Tastevin en
Amazonie. Journ. Soc. Am6r. Paris, n. s., vol. 16, pp. 421-425.
1928 a. Sur les Indiens Katukina. L'Ethnographie, n. s., Nos. 17-18, pp.
130-132. Paris.
1928 b. Noms g^n^riques de cours d'eau dans I'Amerique tropicale. Fest-
schrift; Publication d'hommage offerte au P. W. Schmidt. Heraus-
geber (Directeur) W. Koppers. Pp. 711-725. Vienna.
See also Rivet, P., and Kok, P., and Tastevin, C; Rivet, P., and
Tastevin, C.
Tate, George Henry Hamilton.
1932. Distribution of the South American shrews. Journ. Mamm., vol. 13,
No. 3, pp. 223-228.
Taunay, Alfredo de Escragnolle. See Escragnolle Taunay, Alfredo de.
Tauste, Francisco de.
1888. Arte, Bocabulario, Doctrina Christiana, y Catecismo de la Lengua
de Cumana . . . (Ed. facsimilar.) In Platzmann, Julio, "Algunas
obras raras sobre la lengua cumanagota," vol. 1. Leipzig.
Tavera-Acosta, Bartolome.
1907. En el Sur (Dialectos indfgenas de Venezuela). Ciudad de Bolivar.
1921-22. Nuevos vocabularios de dialectos indigenas de Venezuela, Journ.
Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s., vol. 13, 1921, pp. 217-232; vol. 14, 1922,
pp. 6^82.
1930. Venezuela pre-coloniana; contribuci6n al estudio de las analogias
miticas, idiomdticas y religiosas de los aborigenes venezolanos con
los del continente asidtico. Caracas.
794711—50 46
700 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
Tavolini, Fr. Francisco.
1856. La lengua mocovf. {Original title Reglas para aprendar a hablar la
lengua mocovi.) Re-pr. in Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 1, pp. 71-112,
256-328; vol. 2, pp. 175-224, 425-460. Also in Lafone-Quevedo,
1893 a.
Tayloe, Douglas.
1938. The Caribs of Dominica. Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 119, Anthrop.
Pap. No. 3, pp. 103-160.
1946. Loan words in Dominica Island Carib. Int. Journ. Amer. Ling., vol.
12, No. 4, pp. 213-216.
Taylor, D. N. See Camp, Charles Lewis, Taylor, D. N., and Welles, S. P.
TCHERNAVIN, VlADIMIR VyACHESLAVOVICH.
1944. A revision of the subfamily Orestiinae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London,
vol. 114, pts. 1-2, pp. 140-233.
Tebboth, TomXs.
1943. Diccionario Castellano-Toba. Rev. Inst. Antrop. Univ. Nac. Tucu-
mdn.
Techo, p. Nicolas del.
1673. Historia provinciae Paraquariae Societatis Jesv. Leodii (LiSge).
Tello, Julio Cesar.
1909. La Antigiiedad de la sifiiis en el Peru. Lima.
1913 a. Prehistoric trephining among the Yauyos of Peru. Proc. Congr.
Int. Amer., Sess. 18, London, 1912, pt. 1, Sec. 2, pp. 76-83.
1913 b. Algunas conexiones gramaticales de las lenguas Campa, Ipurina,
Moxa, Baure, Amuesha, Goajira, del grupo de familia Arawak o
Maipure. Lima.
1923. Ortografia fonetica de las lenguas indfgenas. Inca, vol. 1, pp. 550-556.
1931. Sistema fonetico de las lenguas indigenas del Peru. In Wira Kocha,
vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 4-8. Lima.
Tello, Julio Cesar, and Williams, Herbert U.
1930. An ancient syphilitic skull from Paracas in Peru. Ann. Med. Hist.,
n. s., vol. 2, pp. 515-529.
Ten Kate, Herman F. C.
1885. Sur les cranes de Lagoa-Santa. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, s6r. 3,
vol. 8, pp. 240-244.
1887. Observations anthropologiques recuellies dans la Guyana at la Vene-
zuela. Rev. Anthrop. Paris, s6r. 3, vol. 2, pp. 44—68.
1892. Contribution h. la craniologie des Araucans Argentins. Rev. Mus. La
Plata, vol. 4, pp. 209-220.
1894. Rapport sommaire sur une excursion arch6ologique dans les Provinces
de Catamarca, de Tucumdn et de Salta. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol.
5, pp. 331-348.
1896 a. Anthropologie des anciens habitants de la Region Calchaquie. An.
Mus. La Plata, Sec. Antrop., vol. 1, pp. 1-62.
1896 b. Sur quelques points d'ost^ologie ethnique imparfaitement connus.
Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 7, pp. 5-16.
1904. Mat^riaux pour servir h. I'anthropologie des Indiens de la R6publique
Argentine. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol. 12, pp. 31-57.
See also De la Hitte, Charles, and Ten Kate, H.
TerXn, Iqnacio.
1917. Algo acerca de la lingliistica boliviana. Proc. 2nd Pan Amer. Sci.
Congr., Washington, 1915-16, Sec. I, Anthropology, vol. 1, pp. 340-
346. Washington.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 701
Ternaxjx-Compans, H. See Velasco, J. L. de, 1840.
Teschauer, Carlos.
1914. Die Caingang oder Coroados-Indianer im Brasilianischen Staate Rio
Grande do Sul. Anthropos, vol. 9, pp. 16-35.
1921. A lingua guarani e o Ven. P. Roque Gongalves. Rev. Inst. Hist.
Geogr. Rio Grande do Sul.
1927. Os Caingang ou Coroados no Rio Grande do Sul. Bol. Mus. Nac.
Rio de Janeiro, vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 37-56.
TeSSMANN, GtJNTER.
1928. Menschen ohne Gott. Stuttgart.
1929. Die Tschama-sprache. Anthropos, vol. 24, pp. 241-271.
1930. Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg.
Teza, E.
1868. Saggi inediti di lingue americane. Appunti bibliografici. Annali delle
University Toscana, Parte prima, Scienze neologiche., vol. 10, pp.
117-143. Pisa.
Thevet, Andr£.
1878. Les singularitez de la France antarctique, autrement nommee Am6-
rique: et Isles d6couvertes de nostre temps. Nouvelle Edition avec
notes et commentaires par Paul Gaflfarel. Paris. (Paris ed., 1557;
Anvers ed. 1558.)
See also Metraux, A., 1929.
Thibon, F.
1903. La regi6n mastoides de los crdneos Calchaqui^s. An. Mus. Nac.
Buenos Aires, vol. 9, pp. 307-346.
Thiel, Bernardo A. (Bernhard August).
1882. Apuntes lexicogr^ficos de las lenguas y dialectos de los indios de Costa
Rica . . . San Jose.
1886. Vocabularium der sprachen der Boruca-, Terraba- und Guatuso
Indianer in Costa Rica. Archiv Anthrop., vol. 16, pp. 592-622.
Thomas, Cyrus, and Swanton, John R.
1911. Indian languages of Mexico and Central America and their geograph-
ical distribution. BuU. Bur. Amer. Ethnol., No. 44.
Thomas, Oldpield.
1910. A collection of mammals from eastern Buenos Ayrea (sic), with de-
scriptions of related new mammals from other localities. Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist., ser. 8, vol. 5, pp. 239-247.
1917. Notes on the species of the genus Cavia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser.
8, vol. 19, pp. 152-160.
ThOMAZ, JoAQUIM SlIiVEIRA.
1942. A hipovitaminose A e desenvolvimento fisico. Cultura m^dica, anno
4, No. 3-4. Rio de Janeiro.
Thouar, Arthur.
1891. Explorations dans I'Am^rique du Sud . . . Paris.
Thrasher, J. S. See Albis, Manual MarIa, 1860-61.
Thulie.
1877. Sur la deformation syphilitique du crdne. BuU. Soc. Anthrop.
Paris, ser. 2, vol. 12, pp. 454r-461.
TlOUTINE, M. G.
1935. Breeding and selection of sweet potatoes. Journ. Hered., vol. 26,
No. 1, pp. 3-11.
702 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
TocANTiNs, Antonio Manoel Gon^alves.
1877. Estudos sobre a tribu Mundurukd. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasfl.
vol. 40, pt. 2, pp. 73-161.
Tola Mendoza, Fernando.
1939. Andlisis del quechua a trav^s de la gramdtica del professor Galante.
Sphinx, 3» ann^e. No. 4^5, pp. 77-85.
Tompkins, B. A. See Hunt, R. J., 1940.
ToNELLi, Antonio.
1926. Grammatica e glossario della lingua degli Ona-Selkndm della Terra del
Fuoco. Contributi scientifici delle missioni salesiane del venerabile
Don Bosco, vol, 3. Society Editrice Internazionale. Turin.
1927. La provenienza degli Indi "Bororo orientali" del Matto Grosso.
Congresso Geografico Italiano., Sess. 10, Milano. (Tirage d, part.)
1928. Alcune osservagioni suUa sintassi deUa lingua degl' Indi Bororo-Orari
del Matto Grosso (Brasile). Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 22, Rome,
1926, vol. 2, pp. 569-585.
Topinard, Paul.
1881. Observations on the Hagenbeck group of Alacaluf. Bull. Soc. Anthrop
Paris, s(Sr. 3, vol. 4, pp. 774-782.
1885. filaments d'anthropologie gdnerale. Paris.
Torres, Alberto Mar!a.
1931. El estudio del quichua entre los Dominicos del Ecuador. El Oriente
Dominicano, vol. 4, pp. 41-50. Quito.
Torres, Luis MarIa.
1907. Arqueologia de la Cuenca del Rio Parand. Rev. Mus. La Plata, vol.
14, pp. 53-122.
1911 (1913). Los primitives habitantes del Delta del Parand. Universidad
Nacional de La Plata, Biblioteca Centenaria, vol. 4.^ Buenos
Aires. (Introduction dated 1913.)
Torres, L.
1937. Anatomia patologica de las endocarditis y su frequencia en Concepci6n.
Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 11, pp. 3-23.
Torres Rubio, Diego de.
1603. Gramatica y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru Uamada quichua
y en la lengua espafiola. Sevilla. (This is called 1st ed., but
actually reprint of the anonymous "Arte y vocabulario de la lengua
general del Peru, Uamada quichua y en la lengua espafiola . . . En
los Reyes por Antonio Riccardo afio de 1586.")
1619. Arte de la lengua quichua. Lima.
1754. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua quichua general de los indios de el
Peru. Lima. (A reprint.)
Touchaux, Mauricio.
1908. Apuntes sobre la gramdtica y el diccionario del idioma campa, o,
lengua de los antis tal como se usa en el Rio Apurimac. Rev.
Hist. Lima, vol. 3, pp. 131-164.
TowNSEND, Charles Haskins.
1910. A naturalist in the Straits of Magellan. Scientific Monthly, vol. 77,
no. 1, pp. 5-18, July. Lancaster.
TozzER, Alfred Marston, and Allen, Glover Morrill.
1910. Animal figures in the Maya codices. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer.
Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Univ., vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 283-372.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 703
TRANgA, Leite.
1882. Vocabulario dos Botucudos do Aldeamento do Mutum. Revista da
Exposigao Antropologica Brasileira, pp. 19-20. Rio de Janeiro.
Trevor, J. C. See Buxton, L. H. Dudley, Trevor, J. C, and Julien, Al-
varez H. ['-^
Triana, Miguel.
1907. Por el Sur de Colombia; excursi6n pintoresca y cientffica al Putu-
mayo. Pr61ogo de S. P6rez Triana. (Preface, 1907.) Paris.
Trombetti, Alfredo.
1925. La lingua dei Bororos-Orarimugudoge secondo i materiali pubblicati
dalle missioni salesiane. Studio comparative. Contributi scien-
tifici delle missioni salesiane del venerabile don Bosco. Society Edi-
trice Internazionale. Turin.
1928. Origine asiatica delle lingue e popolazioni americane. Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 22, Rome, 1926, vol. 1, pp. 169-246.
Trotter, Mildred.
1943. Hair from Paracas Indian mummies. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop.,
n. s., vol. 1, pp. 69-75.
TSCHUDI, JOHANN JaKOB VON.
1844-46. Untersuchungen iiber die Fauna Peruana ... St. Gallen. (4 pts.
in 1 vol.): Therologie, pp. 1-262, 1844; Ornithologie (mit Anmer-
kungen von J. Cabanis) pp. 1-316, 1845 and 1846; Herpetologie,
pp. 1-80, 1845; Ichthyologie, pp. 1-35, 1845.)
1853. Die ketchua-sprache. 3 vols. Wien (Vienna).
1866-69. Reisen durch Sudamerika, 5 vols. (Vol. 2 publ. 1867.) Leipzig.
1884. Organismus der Khet§ua-sprache. Leipzig.
1891. . . . Kulturhistorische und Sprachliche beitrage zur kenntniss des alten
Peru. Denk. Philos.-Hist. Kl. K. Akad. Wissen. Vienna, vol.
39, pp. 1-220.
TulcXn, Ildefonso de.
1934 a. Ensayo de gramdtica del inga y del napeno (dialectos Colombianos
de la familia kifiua). Bol. Estud. Hist. Pasto, vol. 5, Nos. 56-60,
pp. 326-333.
1934 b. Apuntes para el folk-lore de los Indios de Mocoa (capital del Putu-
mayo) : algo de las costumbres de aves e interpretaci6n de los
nombres que les ponen estos Indios de habla inga (dialecto del
quichua). Notas de Marcelino de Castellvf. Bol. Estud. Hist.
Pasto, vol. 5, Nos. 56-60, pp. 379-383.
Turner, William.
1884. Report on the human crania and other bones of the skeletons collected
during the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger, in the years 1873-1876.
Challenger Reports, vol. 10 (Zoology), Pt. 29. London.
Ttzzer, Ernest E. See Strong, Richard P., Tyzzer, E. E., et al., 1915.
Ubisch, Gerta von, and Mello, R. F.
1940. Genetic studies on a cavy species cross. Cavia rufescens (Lund) and
Cavia porcellus (Linne). Journ. Hered., vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 389-398.
Uhle, Max.
1889-90. Kultur und Industrie Siidamerikanischer Volker. Berlin.
1890. Verwandtschaften und Wanderungen der Tschibtscha. Congr. Int.
Amer., Sess. 7, Berlin, 1888, p. 466 B.
1896. t)ber die Sprache der Uros in Bolivia. Globus, vol. 69, p. 19.
704 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Uhle, Max—Continued
1901. Die Deformirten Kopfe von Peruanischen Mumien und die Uta-
Krankheit. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg.,
pp. 404-409.
1916. Sobre la estaci6n paleoUtica de Taltal. Rev. Chilena Hist. Geogr.,
vol. 20, pp. 47-66. {Also in Publ. Mus. Etnol. Antrop. Chile, vol.
1, pp. 31-50.)
1919. Fundamentos ^tnicos de la regi6n de Arica y Tacna. Bol, Soc.
Ecuatoriana Estud. Hist. Amer., vol. 2, pp. 1-37.
1922. El problema paleolftico americano. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito,
vol. 5, pp. 302-316.
1930. Spate mastodonten in Ecuador. Proc. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 23,
New York, 1928, pp. 247-258.
1931. Las antiguas civilizaciones de Manta. Bol. Acad. Nac. Hist. Quito,
vol. 12, pp. 5-71.
Up de Graff, Fritz W.
1923. Head-hunters of the Amazon; seven years of exploration and adventure.
Garden City, New York; London.
Uribe Angel, Manuel.
1885. Geograffa general y compendio hist6rico del estado de Antioquia en
Colombia. Paris.
Uribe, Jos£ Vicente.
1883. Gramdtica y vocabulario de la lengua que hablan los Indios Darienes
. . . Congr. Int. Amer., sess. 4, Madrid, 1881, vol. 2, pp. 296-309.
Madrid.
Uricoechea, Ezeqtjiel.
1854. Memoria sobre las antigiiedades Neogranadinas. Berlin.
1871. Gramdtica, vocabulario, catecismo y confesionario de la lengua Chibcha,
segun antiguos manuscritos an6nimos e ineditos, aumentados i cor-
regidos por E. Uricoechea. Paris.
See also Castillo i Oiozco, E. de, 1877; and Celed6n, R., 1878.
Urizar, R.
1942. Grupos sangufneos de autdctonos del Chaco Paraguay©. America
Indfgena, vol. 2, pp. 49-50.
Urquiza, Teodoro de.
1912. Paleo-antropologfa argentina. Nuevas investigaciones sobre el atlas
de Monte Hermoso. La Plata.
Urteaga, Esteban de.
1895. Nociones elementales del idioma Goagiro con su correspondiente
vocabulario. Rome.
Vacas Galindo, Enrique.
1895. Nankijukima. Ambato, Ecuador.
1903 a. Doctrina cristiana en lengua Jibara. Lima.
1903 b. Exposici6n sobre los limites ecuatoriano-peruanos, vol. 3. Quito.
(Vols. 1 and 2 known as: Colecci6n de documentos sobre limites
ecuatoriano-peruanos.)
See also Delgado, Alberto, and Vacas Galindo, Enrique.
Vaisse, Emilio, Hoyos, Felix S., and EcheverrIa y Reyes, AnIbal.
1895. Glosario de la lengua Atacamena. An. Univ. Chile, vol. 91, pp. 39-56.
ValcXrcel, Lufs E.
1933. Algunas rafces keswas. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 2, pp. &-18.
See also Harrington, John P., and Valcdrcel, Luis E.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 705
Valdivia, Luis de.
1607 a. Doctrina Christiana y catecismo en la lengua alientiac, que corre
en la ciudad de S. luan de la Frontera, con un confessionario,
arte, y bocabulario breues. Lima. {Reprinted by Jos6 Toribio
Medina, Sevilla, 1894; also reprinted in An. Inst. Etnogr. Anaer.,
vol. 1, pp. 19-94, 1940.)
1607 b. Doctrina Christiana y catecismo en la lengua millcayac. Lima.
{Reprinted by Medina, Santiago, 1918.)
1887. Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de
Chile, con un vocabulario y confessionario. (Edici6n facsimilar.
Ed. J. Platzmann.) Leipzig. (First ed., Lima, 1606.)
1897. Nueve sermones en lengua de Chile . . . Santiago.
See also Marques Miranda, F., 1943; Medina, J. T., 1918; Mitre, B.,
1894.
ValdizXn, Hermilio, and Maldonado, Angel.
1922. ... La medicina popular peruana. (Contribuci6n al folklore medico
del Peru) . . . Lima.
Valente, S. J., Cristovao. See Ayrosa, Plinio, 1941.
Valenzuela, Fr. p. Armengol.
1918-19. Glosario etimol6gico de nombres de hombres, animales, plantas,
rios, y lugares, y de vocablos incorporados en el lenguaje vulgar,
aborfgenes de Chile, y de algiin otro pais americano. (Vol. 1,
1918; vol. 2, 1919.) Santiago de Chile. {Reprinted from Rev.
Chilena Hist. Geogr., vols. 10-24, 1914-1917.)
Valle Bentes, E. E. See NimuendajiI, Curt, and Valle Bentes, E. E.
Valle Cabral, Alfredo do.
1880. Bibliographia da lingua tupi ou guarani tambem chamada lingua geral
Brazil. Rio de Janeiro.
Vallejo E., Jos6.
1910. Vocabulario Baud6. Idearium, vol. I, No. 6, p. 259. Pasto. {Re-
printed in Revista de Colombia, No. 5, p. 134, 1910. Bogotd.)
Vallois, Henri V.
1928-32. L'Omoplate Humaine. Etude Anatomique et Anthropologique.
Bull. M6m. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, S6r. 7, vol. 9, 1928, pp. 129-168;
S6r. 7, vol. 10, 1929, pp. 110-191; S6r. 8, 1932, vol. 3, pp. 3-153.
1932. L'hum^rus des Fuegi^ns. Anthropologic, vol. 10, pp. 113-128.
Prague.
1938. Nouvelles r^cherches sur les hommes de Lagoa Santa. L'Anthropo-
logic, vol. 48, pp. 651-652. Paris.
Vanderhoof, V. L. See Camp, Charles Lewis, and Vanderhoof, V. L.
Vara Cadillo, N. Saturnino.
1931. Diccionario analltico de un dialecto del Chinchay Suyu (fragmentos)
.
Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 9, pp. 277-290.
1937. Toponimias de las fuentes del Maran6n. Rev. Hist. Lima, vol. 11,
pp. 24-34.
Vargas C, Cf:SAR.
1936. El solanum tuberosum . . . Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima, vol. 5, No. 2,
pp. 193-248.
1938. Nota etnobotdnica sobre la Canihua. Rev. Argentina Agron., vol. 5,
No. 4, pp. 224-230.
Vater, Johann Severin. See Adelung, Johann Christopher, 1806-17.
Vaulx, H. de la. See Verneau, R., and Vaulx, H. de la.
706 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Vavilov, Nikolai Ivanovich.
1926. Studies on the origin of cultivated plants. Bulletin of Applied Botany,
Genetics, and Plant Breeding, vol. 16, pp. 218-219. Leningrad.
VlzQUEz, Honorato.
1921-24. El Quichua en nuestro lenguaje popular. Rev. Centr. Estud. Hist.
Geogr. Cuenca, vol. 1, 1921, pp. 275-279, 370-374; vol. 2, 1921,
pp. 89-96.
Veigl, Franz Xavier.
1785 a. Gruendliche nachrichten ueber die verfassung der landschaft von
Maynas in Sud-amerika, bis zum jahre 1768. In Murr, Christoph
Gottlieb von, "Reisen einiger missionarien der gesellschaft Jesu in
Ainerika," pp. 1-324. Niirnberg.
1785 b. Nachricht von den sprachen der volker am Orinokoflusse. Aus dem
Saggio di Storia Americana . . . des herrn abbate . . . Gillj.
Ins deutsche iibersetzt mit einigen verbesserungen ... In Murr,
Christoph Gottlieb von, "Reisen einiger missionarien der gesell-
schaft Jesu in Amerika," pp. 325-450. Niirnberg.
Velasco, Juan L6pez de.
1840. Histoire du royaume de Quito. 2 vols. In "Voyages, relations, et
m^moires originaux pour servir a 1' histoire de la d6couverte de
I'Am^rique," publics pour la premiere fois en franyais par H. Ternaux-
Compans. Paris.
VelXzco Arag6n, Luis.
1923. El "Ollantay" y la literatura de los Incas. Verbum, 17"' ann6e, No.
62. Buenos Aires.
Velazquez, Roberto L.
1916. Vocabulario de los indios chamies. Bol. Soc. Cienc. Nat. Inst. La
Salle, vol. 4, No. 35, pp. 147-150.
V^LEZ L6pez, Lizardo.
1940. La cirugfa del crd.neo en los vasos del Peru precolombino. Bol. Mus.
Hist. Nat. "Javier Prado," ano 4, No. 12, pp. 105-112.
Vellard, Jehan Albert,
1934r-35. Les Indiens Guayakf. Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 26, 1934,
pp. 223-292; vol. 27, 1935, pp. 175-244.
1937. Textes mbwihd recueiUis au Paraguay. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 29, pp. 373-386.
1939. A preparagao do curare pelos Nambikwaras. Rev. Arquiv. Mun. Sao
Paulo, vol. 59, pp. 5-16.
Vellard, Jehan Albert, and Osuna, T.
1934. Remarques sur le dialecte "mbwihd." Universidad Nacional de La
Plata. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 25, La Plata, 1932, vol. 2, pp. 259-
263. Buenos Aires.
Vergara Flores, Luis.
1894 a. Un crd,neo de indlgena Boliviano. Actes Soc. Sci. Chili, vol. 4, pp.
18-34.
1894 b. Tres crdneos de indfjenas Bolivianos. Actes Soc. Sci. Chili, vol. 4,
pp. 71-91.
1894 c. Crdneos de indfgenas Bolivianos. Actes Soc. Sci. Chili, vol. 4, pp.
231-250.
1895 a. Crdneos de indigenas bolivianos. Congreso cientffico jeneral chileno
de 1894, pp. 11-30. Santiago de Chile.
1895 b. Un crdneo sifihtico de indfgena. Actes Soc. Sci. Chili, vol. 5, pp.
92-95.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 707
Vergara Florez, Luis—Continued
1901. Nuevas mediciones en trece crdneos antiguos de aimardes. Rev. Chil.
Hist. Nat., ano 5, pp. 125-136.
1902. Estudio comparativo sobre crdneos araucanos y antiguos aimard,es.
Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat,, afio 6, pp. 197-217.
1903. Tres crdneos de la Isla Mocha. An. Mus. Nac, Chile, No. 16, pp.
18-22.
1904. Sobre craneometrfa y origen de las razas Americanaa. Rev. Chil.
Hist. Nat., vol. 8, pp. 16-21.
1905. Crdneos de paredes gruesos (nuevas investigaciones en 63 crdneos de
Quillagua y algunos de la Costa). Rev. Chilefia Hist. Nat., vol.
9, pp. 172-190.
Verissimo, Jose.
1895. A pesca na Amazonia. Monogr. Brasileiras, III, Livr. Class. Alves
& Cia., Rio de Janeiro ans Sao Paulo.
Verneatj, R.
1894. Crdnes pr^historiques de Patagonia. L'Anthropologic, vol. 5, pp.
420-450. Paris.
1901. Ancienne sdpulture de la Riviire Arauca, affluent de I'Or^noque.
Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, vol. 3, pp. 146-167.
1903. Les anciens Patagons. Contribution k I'^tude des races pr^colom-
biennes de I'Am^rique du Sud, publi^e par ordre de S. A. S. le Prince
Albert I. Monaco.
1924. Cr&nes d'Indiens de la Colombie. L'Element Papoua en Am^rique.
L'Anthropologie, vol. 34, pp. 353-386. Paris.
1927. Un crane humain fossile (?) trouv6 en Colombie. L'Anthropologie,
vol. 37, pp. 605-607. Paris.
Verneau, R., and Rivet, Paul.
1912, 1922. . . . Ethnographic ancienne de I'Ecuateur. 2 vols. Paris.
(France, Minist^re de Tinstruction publique. Mission du
service g^ographique Equatorial en AmErique du Sud sous le
contr61e scientifique de I'Acadlmie des sciences, 1899-1906,
vol. 6.)-,
Verneau, R., and Vaulx, H. de la.
1902. Les anciens habitants des Rives du ColhuE Huapi (Patagonia).
Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 12, Paris, 1900, pp. 115-140.
VlANNA, UrBINO.
1928. Ligeiras notas para a gramdtica Akuen. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr.
Brasil, vol. 101, 1927 (1928), pp. 49-95.
ViDAURRE, FelIpE G6mBZ DE.
1889. Historia geogrdfica, natural y civil del reino de Chile. Col. Hist,
Chile, vols. 14-15.
VlGNATI, MiLCfADES AleJO.
1920. . . . Cuestiones de paleoantropologfa argentina. (2d ed.) Buenos
Aires.
1921. El hombre f6sil de Chapadmalal. Physis, vol. 5, pp. 80-82. Buenos
Aires.
1923 a. Restos humanos f6siles haUados an Pergamino (prov. de Buenos
Aires). Com. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Buenos Aires, vol. 2, No. 7,
p. 73.
1923 b. N6tula sobre el hombra f6sil del arroyo Cululu, provincia de Santa
Fe. Physis, vol. 7, pp. 62-65.
708 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. H. Bull. 143
ViGNATi, MiLcfADES Alejo—Continued
1923 c. A propos du "Diprothomo platensis." An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat.
Buenos Aires, vol. 31, pp. 25-30.
1924 a. La presencia de facetas supernumerarias en los astrdgalos y tibias
de un Guayaquf. Physis, vol. 7, pp. 274-275.
1924 b (1925). Cuatro astrdgalos de los primitivos habitantes de la pro-
vincia de Buenos Aires. An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat.
Buenos Aires, vol. 33, pp. 105-144.
1925 a. Una interesante anomalia de la articulaci6n temporo-maxilar de un
aborigen del NW argentino. Physis, vol. 8, p. 264 (abstract).
1925 b. Dos interesantes variaciones en atlas de aborigenes del noroeste
argentino. Physis, vol. 8, No. 29, pp. 261-263.
1925 c. Variaciones y anomallas en dos f^mures de indigenas Sudameri-
canos. Physis, vol. 8, pp. 93-97.
1925 d. Variaciones andtomo-antropol6gicas de la columna vertebral de los
aborigenes del noroeste argentino. Physis, vol. 8, p. 118 (abstract)
,
1925 e. Dos calcaneos de los primitivos habitantes bonaerenses. Physis, vol.
8, No. 29, p. 242 (abstract).
1927 a. Algunos crdneos mutilados procedentes de sepulturas del noroeste
argentino. Physis, vol. 8, No. 31, p. 590 (abstract),
1927 b. Arqueologfa y antropologia de los "Conchales" Fueguinos. Rev.
Mus. La Plata, vol, 30, pp. 79-143.
1928 a. El "horno de tierra" y el significado de las "tinajas" de las provlncias
del occidente argentino. Physis, vol. 9, pp. 241-253.
1928 b. Discovery of human teeth in Miramar (Buenos Aires). Inst. Int.
Anthrop., Sess. 3, Amsterdam, 1927, pp. 295-298.
1931 a. Un vestigio de la queratotecnia del hombre fdsil de Esperanza (prov.
de Santa F6). Notas Prelim. Mus. La Plata, vol. 1, pp. 7-17.
1931 b. Investigaciones antropol6gicas en el litoral maritimo sudatlantico
bonaerense. Notas Prelim. Mus. La Plata, vol. 1, pp. 19-21.
1931 c. Lesiones por desgaste en la articulaci6n temporo-maxilar de aborige-
nes del Noroeste Argentino. Notas Prelim. Mus. La Plata, vol.
1, entrega 2", pp. 197-203.
1931 d. El vocabulario rioplatense de Francisco Javier Muniz. Azul, No. 8,
pp. 89-124.
1932. Revisi6n de los hallazgos relativos al hombre de Banderalo. Publ.
^ ^ Mus. Antrop. Etnogr. Fac. Filos. Letras, ser. A, vol. 2, pp. 159-175.
1934. El hombre f6sil de Esperanza. Notas Prelim. Mus. La Plata, vol. 3,
pp. 7-75.
1936. El momento actual del problema del origen y antigtiedad del Hombre
en America. Bol. Junta Hist, y Numismdtica, vol. 8, pp. 19-35.
Buenos Aires.
1938. Crdneos pintados del cementerio indigena de San Bias. Rev. Mus.
La Plata, n. s., vol. 1, Sec. Antrop., pp. 35-52,
1939. Nueva mutilaci6n dentaria en una mandlbula aborigen de Santa Cruz.
Notas Mus. La Plata, vol. 4, Antropologia No. 17, pp. 433-441.
1941. Descripci6n de los molares humanos f6siles de Miramar (prov. de
Buenos Aires). Rev. Mus. La Plata, n. s., Antropologia, vol. 1, pp.
271-358.
ViGNAUD, H.
1913. La question de I'antiquit^ de Thomme am^ricain. Journ. Soc. Amer.
Paris, n. s., vol. 10, pp. 15-23.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 709
ViLLAGRA COBANERA, MarIa ElENA.
1937. Un caso de sinostosis completa de la sutura parieto-temporal. Notas
Mus. La Plata, vol. 2, Antropologfa No. 7, pp. 205-206.
1938. Contribuci6n a la craneologia de los primitivos habltantes de la provin-
cia de Buenos Aires. Notas Mus. La Plata, vol. 2, Antropologla
No. 6 (1937), pp. 147-154.
1939. Anomalias de la base del crdneo: Procesos basilares, tercer condilo y
carinas articulares. Physis, vol. 16, No. 48, pp. 349-350.
VlLLANXJEVA-UCALDE, J. See SiMPSON, G. G., 1940 c.
ViLLAREAL, FeDERICO.
1921. La lengua yunga 6 mochica segun el arte publicado en Lima, en 1644,
por el licenciado D. Fernando de la Carrera. Lima.
ViLLAVICENCIO, ManUEL.
1858. Geografia de la Republica del Ecuador. New York.
Vi:Saza, Conte de la.
1892. Bibliografia espanola de lenguas indigenas de America. Madrid.
Vinnelli-Baptista, B.
1937-38. Quelques recherches sur les sujets Bresiliens. Folia Morphologica,
vol. 8, No. 1-2, pp. 99-104. Warsaw, Poland.
ViRCHOW, Rudolf.
1872 a. Ueber die Muschelberge von Dona Francisca (Brasilien). Verhandl.
Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 187-191. {With Zeit,
Ethnol., vol. 4.)
1872 b. Schadel von Chiriqui (Panama). Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop.
Ethnol. Urg., pp. 22-23. (With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 4.)
1874 a. Ein Schadel und ein Steinbeil aus einem Muschelberge der Insel
San Amaro (Santos, Brasilien). Verhandl. Berlin. Gesel.
Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 5-8. (With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 6.)
1874 b. Schadel von Araucanos und andern Siidamerikanern. Verhandl.
Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop., Ethnol. Urg., Sitzung vom 12, Dec,
pp. 258-263. (With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 6.)
1874 c. Altpatagonische, altchilenische und moderne Pampas Schadel.
Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., Sitzung vom 14,
Marz, pp. 51-64. {With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 6.)
1875. Brasilianische Indianerschadel. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop.,
Ethnol. Urg., pp. 159-181. {With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 7.)
1881. Die Feuerlander. Verhandl. Beriin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg.,
pp. 375-394. {With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 13.)
1884. Alterthumern und einen Schadel der Calchaquis, sowie Steingerathe
von Catamarca, Cordoba u. s. w. in Argentinien. Verhandl.
Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 372-380. {With Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 16.)
1885. Schadel und Skelette von Botocuden am Rio Doce. Verhandl. Berlin.
GeseU. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 248-254. {With Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 17.)
1886 a. Schadel eines hydrocephalischen Arrowaken-Eandes. VerhandL
Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 108-112. {With Zeit.
Ethnol., vol. 18.)
1886 b. Ein Skelet und Schadel von Goajiros (Colombia). Verhandl. Berlin.
GeseU. Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 692-706. {With Zeit. Ethnol.,
vol. 18.)
1887. Schadel (Peruanische) . In Reiss (W.) and Stubel (A.), "Das Todten-
feld von Ancon in Peru," vol. 3, pp. 108-116. Berlin.
710 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
ViRCHOw, Rudolf—Continued
1892. Crania Ethnica Americana. Supplement to Zeit. Ethnol., Jahrgang 24.
1894. Schadel aus Siid-America, insbesondere aus Argentinien und Bolivien.
Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell, Anthrop. Ethnol. Urg., pp. 386-410.
{With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 26.)
1897 a. Die Internationale Lepra-Conferenz in Berlin und die verstiimmelten
peruanischen Figuren. Verhandl. Berlin. Gesell. Anthrop. Ethnol.
Urg., pp. 474-477. {With Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 29.)
1897 b. Die von Dr. Ashmead (New York) aufgefundenen krankhaften Dar-
stellungen an alt-peruanischen Thonfiguren. Mitt. Verhandl.
Internat. Wiss. Lepra-Conf., Berlin, Oct. 1897, vol. 2, pp. 79-82.
1897 c. Ueber neue Graberfunde aus Siidamerica. Congr. Int. Amer.,
Compte Rendu, Sess. 10, Stockholm, 1894, pp. 38-51.
VOCABULARIO COMPARADO (PORTUGUESE, GUARANf, CaIuX, CoROADO, XaVANTE)
.
1892. Rev. Inst. Hist. Geogr. Brasil., vol, 55, pp. 256-259.
VoCABULARIO NA lingua BRASILICA; MANUSCRITO PORTUGU^iS TUPf DO SBCULO
XVII, cooRDENADO E PREFACIADO POR Plinio Ayrosa. Colegao, Depattamento
de Cultura, vol. 20. 1938. Sao Paulo.
VoEGELiN, Charles Frederick.
1941. North American Indian languages still spoken and their genetic rela-
tionships. In Language, culture and personality; Essays in memory
of Edward Sapir, pp. 15-40. Menasha, Wisconsin.
VOGT, P. F.
1902-03. Material zur Ethnographie und Sprache der Guayakf-Indianer.
Zeit. Ethnol., vol. 34, pp. 30-45; vol. 35, pp. 849-874.
1904. Die Indianer des Obern Parand. Mitt. Anthrop. Gesell. Wien, vol. 34
(ser. 3, vol. 4), pp. 200-221, 353-377.
VoGT, William.
1942. An ecological depression on the Peruvian coast. Proc. 8th Amer. Sci.
Congr., vol. 3, pp. 507-526. Washington.
VoN Hagen, Victor Wolfgang.
1939. The Tsdtchela Indians of Western Ecuador. Ind. Notes Monogr.,
Misc. Ser., No. 51, pp. 1-61.
Vram, Ugo G.
1900 a. Contributo all'Antropologia Antica del Peru. Atti Soc. Rom.
Antrop., vol. 7, pp. 44-93.
1900 b. Un cranio artificialmente deformato di un Indiano dell'America del
Sud. Atti Soc. Rom. Antrop., vol. 7, pp. 174-178.
1901. Secondo contributo all'Antropologia del Peril Antico. (Craniologia;
varieta craniche con speciale riguardo aU'accrescimento del Teschio)
.
Atti Soc. Rom. Antrop., vol. 7, pp. 67-79.
1904 a. Crani di Calchaqui. Atti Soc. Rom. Antrop., vol. 10, pp. 182-210.
1904 b. Una mummia frammentaria della Columbia. Boll. R. Accad. Med.
Roma, anno 30, pp. 375-389.
1907. Su d'una sigolare urna funeraria dell'America del Sud. Archiv.
Antrop. Etnol., vol. 37, pp. 291-293.
Wallace, Alfred Russel.
1853. A narrative of travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro. London; New
York. (Other eds. London, New York, Melbourne, 1889.)
Walter, H. V., Cathoud, A., and Mattos, Anibal.
1937. The Confins man—a contribution to the study of early man in South
America. Early Man, Chapter 34, pp. 341-348.
Vol.6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 711
Wass^n, Henry.
1933. Cuentos de los Indies Chocos recogidos por Erland Nordenskiold
durante su expedici6n al Istmo de Panamd an 1927 y publicados con
notas y observa,ciones comparativas. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 25, pp. 103-137.
1934 a. Mitos y Cuentos de los Indies Cunas. Journ. Soc. Amer. Paris, n. s.,
vol. 26, pp. 1-35.
1934 b. Varldstradsmotive i n&gra indianska myter. Ymer. pp. 249-253.
1934 c. The frog-motive among the South American Indians. Anthropos,
vol. 29, pp. 319-370. St. Gabriel-Modling bei Wein.
1934 d. The frog in Indian mythology and imaginative world. Anthropos,
vol. 29, pp. 613-658. St. Gabriel-ModUng bei Wein.
1935. Notes on southern groups of Choc6 Indians in Colombia. Etnol. Stud.,
No. 1, pp. 35-182.
1937. Some Cuna Indian Animal stories, with original texts. Etnol. Stud.,
No. 4, pp. 12-34.
1938. Original documents from the Cuna Indians of San Bias, Panama.
Etnol. Stud., No. 6, pp. 1-178.
See also Nordenskiold, Erland, 1938.
Wayland, E. J.
1934. Rifts, rivers, rains and early man in Uganda. Journ. Roy. Anthrop.
Soc. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol. 64, pp. 333-352.
Webster, William Henry Bayley.
1834. A narrative of a voyage to the Southern Atlantic Ocean in the years
1828-30, performed in H. M. S. Chanticleer under the command of
the late Capt. H. Foster, F. R. S. London.
Wechsler, T.
1917. Ollantay. Drama kjechua en verso, de autor desconocido. Versi6n
castellana del original hallado en el convento de los padres dominicos
del Cuzco, con un alfabeto y diccionario hebreo-kjechua-castellano
por el presbltero Miguel A. Mossi. Publicaci6n hecha por la Uni-
versidad de Tucumdn, con ocasi6n del centenario de la independencia
argentina. Rev. Univ. Buenos Aires, vol. 37, pp. 397-405.
Weddell, James.
1827. A voyage towards the south pole, performed in the years 1822-24 . . ,
(2d ed.) London.
Wegner, Richard Nikolaus von.
1934 a. Die Qurungu'a und Siriono. Int. Congr. Amer., Sess. 24, Hamburg,
1930, pp. 161-184.
1934 b. Bemerkungen zu dem artikel von P. Anselm Schermair, O. F. M.
"Kurze mitteilungengen tiber die Sirion6-Indianer im ostlichen
Bolivien." Anthropos, vol. 29, pp. 814-817. St. Gabriel-Modling
bei Wien.
1934 c. Indianer-Rassen und vergangene Kulturen; betrachtungen zur volk-
sentwicklung auf einer forschungsreise durch Slid- und Mittel-
amerika. Stuttgart.
Weiss. P.
1932. Restos humanos de Cerro Colorado (Cavernas, Paracas). Rev. Mus.
Nac, Lima, No. 2, pp. 90-102.
Weldt, J.
1934. Contribuciones al Estudio de la Antropologfa Chilena. IV. Sobre el
relieve del paladar en 100 individuos de la poblaci6n de Concepci6n.
Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepci6n, vol. 8-9.
712 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. BulL 143
Weldt, J.—Continued
1935. Beitrage zur anthropologic Chiles. LV. Das Guamenrelief von 100
Einwohnern der Stadt Concepci6n. Zeit. Morph. Anthrop., vol. 33.
Welles, S. P. See Camp, Charles Lewis, Taylor, D. N., and Welles, S, P.
Wellisch, Siegmund. See Steffan, Paul, and Wellisch, Siegmund.
Westenhoeffer, Max.
1911. Bericht iiber die Tatigkeit des pathologisch-anatomischen Instituts der
Universitat Santiago de Chile in den Jahren 1908 und 1909. Berliner
Klinische Wochenschrift, Nos. 23-27.
Wetmore, Alexander.
1926. Observations on the birds of Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chile.
BuU. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 133.
1929. Ornithology. Encyclopedia Biitannica (14th ed.), vol, 16, pp. 917-
933.
1931. Bitds. Smithsonian Scient. Ser., vol. 9, pp. 1-166.
Wetmore, Alexander, and Swales, Bradshaw H.
1931. The birds of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Bull. U. S. Nat.
Mus., No. 155.
Whipfen, Thomas W.
1913. A short account of the Indians of the Issd-Japurd district (South
America). Folklore, vol. 24, pp. 3, 8, 41-62. London.
1915. The north-west Amazons: notes of some months spent among cannibal
tribes. London; New York.
White, Robert Blake.
1884 a. Notes on the aboriginal races of the northwestern provinces of South
America. Journ. Anthrop. Inst. Gr. Brit. Ireland, vol. 13, pp.
254-255.
1884 b. Notes on the central provinces of Colombia. Proc. Roy. Geogr.
See, vol. 5, p. 249.
Whiting, Alfred F.
1939. Ethnobotany of the Hopi. Bulletin, Museum of Northern Arizona,
No. 15. Flagstaff, Ariz.
Wied-Neuwied, Prince Maximilian.
1820-21. Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 bis 1817. 2'vols. Frank-
furt a. Main. (French trans.: "Voyage au Bresil dans les'ann^s
1815-1817," Paris, 1822.)
WiEGER, G.
1884. Die Anthropologische Sammlung des Anatomischen Instituts der
Universitat Breslau. Die Anthropologischen Sammlungen Deutsch-
lands, pt. 12.
WiEGHARDT, J.
1896. Indigenas fueguinos y patagones. Santiago.
Wiener, Charles.
1880. Perou et Bolivie. Paris.
WiLCZYNSKI, GUSTAVUS.
1888. Contribution towards a vocabulary of the Cayapas. Journ. Roy.
Anthrop. Inst., vol. 18.
Wilkes, Charles.
1844. Narrative of the United States exploring expedition during the years
1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. 5 vols. Philadelphia. (Another ed.,
Philadelphia, 1845.)
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 713
Williams, George Dee.
1931. Maya-Spanish crosses in Yucatan. Pap. Peabody Mus. Amer.
Archaeol. Ethnol. Harvard Univ., vol. 13, No. 1.
1940. Natives and immigrants in Brazil. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol,
27, supplement to No. 2, p. 17, abs. 26.
Williams, George Dee, and Benedict, Francis G.
1928. The basal metabolism of Mayas in Yucatan. Amer. Journ. Physiol.,
vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 634-649.
Williams, Herbert U.
1927. Gross and microscopic anatomy of two Peruvian mummies. Archiv.
Path. Lab. Med., vol. 4, pp. 26-33.
1932. The origin and antiquity of syphilis: The evidence from diseased bones.
A review, with some new material from America. Archiv. Path.,
vol. 13, pp. 779-814, 931-983.
1936. Origin of syphilis; evidence from diseased bones; supplementary report.
Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology, vol. 33, pp. 783-787.
Chicago.
See also Tello, Julio C., and Williams, Herbert U.
Williams, Herbert U., Rice, John P., and Lacato, Joseph Renato.
1927. The American origin of syphilis. With citations from early Spanish
authors collected by Dr. Montejo y Robledo. Archives of Derma-
tology and Syphilology, vol. 16, pp. 683-696. Chicago, 111.
Williams, James.
1924. The Arawak Indians and their language. Congr. Int. Amer., Sess. 21,
The Hague, pt. 1, pp. 355-370. The Hague.
1928-29, The Warau Indians of Guiana and vocabulary of their language,
Journ. Soc. Am^r. Paris, n. s., vol. 20, pp. 193-252; vol. 21, pp.
201-261.
1932. Grammar, notes, and vocabulary of the language of the Makuchi
Indians of Guiana. Biblioth^que Linguistique Anthropos, vol. 8,
pp. 389-408. St. Gabriel-Modling.
Willis, B. See HrdliCka, A., Holmes, W. H., Willis, B., Wright, F. E., and
Fenner, C. N.
Wilson, Daniel.
1863. Physical ethnology: The American -cranial type. Ann. Rep. Smith-
sonian Inst., 1862, pp. 240-302.
1876. Prehistoric man. Vol. 2 (of 2 vols.). (3d ed.) London.
Wissler, Clark.
1917. The American Indian; an introduction to the anthropology of the New
World. New York. (2d ed., 1922; 3d ed., 1938.)
Wolfe, G.
1924. Language and religious customs of Yaghan Indian. The South
Pacific Mail, 35 Sept. 1924, p. 30. Valparaiso.
WOLPEL, D. J.
1925. Die Trepanation. Studien liber Ursprung, Zusammenhfinge und
kulturelle Zugehorigkeit der Trepanation. Erste Studie: Die kul-
turellen Zusammenhange und der einheitliche Ursprung der Trepa-
nation in Melanesien und Amerika. Anthropos, vol. 20, pp. 1-60.
Wolff, J. G. See Imbelloni, J., 1923 b.
World Almanac.
1938.
Wright, F. E. See HrdliCka, A., Holmes, W. H., Willis, B., Wright, F. E.,
and Fenner, C. N.
714 SOUTH AMERICAN INDIANS [B. A. B. Bull. 143
Wright, Harry Bernard.
1939. Anthropologic aspects of dentofacial deformities. American Journal
of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 218-234. St.
Louis, Mo.
1940. A frequent variation of the maxillary central incisors, with some obser-
vations on dental caries among the Jivaro (Shuara) Indians of
Ecuador. Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., vol. 27, supplement to No.
2, p. 9, abs. 8.
Wright, S.
1931 a. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, vol. 16, p. 97.
1931 b. Statistical theory of evolution. Journ. Amer. Stat. Assoc, Suppl.
26, p. 201.
Wyman, Jeffries.
1871. Observations on crania and other parts of the skeleton. Fourth
Annual Report, Peabody Museum, pp. 10-24. Cambridge, Mass.
1874. Agassiz collection: Crania. Seventh Annual Report, Peabody Mu-
seum, pp. 8-15. Cambridge, Mass.
1941. In Hartt, Charles Frederick, "Geologia e Geografia Fisica do Brasil,"
Brasiliana, Ser. 5a, vol. 200, pp. 623-627.
Wyman, L. C, and Boyd, Wm. C.
1935. Human blood groups and anthropology. Amer. Anthrop., vol. 37,
p. 181.
Xesspe, Mejia. See Poma de Ayala, Felipe GuamXn, 1936.
Yacovlefp, Eugenic.
1933 a. Arte plumaria entre los antiguos peruanos. Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima,
vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 137-158.
1933 b. La jiquima, raiz comestible extinguida en el Peru. Rev. Mus. Nac.
Lima, vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 51-66.
Yacovleff, Eugenio, and Herrera, Fortunato L.
1934-35. El mundo vegetal de los antiguos peruanos. Rev. Mus. Nac.
Lima, vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 241-322; vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 29-102.
Yacovleff, Eugenic, and Muelle, Jorge C.
1934. Notas al trabajo "Colorantes de Paracas." Rev. Mus. Nac. Lima,
vol. 3, pp. 157-163.
Yangues, Manuel de.
1888. Principios y reglas de la lengua Cumanagota. In Platzmann, Julius,
"Algunas obras raras sobre la lengua Cumanagota," vol. 2, pp. 1-170.
Leipzig.
Yepes, Jos^. See Cabrera, Angel, and Yepes, Jcs£.
Young, Stanley P., and Goldman, Edward A.
1944. The wolves of North America. American Wildlife Institute. Wash-
ington.
Young, Thomas.
1842. Narrative of a residence on the Mosquito Shore during the years
1839, 1840, and 1841 . . . London.
Zauchinger, Zedla. See Sussini, M., Paso, J. R., and Zauchinger, Z.
Zeballos, Estanislac S.
1915. Lengua fuegina Shelknam. Rev. Derecho Hist. Let., vol. 51, pp.
288-289.
1922 a. El idioma japon^s y sus afinidades con lenguas Americanas. Rev.
Derecho Hist. Let., vol. 73, pp. 119-121.
Vol. 6] BIBLIOGRAPHY 715
Zeballos, Estanislao S.—Continued
1922 b. Consultas. Etimologias araucanas. Rev. Derecho Hist. Let., vol.
73, pp. 770-771.
See also Beauvoir, J. M., and Zeballos, E. S.
Zegarra, Gavino Pacheo. See Ollanta, 1878.
Zeled6n, p. p.
1918. Los aborigenes de Costa Rica. San Jose de Costa Rica.
ZlDEK, H.
1894. Dictionary of the English and Miskito languages. Herrnhut.
ZiMMERMANN, GUNTER.
1935. Uber einige interessante Schadel aus Siidamerika. Mitt. Anthrop.
Gesell. Wien, vol. 65, No. 3-4, pp. 194-203.
o





\
SMfTHSONlAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
3 9088 01421 8911