their chief. The Pimas, Papagos, and Maricopas examined had a
copious sign language, yet were not familiar with many Kaiowa signs
presented to them.

Instead of referring to a time past when they did not use signs, the
Indians examined by the writer and by most of his correspondents
speak of a time when they and their fathers used it more freely
and copiously than at present, its disuse being from causes before
mentioned. It, however, may be true in some cases that a tribe, having
been for a long time in contact only with others the dialect of which
was so nearly akin as to be comprehensible, or from any reason being
separated from those of a strange speech, discontinued sign language
for a time, and then upon migration or forced removal came into
circumstances where it was useful, and revived it. It is asserted that
some of the Muskoki and the Ponkas now in the Indian Territory never
saw sign language until they arrived there. Yet there is some evidence
that the Muskoki did use signs a century ago, and some of the Ponkas
still remaining on their old homes on the Missouri remember it and
have given their knowledge to an accurate correspondent, Rev. J.O.
Dorsey, though for many years they have not been in circumstances to
require its employment.

Perhaps the most salutary criticism to be offered regarding the theory
would be in the form of a query whether sign language has ever been
invented by any one body of people at any one time, and whether it is
not simply a phase in evolution, surviving and reviving when needed.
Criticism on this subject is made reluctantly, as it would be highly
interesting to determine that sign language on this continent came
from a particular stock, and to ascertain that stock. Such research
would be similar to that into the Aryan and Semitic sources to
which many modern languages have been traced backwards from existing
varieties, and if there appear to be existing varieties in signs their
roots may still be found to be _sui generis_. The possibility that the
discrepancy between signs was formerly greater than at present will
receive attention in discussing the distinction between the identity
of signs and their common use as an art. It is sufficient to add
now that not only does the burden of proof rest unfavorably upon
the attempt to establish one parent stock for sign language in North
America, but it also comes under the stigma now fastened upon the
immemorial effort to name and locate