letter d before it, when the pronoun is prefixed.
I am a man, Neen nin dauw. Thou art a man, Keen ke dauw. He is a man, Ween ah weeh. We are men, (in.) Ke dauw we min. We are men, (ex.) Ne dauw we min. Ye are men, Ke dauw min. They are men, Weenowau ah weeh wug.
In the translation of these expressions "man" is used as synonymous with person. If the specific term _inine_, had been introduced in the original, the meaning thereby conveyed would be, in this particular connexion, I am a man with respect to _courage_ &c., in opposition to effeminacy. It would not be simply declarative of _corporeal existence_, but of existence in a _particular state or condition_.
In the following phrases, the modified forms, or the signs only, of the pronouns are used:
N' debaindaun, I own it. Ke debaindaun, Thou ownest it. O debaindaun, He or she owns it. N' debaindaun-in, We own it (ex.) Ke debaindaun-in, We own it (in.) Ke debaindaun-ewau, Ye own it. O debaindaun-ewau, They own it.
These examples are cited as exhibiting the manner in which the prefixed and preformative pronouns are employed, both in their full and contracted forms. To denote possession, nouns specifying the things possessed, are required; and, what would not be anticipated, had not full examples of this species of declension been given in another place, the purposes of distinction are not effected by a simple change of the pronoun, as _I_ to _mine_, &c., but by a subformative inflection of the _noun_, which is thus made to have a reflective operation upon the pronoun-speaker. It is believed that sufficient examples of this rule, in all the modifications of inflection, have been given under the head of the substantive. But as the substantives employed to elicit these modifications were exclusively _specific_ in their meaning, it may be proper here, in further illustration of an important principle, to present a generic substantive under their compound forms.
I have selected for this purpose one of the primitives. IE-AÚ, is the abstract term for existing matter. It is in the animate form and declarative. Its inanimate correspondent is IE-EÉ. These are two important roots. And they are found in combination, in a very great number of derivative words. It will be sufficient here, to show their connexion with the pronoun, in the production of a class of terms in very general use.
Animate Forms.
_Singular._ _Plural._
{Nin dyë aum, Mine. Nin dyë auminaun, Ours. (ex.) Poss. { Ke dyë auminaun, Ours. (in.) {Ke dyë aum, Thine. Ke dyë aumewau, Yours. Obj. O dyë aum-un, His or Hers. O dyë aumewaun, Theirs.
Inanimate Forms.
_Singular._ _Plural._
{Nin dyë eem, Mine. Nin dyë eeminaun, Ours. (ex.) Poss. { Ke dyë eeminaun, Ours. (in.) {Ke dyë eem, Thine. Ke dyë eemewau, Yours. Obj. O dyë eem-un, His or Hers. O dyë eemewaun, Theirs. _Poss. in._
In these forms the noun is singular throughout. To render it plural, as well as the pronoun, the appropriate general plurals _ug_ and _un_ or _ig_ and _in_, must be superadded. But it must be borne in mind, in making these additions, "that the plural inflection to inanimate nouns (which have no objective case,) forms the objective case to animates, which have no number in the third person," [p. 30.] The particle _un_, therefore, which is the appropriate plural for the inanimate nouns in these examples, is only the objective mark of the animate.
The plural of I, is _naun_, the plural of thou and he, _wau_. But as these inflections would not coalesce smoothly with the possessive inflections, the connective vowels i. and e. are prefixed, making the plural of I, _inaun_, and of thou, &c. _ewau_.
If we strike from these declensions the root IE, leaving its animate and inanimate forms AU, and EE, and adding the plural of the noun, we shall then,--taking the _animate_ declension as an instance, have the following formula of the pronominal declensions.
Column headings-- A: Place of the Noun. B: Possessive inflection. C: Obj. inflec. to the noun sing. D: Connect. vowel. E: Plu inflec. of the pronoun. F: Obj. inflect. n. plu. G: Plural of the Noun.
________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | Pron. | | | | | | | | | Sing. | [A] | [B] | [C] | [D] | [E] | [F] | [G] | |_______|_____|_____|_____|_______|________|_____|_______| | | | | | | | | | | Ne | | aum | | - i - | - naun | | - ig. | | Ke | | aum | | - e - | - wau | | - g. | | O | | aum | un | | | | | | O | | aum | | - e - | - wau | - n | | |_______|_____|_____|_____|_______|________|_____|_______|
To render this formula of general use, six variations, (five in addition to the above) of the possessive inflection, are required, corresponding to the six classes of substantives, whereby aum would be changed to am, eem, im, öm, and oom, conformably to the examples heretofore given in treating of the substantive. The objective inflection, would also be sometimes changed to _een_ and sometimes to _oan_.
Having thus indicated the mode of distinguishing the person, number, relation, and gender--or what is deemed its technical equivalent, the mutation words undergo, not to mark the distinctions of _sex_, but the presence or absence of _vitality_, I shall now advert to the inflections which the pronouns take for _tense_, or rather, to form the auxiliary verbs, have, had, shall, will, may, &c. A very curious and important principle, and one, which clearly demonstrates that no part of speech has escaped the transforming genius of the language. Not only are the three great modifications of time accurately marked in the verbal forms of the Chippewas, but by the inflection of the pronoun they are enabled to indicate some of the oblique tenses, and thereby to conjugate their verbs with accuracy and precision.
The particle _gee_ added to the first, second, and third persons singular of the present tense, changes them to the perfect past, rendering I, thou, He, I did--have--or had. Thou didst,--hast--or hadst, He, or she did--have, or had. If _gah_, be substituted for _gee_, the first future tense is formed, and the perfect past added to the first future, forms the conditional future. As the eye may prove an auxiliary in the comprehension of forms, which are not familiar, the following tabular arrangement of them, is presented.
_First Person, I._
Nin gee, I did--have--had. Nin gah, I shall--will. Nin gah gee, I shall have--will have.
_Second Person, Thou._
Ke gee, Thou didst--hast--hadst. Ke gah, Thou shalt--wilt. Ke gah gee, Thou shall have--wilt have.
_Third Person, He, or She._
O gee, He or she did--has--had. O gah, He or she did--has--had. O gah gee, He or she shall have--will have.
The present and imperfect tense of the potential mood, is formed by _dau_, and the perfect by _gee_, suffixed as in other instances.
_First Person, I._
Nin dau, I may--can, &c. Nin dau gee, I may have--can have, &c.
_Second Person, Thou._
Ke dau, Thou mayst--canst, &c. Ke dau gee, Thou mayst have--canst have, &c.
_Third Person, He, or She._
O dau, He or she may--can, &c. O dau gee, He or she may have--can have, &c.
In conjugating the verbs through the plural persons, the singular terms for the pronoun remain, and they are rendered plural by a retrospective action of the pronominal inflections of the verb. In this manner the pronoun-verb auxiliary, has a general application, and the necessity of double forms is avoided.
The preceding observations are confined to the formative or _prefixed_ pronouns. The inseparable suffixed or subformative are as follows--
Yaun, My. Yun, Thy. Id, or d, His, or hers. Yaung, Our. (ex.) Yung, Our. (in.) Yaig, Your. Waud, Their.
These pronouns are exclusively employed as suffixes,--and as suffixes to the descriptive compound substantives, adjectives and verbs. Both the rule and examples have been stated under the head of the substantive, p. 43. and adjective, p. 81. Their application to the verb will be shown, as we proceed.
2. Relative Pronouns. In a language which provides for the distinctions of person by particles prefixed or suffixed to the verb, it will scarcely be expected, that separate and independent relative pronouns should exist, or if such are to be found, their use, as separate parts of speech, must, it will have been anticipated, be quite limited--limited to simple interrogatory forms of expression, and not applicable to the indicative, or declaratory. Such will be found to be the fact in the language under review; and it will be perceived, from the subjoined examples, that in all instances, requiring the relative pronoun _who_, other than the simple interrogatory forms, this relation is indicated by the inflections of the verb, or adjective, &c. Nor does there appear to be any declension of the separate pronoun, corresponding to _whose_, and _whom_.
* * * * *
The word Ahwaynain, may be said to be uniformly employed in the sense of _who_, under the limitations we have mentioned. For instance.
Who is there? Ahwaynain e-mah ai-aud? Who spoke? Ahwaynain kau keegoedood? Who told you? Ahwaynain kau ween dumoak? Who are you? Ahwaynain iau we yun? Who sent you? Ahwaynain waynönik? Who is your father? Ahwaynain kös? Who did it? Ahwaynain kau tödung? Whose dog is it? Ahwaynain way dyid? Whose pipe is that? Ahwaynain döpwaugunid en-eu? Whose lodge is it? Ahwaynain way weegewomid? Whom do you seek? Ahwaynain nain dau wau bumud? Whom have you here? Ahwaynain oh omau ai auwaud?
Not the slightest variation is made in these phrases, between who, whose, and whom.
Should we wish to change the interrogative, and to say, he who is there; he who spoke; he who told you, &c., the separable personal pronoun ween (he) must be used in lieu of the relative, and the following forms will be elicited.
Ween, kau unnönik, He (who) sent you. Ween, kau geedood, He (who) spoke. Ween, ai-aud e-mah, He (who) is there. Ween, kau weendumoak, He (who) told you. Ween, kau tö dung, He (who) did it, &c.
If we object that, that in these forms, there is no longer the relative pronoun _who_, the sense being simply, he sent you, he spoke, &c., it is replied that if it be intended only to say, he sent you, &c., and not he _who_ sent you, &c., the following forms are used.
Ke gee unnönig. He (sent) you. Ainnözhid, He (sent) me. Ainnönaud, He (sent) him, &c. Iau e-mau, He is there. Ke geedo, He (spoke.) Kegeeweendumaug, He (told) you. Ke to dum, He did it.
We reply, to this answer of the native speaker, that the particle _kau_ prefixed to a verb denotes the past tense,--that in the former series of terms, in which this particle appears, the verbs are in the perfect indicative,--and in the latter, they are in the present indicative, marking the difference only between _sent_ and _send_, _spoke_ and _speak_, &c. And that there is absolutely no relative pronoun, in either series of terms. We further observe, that the personal pronoun ween, prefixed to the first set of terms, may be prefixed with equal propriety, to the second set, and that its use or disuse, is perfectly optional with the speaker, as he may wish to give additional energy or emphasis to the expression. To these positions, after reflection, discussion and examination, we receive an assent, and thus the uncertainty is terminated.
We now wish to apply the principle thus elicited to verbs causative, and other compound terms--to the adjective verbs, for instance--and to the other verbal compound expressions, in which the objective and the nominative persons, are incorporated as a part of the verb, and are not prefixes to it. This may be shown in the causative verb, _To make Happy_.
Mainwaindumëid, He (who) makes _me_ happy. Mainwaindumëik, He (who) makes _thee_ happy. Mainwaindumëaud, He (who) makes _him_ happy. Mainwaindumëinung, He (who) makes _us_ happy. (inclusive.) Mainwaindumëyaug, He (who) makes _us_ happy. (exclusive.) Mainwaindumëinnaig, He (who) makes _ye_ or _you_ happy. Mainwaindumëigowaud, He (who) makes _them_ happy.
And so the forms might be continued, throughout all the objective persons.--
Mainwaindumëyun, Thou (who) makest me happy, &c.
The basis of these compounds is _minno_, good, and _aindum_, the mind. Hence minwaindum, he happy. The adjective in this connexion, cannot be translated "good," but its effect upon the noun, is to denote that state of the mind, which is at rest with itself. The first change from this simple compound, is to give the adjective a verbal form; and this is effected by a permutation of the vowels of the first syllable--a rule of very extensive application--and by which, in the present instance, the phrase _he happy_, is changed to _he makes happy_, (mainwaindum.) The next step is to add the suffix personal pronouns, id, ik, aud, &c., rendering the expressions, he makes _me_ happy, &c. But in adding these increments, the vowel e, is thrown between the adjective-verb, and the pronoun suffixed, making the expression, not mainwaindum-yun, but mainwaindumëyun. Generally the vowel e in this situation, is a connective, or introduced merely for the sake of euphony. And those who maintain that it is here employed as a personal pronoun, and that the relative _who_, is implied by the final inflection; overlook the inevitable inference, that if the marked e, stands for _me_ in the first phrase, it must stand for _thee_ in the second, _he_ in the third, _us_ in the fourth, &c. As to the meaning and office of the final inflections id, ik, &c.--whatever they may, in an involuted sense _imply_, it is quite clear, by turning to the list of _suffixed personal pronouns_ and _animate plurals_, that they mark the persons, I, thou, he, &c., we, ye, they, &c.
Take for example, minwaindumëigowaud. He (who) makes them happy. Of this compound, minwaindum, as before shown, signifies _he makes happy_. But as the verb is in the singular number, it implies that but _one person_ is made happy, and the suffixed personal pronouns _singular_, mark the distinctions between _me_, _thee_, and he, or him.
Minwaindum-e-ig is the verb plural, and implies that several persons are made happy, and, in like manner, the suffixed personal pronouns _plural_, mark the distinctions between we, ye, they, &c. For it is a rule of the language, that a strict concordance must exist between the number of the verb, and the number of the pronoun. The termination of the verb consequently always indicates, whether there be one or many objects, to which its energy is directed. And as animate verbs can be applied only to animate objects, the numerical inflections of the verb, are understood to mark the number of persons. But this number is indiscriminate, and leaves the sense vague, until the pronominal suffixes are superadded. Those who, therefore, contend for the sense of the relative pronoun "who," being given in the last mentioned phrase, and all phrases similarly formed, by a succedaneum, contend for something like the following form of translation:--He makes them happy--him! or Him--he (meaning who) makes them happy.
The equivalent for what, is _Waygonain_.
What do you want? Waygonain wau iauyun? What have you lost? Waygonain kau wonetöyun? What do you look for? Waygonain nain dahwaubundamun? What is this? Waygonain ewinain maundun? What will you have? Waygonain kau iauyun? What detained you? Waygonain kau oon dahme egöyun? What are you making? Waygonain wayzhetöyun? What have you there? Waygonain e-mau iauyun?
The use of this pronoun, like the preceding, appears to be confined to simple interrogative forms. The word _auneen_, which sometimes supplies its place, or is used for want of the pronoun _which_, is an adverb, and has considerable latitude of meaning. Most commonly it may be considered as the equivalent for _how_, in what manner, or at what time.
What do you say? Auneen akeedöyun? What do you call this? Auneen aizheneekaudahmun maundun?(i.) What ails you? Auneen aindeeyun? What is your name? Auneen aizheekauzoyun? Which do you mean; this or that?(an.) Auneen ah-owainud, woh-ow gämau ewidde? Which do you mean; this or that?(in.) Auneen eh-eu ewaidumun oh-oo gãmau ewaidde? Which boy do you mean? Auneen ah-ow-ainud?
By adding to this word, the particle _de_, it is converted into an adverb of place, and may be rendered _where_.
Where do you dwell? Auneende aindauyun? Where is your son? Auneende ke gwiss? Where did you see him? Auneende ke waubumud?
becomes quite necessary in writing the language. And in the following sentences, the substantive is properly employed after the pronoun.
This dog is very lean, Gitshee bukaukdoozo woh-ow annemoosh. These dogs are very lean, Gitshee bukauddoozowug o-goo annemooshug. Those dogs are fat, Ig-eu annemooshug ween-in-oawug. That dog is fat, Ah-ow annemoosh ween-in-ao. This is a handsome knife, Gagait onishishin maundun mokomahn. These are handsome knives, Gagait wahwinaudj o-noo mokomahnun. Those are bad knives, Monaududön in-euwaidde mokomahnun. Give me that spear, Meezhishin eh-eu ahnitt. Give me those spears, Meezhishin in-eu unnewaidde ahnitteen. That is a fine boy, Gagait kwonaudj ah-ow kweewezains. Those are fine boys, Gagait wahwinaudj ig-euwaidde kweewezainsug. This boy is larger than that, Nahwudj mindiddo woh-ow kweewezains ewaidde dush. That is what I wanted, Meeh-eu wau iauyaumbaun. This is the very thing I wanted, Mee-suh oh-oo wau iauyaumbaun.
In some of these expressions, the pronoun combines with an adjective, as in the compound words, ineuwaidde, and igeuwaidde, _those yonder_, (in.) and _those yonder_ (an.) Compounds which exhibit the full pronoun in coalescence with the word _Ewaidde_ yonder.
CHRONOLOGY.
Columbus discovered the West Indies Oct. 12, 1492.
Americo Vespucio, discovered the coast of South America, 1497.
Cabot discovered the North American coast 1497.
De Leon discovered Florida 1512.
Cortes, enters the city of Mexico, after a siege, Aug. 13, 1521.
Verrizani, is said to have entered the bay of New York, 1524.
Cartier discovered the St. Lawrence, 1534.
Jamestown, in Virginia, is founded, 1608.
Acknowledged date of the settlement of Canada, 1608.
Hudson discovers the river bearing his name, 1609.
The Dutch build a fort near Albany, 1614.
The Pilgrims land at Plymouth Dec. 22, 1620.
New Amsterdam taken from the Dutch by the Duke of York and Albany and named New York 1664.
La Salle discovers the Illinois in upper Louisiana 1678.
discovers Lower Louisiana, and is killed 1685.
THE ERA OF THE ARRIVAL OF THE FRENCH IN THE UPPER LAKES.
KE-WA-KONS, a chief of the straits of St. Mary's, told me, during an interview, in 1827, that but seven generations of red men had passed away, since the French first appeared on those straits. If we take the date of Cartier's first visit to the St. Lawrence, as the era of their acquaintance with this nation, A. D. 1534, we should have 56 years as the period of an Indian generation. Should we take, instead of this, the time of La Salle's first arrival on the upper lakes, 1778, there would, on the contrary, be but a fraction over 22 years for a generation. But neither of these periods, can be truly said to coincide with the probable era of the chief's historical reminiscences. The first is too early, the last too late. An average of the two, which is required to apply the observation properly, gives 38 years as the Indian generation. This nearly assimilates it to the results among Europeans, leaving 8 years excess. Further data would probably reduce this; but it is a department in which we have so little material, that we must leave it till these be accumulated. It may be supposed that the period of Indian longevity, before the introduction of ardent spirits, was equal, perhaps, a little superior, to that of the European; but it did not exceed it, we think, by 8 years.
Ke-wa-kons, whom I knew very well, was a man of shrewd sense, and respectable powers of observation. He stated, at the same interview, that his tribe, who were of the Odjibwa type of the Algonquins, laid aside their Akeeks, or clay cooking-vessels, at _that time_, and adopted in lieu of them, the light brass kettle, which was more portable and permanent. And from that time, their skill in pottery declined, until, in our day, it is entirely lost. It is curious to reflect, that within the brief period of 150 years, a living branch of coarse manufacture among them, has thus been transferred into an object of antiquarian research. This fact, should make historians cautious in assigning very remote periods of antiquity to the monumental evidences of by-gone generations.
It is by such considerations that we get a glimpse of some of the general principles which attended the early periods of discovery and settlement, in all parts of the continent. Adventurers came to find gold, or furs, to amass wealth, get power, or to perform mere exploits. Nobody cared much for the native race, beyond the fact of their being the medium to lead to these specified objects. There were none, to record accurately, their arts, and other peculiarities, which now excite intense interest. They died away very fast, whole tribes becoming extinct within a generation or two. The European fabrics, then introduced, were so much superior to their own, that they, at once, discontinued such rude arts as they practised, at least in our northern latitudes. New adventurers followed in the track of Columbus, Amerigo, Cabot, and their compeers and followers, who, in the lapse of time, picked up, from the soil, pieces of coarse pottery, pestles and such like things, and holding them up, said,--"See these!--here are evidences of very great skill, and very high antiquity."
It is not the intention by any means, to assert, that there were not antiquities of a far higher era, and nobler caste, but merely to impress upon inquirers, the necessity of discriminating the different eras in the chronology of our antiquities. All Indian pottery, north of the capes of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico, is of, or preceding the era of the discovery; but there is found in graves, a species of pottery, and vitrified ware, which was introduced, in the early stages of traffic, by Europeans. Of this transition era between the dying away of the Indian arts, and the introduction of the European, are the rude pastes, enamel and glass beads, and short clay pipes of coarse texture, found in Indian cemeteries, but not in the tumuli. In place of these, our ancient Indians used wrought and unwrought sea shells of various species, and pipes carved out of seatites and other soft materials.
* * * * *
Mr. Anderson remarks in his biography of Catharine Brown, that "the Cherokees are said to possess a language, which is more precise and powerful than any into which learning has poured richness of thought, or genius breathed the enchantments of fancy and eloquence."
David Brown, in one of his letters, in the same volume, terms his people the Tsallakee, of which we must therefore take "Cherokee," to be a corruption. It is seen by the Cherokee alphabet, that the sound of _r_ does not occur in that language.
FAITH.
When Chusco was converted to Christianity at the mission of Michilinackinac, he had planted a field of potatoes on one of the neighbouring islands in lake Huron. In the fall he went over in his canoe, with his aged wife, to dig them--a labour which the old woman set unceremoniously about, as soon as they got into the field. "Stop!" cried the little old man, who had a small tenor voice and was bent nearly double by age,--"dare you begin to dig, till we have thanked the Lord for their growth." They then both knelt down in the field, while he lifted up his voice, in his native language, in thanks.
SHINGABA-WOSSINS, OR IMAGE STONES.
The native tribes who occupy the borders of the great lakes, are very ingenious in converting to the uses of superstition, such masses of loose rock, or boulder stones, as have been fretted by the action of water into shapes resembling the trunks of human bodies, or other organic forms.
There appears, at all times, to have been a ready disposition to turn such masses of rude natural sculpture, so to call them, to an idolatrous use; as well as a most ingenious tact, in aiding the effect of the natural resemblance, by dots or dabs of paint, to denote eyes, and other features, or by rings of red ochre, around their circumference, by way of ornament.
In the following figures, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, some of these masses are represented.
Number 3. was brought to the office of the Indian Agent at Michilimackinac in 1839, and placed among objects of analagous interest to visitors. It consisted of a portion of a vein or mass of gneiss or granite, from which both mica and feldspar were nearly absent, existing only in trace, while the quartzy portion predominated, and had, by its superior hardness, resisted the elemental action. The mode of the formation of such masses is very well known to geologists, resulting, in almost every case, from the unequal degree of hardness of various parts of a mass, submitted to an equal force of attrition, such as is ordinarily given by the upheaving and rolling force of waves on a lake, or ocean beach. To the natives, who are not prone to reason from cause to effect, such productions appear wonderful. All that is past comprehension, or wonderful, is attributed by them to the supernatural agency of spirits. The hunter or warrior, who is travelling along the coast, and finds one of these self-sculptured stones, is not sure that it is not a direct interposition of his God, or guardian Manito, in his favour. He is habitually a believer in the most subtle forms of mysterious power, which he acknowledges to be often delegated to the native priests, or necromancers. He is not staggered by the most extraordinary stretch of fancy, in the theory of the change or transformation of animate into inanimate objects, and vice versa. All things, "in heaven and earth," he believes to be subject to this subtle power of metamorphosis. But, whatever be the precise operating cause of the respect he pays to the imitative rolled stones, which he calls Shingaba-wossins, and also by the general phrase of Muz-in-in-a-wun, or images, he is not at liberty to pass them without hazarding something, in his opinion, of his chance of success in life, or the fortune of the enterprize in hand.
If the image be small, it is generally taken with him and secreted in the neighborhood of his lodge. If large and too heavy for this purpose, it is set up on the shore, generally in some obscure nook, where an offering of tobacco, or something else of less value, may be made _to_ it, or rather _through_ it, to the spirit.
In 1820 one of these stones (No. 2.) was met by an expedition of the government sent north, that year, for the purpose of interior discovery and observation, at the inner Thunder Bay island, in Lake Huron. It was a massy stone, rounded, with a comparatively broad base and entablature but not otherwise remarkable. It was set up, under a tree on the island, which was small, with the wide and clear expanse of the lake in plain view. The island was one of those which were regarded as desert, and was probably but seldom stopped at. It was, indeed, little more than a few acres of boulders and pebbles, accumulated on a limestone reef, and bearing a few stunted trees and shrubs. The water of the lake must, in high storms, have thrown its spray over this imaged stone. It was, in fine, one of those private places which an Indian might be supposed to have selected for his secret worship.
In No. 3. is figured an object of this kind, which was found in 1832, in the final ascent to the source of the Mississippi, on the right cape, in ascending this stream into lac Traverse--at the distance of about 1000 miles above the falls of St. Anthony. I landed at the point to see it, having heard, from my interpreter, that such an object was set up and dedicated to some unknown Manito there. It was a pleasant level point of land shaded with trees, and bearing luxuriant grass and wild shrubbery and flowers. In the middle of this natural parterre the stone was placed, and was overtopped by this growth, and thus concealed by it. A ring of red paint encircled it, at the first narrowed point of its circumference, to give it the resemblance of a human neck; and there were some rude dabs to denote other features. The Indian is not precise in the matter of proportion, either in his drawing, or in his attempts at statuary. He seizes upon some minute and characteristic trait, which is at once sufficient to denote the _species_, and he is easily satisfied about the rest. Thus a simple cross, with a strait line from shoulder to shoulder, and a dot, or circle above, to serve for a head, is the symbol of the human frame; and without any adjunct of feet, or hands, it could not have been mistaken for any thing else--certainly for any other object in the animal creation.
MNEMONIC SYMBOLS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.