Dhegiha prehistory, cont.

[Rankin, Robert L]

I have not weighed in on the Dhegiha migration business for a couple
of reasons.  I have been busy with the first week of classes at KU,
but, more importantly, it would involve retyping for about the 8th
time my considered position on the question.  John and I have gone
back and forth on this for many years with several correspondents.
Interestingly, neither of us seems to be able to marshal sufficient
argument to really carry the day or, at least, convince the other.
The evidence is interpretable within more than one hypothesis.

For various linguistic reasons including the study of Siouan agri-
cultural terms, the bow, hydronyms, ethnonyms, tribal accounts, etc.,
I am strongly sympathetic to an Ohio Valley origin.  In this I agree
with Dale Henning, one of the preeminent Dhegiha-oriented archae-
ologists.

Rather than try to recapitulate all my points, let me attach a copy
of a lecture I gave at the Kaw Mission here in Kansas a year ago. It
was a public lecture, not an academic treatise, but it covers the
ground in an elementary way.

Beyond that, I only have a couple of comments and questions here.

Rory writes:
> 1) By the Sacred Legend, the Dhegihans originally
   lived east of the Mississippi, in the Ohio Valley.
   At some point before contact, they crossed the
   Mississippi and differentiated into three subgroups:
   the UmaNhaN, or 'Upstream People', who went north,
   the Ugaxpa, or 'Downstream People', who went south,
   and the NiukaNska, or 'People of the Middle Water',
   who lived in between, and became the Osage and Kaw.
   (I think this is the standard popular assumption.)

And this probably comes fairly close to what I agree with,
although I never connected 'people of the middle waters' with
the up- and down-stream analyses.  Although it fits.

When you say "By the Sacred Legend...", are you referring to
some particular document?  Sacred legends are like rolling
stones.  With the advent of modern scientific studies and
literacy, they tend to gather moss.  I discount 20th cent.
versions much more than earlier ones.  But they're important
at least to consider.

>2) By the Sacred Legend, the Omahas and Quapaws were
   living as one people in the Ohio Valley, together
   with the Ioways.

Linguistically, there is little reason to include the Ioways.
It has been noted in the literature that the Omahas and Ioways
traveled/lived together up in what is probably now Iowa at some
point, and this would presumably account for some loans, etc.,
but this would have been long after splitting from the Kaw-Osage
and Quapaw groups.

A couple of points responding to John.  First, it is my under-
standing from Kathy Shea, that Ponca (as opposed to Omaha)
preserves the /ph/ 1st person forms in verbs like e-he 'say',
i.e., Ponca has /ephe/ like Kaw-Osage, but unlike Quapaw. If
that is the case, the isogloss is not diagnostic for subgrouping.

I've never been clear on this Omaha term /uhai/.  I would need a
quotation or exact context in order to interpret it.  If there is
reference to /uhai khe/ as a putative hydronym, then I'd say it
has to be a river name, not a verb form, because of the article.
Bodies of water 'lie'.  Travelers don't.  If it is a river name,
Wally's contribution strongly suggests it is borrowed from English.
Without a citation, I don't think it is possible to interpret
/uhai/ alone.

As for the Quapaws, the village John refers to (Okaxpa -- spelled
Kappa, Qappa, etc. by the French) only bore the single name in its
French incarnation.  In Quapaw it was called Okaxpa-xti 'real
Quapaws', so it seems clear that other villages also claimed the
Okaxpa monicker.

Lastly, Le Bourgmont visited the Kaw settlement in NE Kansas very
early and mentions prominently that their village was overrun by
the Otoes, who then settled in it.  This foreign occupation would
provide the very little Oneota-like pottery that was discovered
there.

File hopefully attached.  If you wish to read it, you will need
the Siouan font set that may be obtained from John's web site.

Bob


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: councilgrove.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 83456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20020120/6d2a800a/attachment.obj>