The most useful suggestion to persons interested in the collection
of signs is that they shall not too readily abandon the attempt to
discover recollections of them even among tribes long exposed
to European influence and officially segregated from others. The
instances where their existence, at first denied, has been ascertained
are important with reference to the theories advanced.
Rev. J. Owen Dorsey has furnished a considerable vocabulary of signs
finally procured from the Poncas, although, after residing among them
for years, with thorough familiarity with their language, and after
special and intelligent exertion to obtain some of their disused
gesture language, he had before reported it to be entirely forgotten.
A similar report was made by two missionaries among the Ojibwas,
though other trustworthy authorities have furnished a copious list
of signs obtained from that tribe. This is no imputation against
the missionaries, as in October, 1880, five intelligent Ojibwas from
Petoskey, Mich., told the writer that they had never heard of gesture
language. An interesting letter from Mr. B.O. Williams, sr., of
Owasso, Mich., explains the gradual decadence of signs used by the
Ojibwas in his recollection, embracing sixty years, as chiefly
arising from general acquaintance with the English language. Further
discouragement came from an Indian agent giving the decided statement,
after four years of intercourse with the Pai-Utes, that no such thing
as a communication by signs was known or even remembered by them,
which, however, was less difficult to bear because on the day of the
receipt of that well-intentioned missive some officers of the Bureau
of Ethnology were actually talking in signs with a delegation of that
very tribe of Indians then in Washington, from one of whom, Natci, a
narrative printed in this paper (page 500), was received.
The report from missionaries, army officers, and travelers in Alaska
was unanimous against the existence of a sign language there until
Mr. Ivan Petroff, whose explorations had been more extensive, gave
the excellent exposition and dialogue now produced (see page 492).
Collections were also obtained from the Apaches and Zuni, Pimas,
Papagos, and Maricopas, after agents and travelers had denied them to
be possessed of any knowledge on the subject.
For the reasons mentioned under the last heading, little hope was
entertained of procuring a collection from any of the Iroquoian stock,
but the intelligent and respectable chief of the Wyandots, Hento (Gray
Eyes), came to the rescue. His tribe was moved from Ohio in July,
1843, to the territory now occupied by the State of Kansas, and
then again moved to Indian Territory, in 1870. He asserts that about
one-third of the tribe, the older portion, know many signs, a partial
list of which he gave with their descriptions. He was sure that those
signs were used before the removal from Ohio, and he saw them used
also by Shawnees, Delawares, and Senecas there.
Unanimous denial of any existence of sign language came from the
British provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and was followed by the
collection obtained by the Hon. Horatio Hale. His statement of the
time and manner of its being procured by him is not only interesting
but highly instructive:
"The aged Mohawk chief, from whom the information on this subject has
been obtained, is commonly known by his English name of John
Smoke Johnson. 'Smoke' is a rude version of his Indian name,
_Sakayenkwaraton_, which may be rendered 'Disappearing Mist.' It is
the term applied to the haze which rises in the morning of an autumn
day, and gradually passes away. Chief Johnson has been for many years
'speaker' of the great council of the Six Nations. In former times he
was noted as a warrior, and later has been esteemed one of the most
eloquent orators of his race. At the age of eighty-eight years he
retains much of his original energy. He is considered to have a better
knowledge of the traditions and ancient customs of his people than
any other person now living. This superior knowledge was strikingly
apparent in the course of the investigations which were made
respecting the sign language. Two other members of his tribe,
well-educated and very intelligent men of middle age, the one a chief
and government interpreter, the other a clergyman now settled over a
white congregation, had both been consulted on the subject and both
expressed the opinion that nothing of the sign language, properly
speaking, was known among the Six Nations. They were alike surprised
and interested when the old chief, in their presence, after much
consideration, gradually drew forth from the stores of his memory the
proofs of an accomplishment which had probably lain unused for more
than half a century."
One of the most conclusive instances of the general knowledge of
sign language, even when seldom used, was shown in the visit of five
Jicarilla Apaches to Washington in April, 1880, under the charge of
Dr. Benjamin Thomas, their agent. The latter said he had never heard
of any use of signs among them. But it happened that there was a
delegation of Absaroka (Crows) at the same hotel, and the two parties
from such widely separated regions, not knowing a word of each other's
language, immediately began to converse in signs, resulting in a
decided sensation. One of the Crows asked the Apaches whether they ate
horses, and it happening that the sign for _eating_ was misapprehended
for that known by the Apaches for _many_, the question was supposed
to be whether the latter had many horses, which was answered in
the affirmative. Thence ensued a misunderstanding on the subject of
hippophagy, which was curious both as showing the general use of
signs as a practice and the diversity in special signs for particular
meanings. The surprise of the agent at the unsuspected accomplishment
of his charges was not unlike that of a hen who, having hatched a
number of duck eggs, is perplexed at the instinct with which the brood
takes to the water.
The denial of the use of signs is often faithfully though erroneously
reported from the distinct statements of Indians to that effect. In
that, as in other matters, they are often provokingly reticent about
their old habits and traditions. Chief Ouray asserted to the writer,
as he also did to Colonel Dodge, that his people, the Utes, had not
the practice of sign talk, and had no use for it. This was much in
the proud spirit in which an Englishman would have made the same
statement, as the idea involved an accusation against the civilization
of his people, which he wished to appear highly advanced. Still more
frequently the Indians do not distinctly comprehend what is sought
to be obtained. Sometimes, also, the art, abandoned in general,
only remains in the memories of a few persons influenced by special
circumstances or individual fancy.
In this latter regard a comparison may be made with the old science
of heraldry, once of practical use and a necessary part of a liberal
education, of which hardly a score of persons in the United States
have any but the vague knowledge that it once existed; yet the united
memories of those persons could, in the absence of records, reproduce
all essential points on the subject.
Another cause for the mistaken denial in question must be mentioned.
When travelers or sojourners have become acquainted with signs in
any one place they may assume that those signs constitute _the_ sign
language, and if they afterwards meet tribes not at once recognizing
those signs, they remove all difficulty about the theory of a "one and
indivisible" sign language by simply asserting that the tribes so met
do not understand _the_ sign language, or perhaps that they do not
use signs at all. This precise assertion has, as above mentioned, been
made regarding the Utes and Apaches. Of course, also, Indians who have
not been brought into sufficient contact with certain tribes using
different signs, for the actual trial which would probably result
in mutual comprehension, tell the travelers the same story. It is
the venerable one of "[Greek: aglossos]," "Njemez," "barbarian," and
"stammering," above noted, applied to the hands instead of the tongue.
Thus an observer possessed by a restrictive theory will find no signs
where they are in plenty, while another determined on the universality
and identity of sign language can, as elsewhere explained, produce,
from perhaps the same individuals, evidence in his favor from the
apparently conclusive result of successful communication.