| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Indian Linguistic Families Of America, North Of Mexico - Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the - Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, - Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891, pages 1-142
Author: Powell, John Wesley, 1834-1902
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Indian Linguistic Families Of America, North Of Mexico - Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the - Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, - Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891, pages 1-142" ***
Congress Geography and Map Division, and the Online
by the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr
[Transcriber’s Note:
This text uses a number of characters only available in utf-8 encoding:
Ū ā ē ī ō ū (vowel with macron or “long” mark)
Ă ă ĕ ĭ ŭ (vowel with breve or hacek)
ⁿ (small superscript n)
χ (chi)
ʇ ʞ, e̥, ż (inverted letters, combined form, over-dot: all rare)
If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if a
diacritic does not appear directly above or below its letter--or if the
apostrophes and quotation marks in this section display as garbage, make
sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to
Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last
resort, use the Latin-1 or ASCII-7 version of this file instead.
In the printed text it was not clear whether the author intended
hacek (Unicode “caron”) ˇ or breve ˘. Breve was chosen as it is
phonetically plausible and the characters are more widely available.]
* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *
INDIAN LINGUISTIC FAMILIES OF AMERICA
NORTH OF MEXICO.
by
J. W. POWELL.
* * * * *
CONTENTS.
Nomenclature of linguistic families 7
Literature relating to the classification of Indian languages 12
Linguistic map 25
Indian tribes sedentary 30
Population 33
Tribal land 40
Village sites 40
Agricultural land 41
Hunting claims 42
Summary of deductions 44
Linguistic families 45
Adaizan family 45
Algonquian family 47
Algonquian area 47
Principal Algonquian tribes 48
Population 48
Athapascan family 51
Boundaries 52
Northern group 53
Pacific group 53
Southern group 54
Principal tribes 55
Population 55
Attacapan family 56
Beothuakan family 57
Geographic distribution 58
Caddoan family 58
Northern group 60
Middle group 60
Southern group 60
Principal tribes 61
Population 62
Chimakuan family 62
Principal tribes 63
Chimarikan family 63
Principal tribes 63
Chimmesyan family 63
Principal tribes or villages 64
Population 64
Chinookan family 65
Principal tribes 66
Population 66
Chitimachan family 66
Chumashan family 67
Population 68
Coahuiltecan family 68
Principal tribes 69
Copehan family 69
Geographic distribution 69
Principal tribes 70
Costanoan family 70
Geographic distribution 71
Population 71
Eskimauan family 71
Geographic distribution 72
Principal tribes and villages 74
Population 74
Esselenian family 75
Iroquoian family 76
Geographic distribution 77
Principal tribes 79
Population 79
Kalapooian family 81
Principal tribes 82
Population 82
Karankawan family 82
Keresan family 83
Villages 83
Population 83
Kiowan family 84
Population 84
Kitunahan family 85
Tribes 85
Population 85
Koluschan family 85
Tribes 87
Population 87
Kulanapan family 87
Geographic distribution 88
Tribes 88
Kusan family 89
Tribes 89
Population 89
Lutuamian family 89
Tribes 90
Population 90
Mariposan family 90
Geographic distribution 91
Tribes 91
Population 91
Moquelumnan family 92
Geographic distribution 93
Principal tribes 93
Population 93
Muskhogean family 94
Geographic distribution 94
Principal tribes 95
Population 95
Natchesan family 95
Principal tribes 97
Population 97
Palaihnihan family 97
Geographic distribution 98
Principal tribes 98
Piman family 98
Principal tribes 99
Population 99
Pujunan family 99
Geographic distribution 100
Principal tribes 100
Quoratean family 100
Geographic distribution 101
Tribes 101
Population 101
Salinan family 101
Population 102
Salishan family 102
Geographic distribution 104
Principal tribes 104
Population 105
Sastean family 105
Geographic distribution 106
Shahaptian family 106
Geographic distribution 107
Principal tribes and population 107
Shoshonean family 108
Geographic distribution 109
Principal tribes and population 110
Siouan family 111
Geographic distribution 112
Principal tribes 114
Population 116
Skittagetan family 118
Geographic distribution 120
Principal tribes 120
Population 121
Takilman family 121
Geographic distribution 121
Tañoan family 121
Geographic distribution 122
Population 123
Timuquanan family 123
Geographic distribution 123
Principal tribes 124
Tonikan family 125
Geographic distribution 125
Tonkawan family 125
Geographic distribution 125
Uchean family 126
Geographic distribution 126
Population 127
Waiilatpuan family 127
Geographic distribution 127
Principal tribes 127
Population 128
Wakashan family 128
Geographic distribution 130
Principal Aht tribes 130
Population 130
Principal Haeltzuk tribes 131
Population 131
Washoan family 131
Weitspekan family 131
Geographic distribution 132
Tribes 132
Wishoskan family 132
Geographic distribution 133
Tribes 133
Yakonan family 133
Geographic distribution 134
Tribes 134
Population 135
Yanan family 135
Geographic distribution 135
Yukian family 135
Geographic distribution 136
Yuman family 136
Geographic distribution 137
Principal tribes 138
Population 138
Zuñian family 138
Geographic distribution 139
Population 139
Concluding remarks 139
ILLUSTRATION
Plate I. Map. Linguistic stocks of North America north of Mexico.
In pocket at end of volume
[Transcriber’s Note:
The Map is available in the “images” directory accompanying the html
version of this file. There are two sizes in addition to the thumbnail:
mapsmall.jpg: 615×732 pixels (about 9×11 in / 23×28 cm, 168K)
maplarge.jpg: 1521×1818 pixels (about 22×27 in / 56×70 cm, 1MB) ]
* * * * *
INDIAN LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.
By J. W. POWELL.
* * * * *
NOMENCLATURE OF LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.
The languages spoken by the pre-Columbian tribes of North America were
many and diverse. Into the regions occupied by these tribes travelers,
traders, and missionaries have penetrated in advance of civilization,
and civilization itself has marched across the continent at a rapid
rate. Under these conditions the languages of the various tribes have
received much study. Many extensive works have been published,
embracing grammars and dictionaries; but a far greater number of minor
vocabularies have been collected and very many have been published. In
addition to these, the Bible, in whole or in part, and various religious
books and school books, have been translated into Indian tongues to be
used for purposes of instruction; and newspapers have been published in
the Indian languages. Altogether the literature of these languages and
that relating to them are of vast extent.
While the materials seem thus to be abundant, the student of Indian
languages finds the subject to be one requiring most thoughtful
consideration, difficulties arising from the following conditions:
(1) A great number of linguistic stocks or families are discovered.
(2) The boundaries between the different stocks of languages are not
immediately apparent, from the fact that many tribes of diverse stocks
have had more or less association, and to some extent linguistic
materials have been borrowed, and thus have passed out of the exclusive
possession of cognate peoples.
(3) Where many peoples, each few in number, are thrown together, an
intertribal language is developed. To a large extent this is gesture
speech; but to a limited extent useful and important words are adopted
by various tribes, and out of this material an intertribal “jargon” is
established. Travelers and all others who do not thoroughly study a
language are far more likely to acquire this jargon speech than the real
speech of the people; and the tendency to base relationship upon such
jargons has led to confusion.
(4) This tendency to the establishment of intertribal jargons was
greatly accelerated on the advent of the white man, for thereby many
tribes were pushed from their ancestral homes and tribes were mixed with
tribes. As a result, new relations and new industries, especially of
trade, were established, and the new associations of tribe with tribe
and of the Indians with Europeans led very often to the development of
quite elaborate jargon languages. All of these have a tendency to
complicate the study of the Indian tongues by comparative methods.
The difficulties inherent in the study of languages, together with the
imperfect material and the complicating conditions that have arisen by
the spread of civilization over the country, combine to make the problem
one not readily solved.
In view of the amount of material on hand, the comparative study of the
languages of North America has been strangely neglected, though perhaps
this is explained by reason of the difficulties which have been pointed
out. And the attempts which have been made to classify them has given
rise to much confusion, for the following reasons: First, later authors
have not properly recognized the work of earlier laborers in the field.
Second, the attempt has more frequently been made to establish an ethnic
classification than a linguistic classification, and linguistic
characteristics have been confused with biotic peculiarities, arts,
habits, customs, and other human activities, so that radical differences
of language have often been ignored and slight differences have been
held to be of primary value.
The attempts at a classification of these languages and a corresponding
classification of races have led to the development of a complex, mixed,
and inconsistent synonymy, which must first be unraveled and a selection
of standard names made therefrom according to fixed principles.
It is manifest that until proper rules are recognized by scholars the
establishment of a determinate nomenclature is impossible. It will
therefore be well to set forth the rules that have here been adopted,
together with brief reasons for the same, with the hope that they will
commend themselves to the judgment of other persons engaged in
researches relating to the languages of North America.
A fixed nomenclature in biology has been found not only to be
advantageous, but to be a prerequisite to progress in research, as the
vast multiplicity of facts, still ever accumulating, would otherwise
overwhelm the scholar. In philological classification fixity of
nomenclature is of corresponding importance; and while the analogies
between linguistic and biotic classification are quite limited, many of
the principles of nomenclature which biologists have adopted having no
application in philology, still in some important particulars the
requirements of all scientific classifications are alike, and though
many of the nomenclatural points met with in biology will not occur in
philology, some of them do occur and may be governed by the same rules.
Perhaps an ideal nomenclature in biology may some time be established,
as attempts have been made to establish such a system in chemistry; and
possibly such an ideal system may eventually be established in
philology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet come even for its
suggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some kind leading scholars
to use the same terms for the same things, and it would seem to matter
little in the case of linguistic stocks what the nomenclature is,
provided it becomes denotive and universal.
In treating of the languages of North America it has been suggested that
the names adopted should be the names by which the people recognize
themselves, but this is a rule of impossible application, for where the
branches of a stock diverge very greatly no common name for the people
can be found. Again, it has been suggested that names which are to go
permanently into science should be simple and euphonic. This also is
impossible of application, for simplicity and euphony are largely
questions of personal taste, and he who has studied many languages loses
speedily his idiosyncrasies of likes and dislikes and learns that words
foreign to his vocabulary are not necessarily barbaric.
Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes and
names a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus used to
become permanently affixed, but under certain conditions adapted to a
growing science which is continually revising its classifications. This
law of priority may well be adopted by philologists.
By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally happen
that a name must be taken which is not wholly unobjectionable or which
could be much improved. But if names may be modified for any reason, the
extent of change that may be wrought in this manner is unlimited, and
such modifications would ultimately become equivalent to the
introduction of new names, and a fixed nomenclature would thereby be
overthrown. The rule of priority has therefore been adopted.
Permanent biologic nomenclature dates from the time of Linnæus simply
because this great naturalist established the binominal system and
placed scientific classification upon a sound and enduring basis. As
Linnæus is to be regarded as the founder of biologic classification, so
Gallatin may be considered the founder of systematic philology relating
to the North American Indians. Before his time much linguistic work had
been accomplished, and scholars owe a lasting debt of gratitude to
Barton, Adelung, Pickering, and others. But Gallatin’s work marks an era
in American linguistic science from the fact that he so thoroughly
introduced comparative methods, and because he circumscribed the
boundaries of many families, so that a large part of his work remains
and is still to be considered sound. There is no safe resting place
anterior to Gallatin, because no scholar prior to his time had properly
adopted comparative methods of research, and because no scholar was
privileged to work with so large a body of material. It must further be
said of Gallatin that he had a very clear conception of the task he was
performing, and brought to it both learning and wisdom. Gallatin’s work
has therefore been taken as the starting point, back of which we may not
go in the historic consideration of the systematic philology of North
America. The point of departure therefore is the year 1836, when
Gallatin’s “Synopsis of Indian Tribes” appeared in vol. 2 of the
Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society.
It is believed that a name should be simply a denotive word, and that no
advantage can accrue from a descriptive or connotive title. It is
therefore desirable to have the names as simple as possible, consistent
with other and more important considerations. For this reason it has
been found impracticable to recognize as family names designations based
on several distinct terms, such as descriptive phrases, and words
compounded from two or more geographic names. Such phrases and compound
words have been rejected.
There are many linguistic families in North America, and in a number of
them there are many tribes speaking diverse languages. It is important,
therefore, that some form should be given to the family name by which it
may be distinguished from the name of a single tribe or language. In
many cases some one language within a stock has been taken as the type
and its name given to the entire family; so that the name of a language
and that of the stock to which it belongs are identical. This is
inconvenient and leads to confusion. For such reasons it has been
decided to give each family name the termination “an” or “ian.”
Conforming to the principles thus enunciated, the following rules have
been formulated:
I. The law of priority relating to the nomenclature of the
systematic philology of the North American tribes shall not extend
to authors whose works are of date anterior to the year 1836.
II. The name originally given by the founder of a linguistic group
to designate it as a family or stock of languages shall be
permanently retained to the exclusion of all others.
III. No family name shall be recognized if composed of more than one
word.
IV. A family name once established shall not be canceled in any
subsequent division of the group, but shall be retained in a
restricted sense for one of its constituent portions.
V. Family names shall be distinguished as such by the termination
“an” or “ian.”
VI. No name shall be accepted for a linguistic family unless used to
designate a tribe or group of tribes as a linguistic stock.
VII. No family name shall be accepted unless there is given the
habitat of tribe or tribes to which it is applied.
VIII. The original orthography of a name shall be rigidly preserved
except as provided for in rule III, and unless a typographical error
is evident.
The terms “family” and “stock” are here applied interchangeably to a
group of languages that are supposed to be cognate.
A single language is called a stock or family when it is not found to be
cognate with any other language. Languages are said to be cognate when
such relations between them are found that they are supposed to have
descended from a common ancestral speech. The evidence of cognation is
derived exclusively from the vocabulary. Grammatic similarities are not
supposed to furnish evidence of cognation, but to be phenomena, in part
relating to stage of culture and in part adventitious. It must be
remembered that extreme peculiarities of grammar, like the vocal
mutations of the Hebrew or the monosyllabic separation of the Chinese,
have not been discovered among Indian tongues. It therefore becomes
necessary in the classification of Indian languages into families to
neglect grammatic structure, and to consider lexical elements only. But
this statement must be clearly understood. It is postulated that in the
growth of languages new words are formed by combination, and that these
new words change by attrition to secure economy of utterance, and also
by assimilation (analogy) for economy of thought. In the comparison of
languages for the purposes of systematic philology it often becomes
necessary to dismember compounded words for the purpose of comparing the
more primitive forms thus obtained. The paradigmatic words considered in
grammatic treatises may often be the very words which should be
dissected to discover in their elements primary affinities. But the
comparison is still lexic, not grammatic.
A lexic comparison is between vocal elements; a grammatic comparison is
between grammatic methods, such, for example, as gender systems. The
classes into which things are relegated by distinction of gender may be
animate and inanimate, and the animate may subsequently be divided into
male and female, and these two classes may ultimately absorb, in part at
least, inanimate things. The growth of a system of genders may take
another course. The animate and inanimate may be subdivided into the
standing, the sitting, and the lying, or into the moving, the erect and
the reclined; or, still further, the superposed classification may be
based upon the supposed constitution of things, as the fleshy, the
woody, the rocky, the earthy, the watery. Thus the number of genders may
increase, while further on in the history of a language the genders may
decrease so as almost to disappear. All of these characteristics are in
part adventitious, but to a large extent the gender is a phenomenon of
growth, indicating the stage to which the language has attained. A
proper case system may not have been established in a language by the
fixing of case particles, or, having been established, it may change by
the increase or diminution of the number of cases. A tense system also
has a beginning, a growth, and a decadence. A mode system is variable in
the various stages of the history of a language. In like manner a
pronominal system undergoes changes. Particles may be prefixed, infixed,
or affixed in compounded words, and which one of these methods will
finally prevail can be determined only in the later stage of growth. All
of these things are held to belong to the grammar of a language and to
be grammatic methods, distinct from lexical elements.
With terms thus defined, languages are supposed to be cognate when
fundamental similarities are discovered in their lexical elements. When
the members of a family of languages are to be classed in subdivisions
and the history of such languages investigated, grammatic
characteristics become of primary importance. The words of a language
change by the methods described, but the fundamental elements or roots
are more enduring. Grammatic methods also change, perhaps even more
rapidly than words, and the changes may go on to such an extent that
primitive methods are entirely lost, there being no radical grammatic
elements to be preserved. Grammatic structure is but a phase or accident
of growth, and not a primordial element of language. The roots of a
language are its most permanent characteristics, and while the words
which are formed from them may change so as to obscure their elements or
in some cases even to lose them, it seems that they are never lost from
all, but can be recovered in large part. The grammatic structure or plan
of a language is forever changing, and in this respect the language may
become entirely transformed.
* * * * *
LITERATURE RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION
OF INDIAN LANGUAGES.
While the literature relating to the languages of North America is very
extensive, that which relates to their classification is much less
extensive. For the benefit of future students in this line it is thought
best to present a concise account of such literature, or at least so
much as has been consulted in the preparation of this paper.
1836. Gallatin (Albert).
A synopsis of the Indian tribes within the United States east of the
Rocky Mountains, and in the British and Russian possessions in North
America. In Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian
Society (Archæologia Americana) Cambridge, 1836, vol. 2.
The larger part of the volume consists of Gallatin’s paper. A short
chapter is devoted to general observations, including certain historical
data, and the remainder to the discussion of linguistic material and the
affinities of the various tribes mentioned. Vocabularies of many of the
families are appended. Twenty-eight linguistic divisions are recognized
in the general table of the tribes. Some of these divisions are purely
geographic, such as the tribes of Salmon River, Queen Charlotte’s
Island, etc. Vocabularies from these localities were at hand, but of
their linguistic relations the author was not sufficiently assured. Most
of the linguistic families recognized by Gallatin were defined with much
precision. Not all of his conclusions are to be accepted in the presence
of the data now at hand, but usually they were sound, as is attested by
the fact that they have constituted the basis for much classificatory
work since his time.
The primary, or at least the ostensible, purpose of the colored map
which accompanies Gallatin’s paper was, as indicated by its title, to
show the distribution of the tribes, and accordingly their names appear
upon it, and not the names of the linguistic families. Nevertheless, it
is practically a map of the linguistic families as determined by the
author, and it is believed to be the first attempted for the area
represented. Only eleven of the twenty-eight families named in this
table appear, and these represent the families with which he was best
acquainted. As was to be expected from the early period at which the map
was constructed, much of the western part of the United States was left
uncolored. Altogether the map illustrates well the state of knowledge of
the time.
1840. Bancroft (George).
History of the colonization of the United States, Boston. 1840,
vol. 3.
In Chapter XXII of this volume the author gives a brief synopsis of the
Indian tribes east of the Mississippi, under a linguistic
classification, and adds a brief account of the character and methods of
Indian languages. A linguistic map of the region is incorporated, which
in general corresponds with the one published by Gallatin in 1836. A
notable addition to the Gallatin map is the inclusion of the Uchees in
their proper locality. Though considered a distinct family by Gallatin,
this tribe does not appear upon his map. Moreover, the Choctaws and
Muskogees, which appear as separate families upon Gallatin’s map (though
believed by that author to belong to the same family), are united upon
Bancroft’s map under the term Mobilian.
The linguistic families treated of are, I. Algonquin, II. Sioux or
Dahcota, III. Huron-Iroquois, IV. Catawba, V. Cherokee, VI. Uchee, VII.
Natchez, VIII. Mobilian.
1841. Scouler (John).
Observations of the indigenous tribes of the northwest coast of
America. In Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London.
London, 1841, vol. 11.
The chapter cited is short, but long enough to enable the author to
construct a very curious classification of the tribes of which he
treats. In his account Scouler is guided chiefly, to use his own words,
“by considerations founded on their physical character, manners and
customs, and on the affinities of their languages.” As the linguistic
considerations are mentioned last, so they appear to be the least
weighty of his “considerations.”
Scouler’s definition of a family is very broad indeed, and in his
“Northern Family,” which is a branch of his “Insular Group,” he includes
such distinct linguistic stocks as “all the Indian tribes in the Russian
territory,” the Queen Charlotte Islanders, Koloshes, Ugalentzes, Atnas,
Kolchans, Kenáïes, Tun Ghaase, Haidahs, and Chimmesyans. His
Nootka-Columbian family is scarcely less incongruous, and it is evident
that the classification indicated is only to a comparatively slight
extent linguistic.
1846. Hale (Horatio).
United States exploring expedition, during the years 1838, 1839, 1840,
1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S. Navy, vol. 6,
ethnography and philology. Philadelphia, 1846.
In addition to a large amount of ethnographic data derived from the
Polynesian Islands, Micronesian Islands, Australia, etc., more than
one-half of this important volume is devoted to philology, a large share
relating to the tribes of northwestern America.
The vocabularies collected by Hale, and the conclusions derived by him
from study of them, added much to the previous knowledge of the
languages of these tribes. His conclusions and classification were in
the main accepted by Gallatin in his linguistic writings of 1848.
1846. Latham (Robert Gordon).
Miscellaneous contributions to the ethnography of North America. In
Proceedings of the Philological Society of London. London, 1816,
vol. 2.
In this article, which was read before the Philological Society, January
24, 1845, a large number of North American languages are examined and
their affinities discussed in support of the two following postulates
made at the beginning of the paper: First, “No American language has an
isolated position when compared with the other tongues en masse rather
than with the language of any particular class;” second, “The affinities
between the language of the New World, as determined by their
_vocabularies_, is not less real than that inferred from the analogies
of their _grammatical structure_.” The author’s conclusions are that
both statements are substantiated by the evidence presented. The paper
contains no new family names.
1847. Prichard (James Cowles).
Researches into the physical history of mankind (third edition), vol.
5, containing researches into the history of the Oceanic and of the
American nations. London, 1847.
It was the purpose of this author, as avowed by himself, to determine
whether the races of men are the cooffspring of a single stock or have
descended respectively from several original families. Like other
authors on this subject, his theory of what should constitute a race was
not clearly defined. The scope of the inquiry required the consideration
of a great number of subjects and led to the accumulation of a vast body
of facts. In volume 5 the author treats of the American Indians, and in
connection with the different tribes has something to say of their
languages. No attempt at an original classification is made, and in the
main the author follows Gallatin’s classification and adopts his
conclusions.
1848. Gallatin (Albert).
Hale’s Indians of Northwest America, and vocabularies of North
America, with an introduction. In Transactions of the American
Ethnological Society, New York, 1848, vol. 2.
The introduction consists of a number of chapters, as follows: First,
Geographical notices and Indian means of subsistence; second, Ancient
semi-civilization of New Mexico, Rio Gila and its vicinity; third,
Philology; fourth, Addenda and miscellaneous. In these are brought
together much valuable information, and many important deductions are
made which illustrate Mr. Gallatin’s great acumen. The classification
given is an amplification of that adopted in 1836, and contains changes
and additions. The latter mainly result from a consideration of the
material supplied by Mr. Hale, or are simply taken from his work.
The groups additional to those contained in the Archæologia Americana
are:
1. Arrapahoes.
2. Jakon.
3. Kalapuya.
4. Kitunaha.
5. Lutuami.
6. Palainih.
7. Sahaptin.
8. Selish (Tsihaili-Selish).
9. Saste.
10. Waiilatpu.
1848, Latham (Robert Gordon).
On the languages of the Oregon Territory. In Journal of the
Ethnological Society of London, Edinburgh, 1848, vol. 1.
This paper was read before the Ethnological Society on the 11th of
December. The languages noticed are those that lie between “Russian
America and New California,” of which the author aims to give an
exhaustive list. He discusses the value of the groups to which these
languages have been assigned, viz, Athabascan and Nootka-Columbian, and
finds that they have been given too high value, and that they are only
equivalent to the primary subdivisions of _stocks_, like the Gothic,
Celtic, and Classical, rather than to the stocks themselves. He further
finds that the Athabascan, the Kolooch, the Nootka-Columbian, and the
Cadiak groups are subordinate members of one large and important
class--the Eskimo.
No new linguistic groups are presented.
1848. Latham (Robert Gordon).
On the ethnography of Russian America. In Journal of the Ethnological
Society of London, Edinburgh, 1848, vol. 1.
This essay was read before the Ethnological Society February 19, 1845.
Brief notices are given of the more important tribes, and the languages
are classed in two groups, the Eskimaux and the Kolooch. Each of these
groups is found to have affinities--
(1) With the Athabascan tongues, and perhaps equal affinities.
(2) Each has affinities with the Oregon languages, and each perhaps
equally.
(3) Each has definite affinities with the languages of New California,
and each perhaps equal ones.
(4) Each has miscellaneous affinities with all the other tongues of
North and South America.
1848. Berghaus (Heinrich).
Physikalischer Atlas oder Sammlung von Karten, auf denen die
hauptsächlichsten erscheinungen der anorganischen und organischen
Natur nach ihrer geographischen Verbreitung und Vertheilung bildlich
dargestellt sind. Zweiter Band, Gotha, 1848.
This, the first edition of this well known atlas, contains, among other
maps, an ethnographic map of North America, made in 1845. It is based,
as is stated, upon material derived from Gallatin, Humboldt, Clavigero,
Hervas, Vater, and others. So far as the eastern part of the United
States is concerned it is largely a duplication of Gallatin’s map of
1836, while in the western region a certain amount of new material is
incorporated.
1852. In the edition of 1852 the ethnographic map bears date of 1851.
Its eastern portion is substantially a copy of the earlier edition, but
its western half is materially changed, chiefly in accordance with the
knowledge supplied by Hall in 1848.
Map number 72 of the last edition of Berghaus by no means marks an
advance upon the edition of 1852. Apparently the number of families is
much reduced, but it is very difficult to interpret the meaning of the
author, who has attempted on the same map to indicate linguistic
divisions and tribal habitats with the result that confusion is made
worse confounded.
1853. Gallatin (Albert).
Classification of the Indian Languages; a letter inclosing a table of
generic Indian Families of languages. In Information respecting the
History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United
States, by Henry E. Schoolcraft. Philadelphia, 1853, vol. 3.
This short paper by Gallatin consists of a letter addressed to W.
Medill, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, requesting his cooperation in an
endeavor to obtain vocabularies to assist in a more complete study of
the grammar and structure of the languages of the Indians of North
America. It is accompanied by a “Synopsis of Indian Tribes,” giving the
families and tribes so far as known. In the main the classification is a
repetition of that of 1848, but it differs from that in a number of
particulars. Two of the families of 1848 do not appear in this paper,
viz, Arapaho and Kinai. Queen Charlotte Island, employed as a family
name in 1848, is placed under the Wakash family, while the Skittagete
language, upon which the name Queen Charlotte Island was based in 1848,
is here given as a family designation for the language spoken at “Sitka,
bet. 52 and 59 lat.” The following families appear which are not
contained in the list of 1848:
1. Cumanches.
2. Gros Ventres.
3. Kaskaias.
4. Kiaways.
5. Natchitoches.
6. Pani, Towiacks.
7. Ugaljachmatzi.
1853. Gibbs (George).
Observations on some of the Indian dialects of northern California. In
Information respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the
Indian tribes of the United States, by Henry E. Schoolcraft.
Philadelphia, 1853, vol. 3.
The “Observations” are introductory to a series of vocabularies
collected in northern California, and treat of the method employed in
collecting them and of the difficulties encountered. They also contain
notes on the tribes speaking the several languages as well as on the
area covered. There is comparatively little of a classificatory nature,
though in one instance the name Quoratem is proposed as a proper one for
the family “should it be held one.”
1854. Latham (Robert Gordon).
On the languages of New California. In Proceedings of the Philological
Society of London for 1852 and 1853. London, 1854, vol. 6.
Read before the Philological Society, May 13, 1853. A number of
languages are examined in this paper for the purpose of determining the
stocks to which they belong and the mutual affinities of the latter.
Among the languages mentioned are the Saintskla, Umkwa, Lutuami, Paduca,
Athabascan, Dieguno, and a number of the Mission languages.
1855. Lane (William Carr).
Letter on affinities of dialects in New Mexico. In Information
respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian
tribes of the United States, by Henry R. Schoolcraft. Philadelphia,
1855, vol. 5.
The letter forms half a page of printed matter. The gist of the
communication is in effect that the author has heard it said that the
Indians of certain pueblos speak three different languages, which he has
heard called, respectively, (1) Chu-cha-cas and Kes-whaw-hay; (2)
E-nagh-magh; (3) Tay-waugh. This can hardly be called a classification,
though the arrangement of the pueblos indicated by Lane is quoted at
length by Keane in the Appendix to Stanford’s Compendium.
1856. Latham (Robert Gordon).
On the languages of Northern, Western, and Central America. In
Transactions of the Philological Society of London, for 1856. London
[1857?].
[Transcriber’s Note: Bracketed date in original text.]
This paper was read before the Philological Society May 9, 1856, and is
stated to be “a supplement to two well known contributions to American
philology by the late A. Gallatin.”
So far as classification of North American languages goes, this is
perhaps the most important paper of Latham’s, as in it a number of new
names are proposed for linguistic groups, such as Copeh for the
Sacramento River tribes, Ehnik for the Karok tribes, Mariposa Group and
Mendocino Group for the Yokut and Pomo tribes respectively, Moquelumne
for the Mutsun, Pujuni for the Meidoo, Weitspek for the Eurocs.
1856. Turner (William Wadden).
Report upon the Indian tribes, by Lieut. A. W. Whipple, Thomas
Ewbank, esq., and Prof. William W. Turner, Washington, D.C.,
1855. In Reports of Explorations and Surveys to ascertain the most
practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi
to the Pacific Ocean. Washington, 1856, vol. 3. part 3.
Chapter V of the above report is headed “Vocabularies of North American
Languages,” and is by Turner, as is stated in a foot-note. Though the
title page of Part III is dated 1855, the chapter by Turner was not
issued till 1856, the date of the full volume, as is stated by Turner
on page 84. The following are the vocabularies given, with their
arrangement in families:
I. Delaware. }
II. Shawnee. } Algonkin.
III. Choctaw.
IV. Kichai. }
V. Huéco. } Pawnee?
VI. Caddo.
VII. Comanche. }
VIII. Chemehuevi. } Shoshonee.
IX. Cahuillo. }
X. Kioway.
XI. Navajo. }
XII. Pinal Leño. } Apache.
XIII. Kiwomi. }
XIV. Cochitemi. } Keres.
XV. Acoma. }
XVI. Zuñi.
XVII. Pima.
XVIII. Cuchan. }
XIX. Coco-Maricopa. }
XX. Mojave. } Yuma.
XXI. Diegeno. }
Several of the family names, viz, Keres, Kiowa, Yuma, and Zuñi, have
been adopted under the rules formulated above.
1858. Buschmann (Johann Carl Eduard).
Die Völker und Sprachen Neu-Mexiko’s und der Westseite des britischen
Nordamerika’s, dargestellt von Hrn. Buschmann. In Abhandlungen (aus
dem Jahre 1857) der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin. Berlin, 1858.
This work contains a historic review of early discoveries in New Mexico
and of the tribes living therein, with such vocabularies as were
available at the time. On pages 315-414 the tribes of British America,
from about latitude 54° to 60°, are similarly treated, the various
discoveries being reviewed; also those on the North Pacific coast. Much
of the material should have been inserted in the volume of 1859 (which
was prepared in 1854), to which cross reference is frequently made, and
to which it stands in the nature of a supplement.
1859. Buschmann (Johann Carl Eduard).
Die Spuren der aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico und höheren
amerikanischen Norden. Zugleich eine Musterung der Völker und
Sprachen des nördlichen Mexico’s und der Westseite Nordamerika’s von
Guadalaxara an bis zum Eismeer. In Abhandlungen aus dem Jahre 1854
der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin, 1859.
The above, forming a second supplemental volume of the Transactions for
1854, is an extensive compilation of much previous literature treating
of the Indian tribes from the Arctic Ocean southward to Guadalajara, and
bears specially upon the Aztec language and its traces in the languages
of the numerous tribes scattered along the Pacific Ocean and inland
to the high plains. A large number of vocabularies and a vast amount
of linguistic material are here brought together and arranged in
a comprehensive manner to aid in the study attempted. In his
classification of the tribes east of the Rocky Mountains, Buschmann
largely followed Gallatin. His treatment of those not included in
Gallatin’s paper is in the main original. Many of the results obtained
may have been considered bold at the time of publication, but recent
philological investigations give evidence of the value of many of the
author’s conclusions.
1859. Kane (Paul).
Wanderings of an artist among the Indians of North America from Canada
to Vancouver’s Island and Oregon through the Hudson’s Bay Company’s
territory and back again. London, 1859.
The interesting account of the author’s travels among the Indians,
chiefly in the Northwest, and of their habits, is followed by a four
page supplement, giving the names, locations, and census of the tribes
of the Northwest coast. They are classified by language into Chymseyan,
including the Nass, Chymseyans, Skeena and Sabassas Indians, of whom
twenty-one tribes are given; Ha-eelb-zuk or Ballabola, including the
Milbank Sound Indians, with nine tribes; Klen-ekate, including twenty
tribes; Hai-dai, including the Kygargey and Queen Charlotte’s Island
Indians, nineteen tribes being enumerated; and Qua-colth, with
twenty-nine tribes. No statement of the origin of these tables is given,
and they reappear, with no explanation, in Schoolcraft’s Indian Tribes,
volume V, pp. 487-489.
In his Queen Charlotte Islands, 1870, Dawson publishes the part of this
table relating to the Haida, with the statement that he received it from
Dr. W. F. Tolmie. The census was made in 1836-’41 by the late Mr. John
Work, who doubtless was the author of the more complete tables published
by Kane and Schoolcraft.
1862. Latham (Robert Gordon).
Elements of comparative philology. London, 1862.
The object of this volume is, as the author states in his preface, “to
lay before the reader the chief facts and the chief trains of reasoning
in Comparative Philology.” Among the great mass of material accumulated
for the purpose a share is devoted to the languages of North America.
The remarks under these are often taken verbatim from the author’s
earlier papers, to which reference has been made above, and the family
names and classification set forth in them are substantially repeated.
1862. Hayden (Ferdinand Vandeveer).
Contributions to the ethnography and philology of the Indian tribes of
the Missouri Valley. Philadelphia, 1862.
This is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the Missouri River
tribes, made at a time when the information concerning them was none too
precise. The tribes treated of are classified as follows:
I. Knisteneaux, or Crees. }
II. Blackfeet. } Algonkin Group, A.
III. Shyennes. }
IV. Arapohos. } Arapoho Group, B.
V. Atsinas. }
VI. Pawnees. } Pawnee Group, C.
VII. Arikaras. }
VIII. Dakotas. }
IX. Assiniboins. }
X. Crows. }
XI. Minnitarees. } Dakota Group, D.
XII. Mandans. }
XIII. Omahas. }
XIV. Iowas. }
1864. Orozco y Berra (Manuel).
Geografía de las Lenguas y Carta Etnográfica de México Precedidas de
un ensayo de clasificacion de las mismas lenguas y de apuntes para
las inmigraciones de las tribus. Mexico, 1864.
The work is divided into three parts. (1) Tentative classification of
the languages of Mexico; (2) notes on the immigration of the tribes of
Mexico; (3) geography of the languages of Mexico.
The author states that he has no knowledge whatever of the languages he
treats of. All he attempts to do is to summarize the opinions of others.
His authorities were (1) writers on native grammars; (2) missionaries;
(3) persons who are reputed to be versed in such matters. He professes
to have used his own judgment only when these authorities left him free
to do so.
His stated method in compiling the ethnographic map was to place before
him the map of a certain department, examine all his authorities bearing
on that department, and to mark with a distinctive color all localities
said to belong to a particular language. When this was done he drew a
boundary line around the area of that language. Examination of the map
shows that he has partly expressed on it the classification of languages
as given in the first part of his text, and partly limited himself to
indicating the geographic boundaries of languages, without, however,
giving the boundaries of all the languages mentioned in his lists.
1865. Pimentel (Francisco).
Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de las Lenguas Indígenas de México.
México, 1865.
According to the introduction this work is divided into three parts: (1)
descriptive; (2) comparative; (3) critical.
The author divides the treatment of each language into (1) its
mechanism; (2) its dictionary; (3) its grammar. By “mechanism” he means
pronunciation and composition; by “dictionary” he means the commonest or
most notable words.
In the case of each language he states the localities where it is
spoken, giving a short sketch of its history, the explanation of its
etymology, and a list of such writers on that language as he has become
acquainted with. Then follows: “mechanism, dictionary, and grammar.”
Next he enumerates its dialects if there are any, and compares specimens
of them when he is able. He gives the Our Father when he can.
Volume I (1862) contains introduction and twelve languages. Volume II
(1865) contains fourteen groups of languages, a vocabulary of the Opata
language, and an appendix treating of the Comanche, the Coahuilteco, and
various languages of upper California.
Volume III (announced in preface of Volume II) is to contain the
“comparative part” (to be treated in the same “mixed” method as the
“descriptive part”), and a scientific classification of all the
languages spoken in Mexico.
In the “critical part” (apparently dispersed through the other two
parts) the author intends to pass judgment on the merits of the
languages of Mexico, to point out their good qualities and their
defects.
1870. Dall (William Healey).
On the distribution of the native tribes of Alaska and the adjacent
territory. In Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Cambridge, 1870, vol. 18.
In this important paper is presented much interesting information
concerning the inhabitants of Alaska and adjacent territories. The
natives are divided into two groups, the Indians of the interior, and
the inhabitants of the coast, or Esquimaux. The latter are designated by
the term Orarians, which are composed of three lesser groups, Eskimo,
Aleutians, and Tuski. The Orarians are distinguished, first, by their
language; second, by their distribution; third, by their habits; fourth,
by their physical characteristics.
1870. Dall (William Healey).
Alaska and its Resources. Boston, 1870.
The classification followed is practically the same as is given in the
author’s article in the Proceedings of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
1877. Dall (William Healey).
Tribes of the extreme northwest. In Contributions to North American
Ethnology (published by United States Geographical and Geological
Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region). Washington, 1877, vol. 1.
This is an amplification of the paper published in the Proceedings of
the American Association, as above cited. The author states that
“numerous additions and corrections, as well as personal observations of
much before taken at second hand, have placed it in my power to enlarge
and improve my original arrangement.”
In this paper the Orarians are divided into “two well marked groups,”
the Innuit, comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the
Aleuts. The paper proper is followed by an appendix by Gibbs and Dall,
in which are presented a series of vocabularies from the northwest,
including dialects of the Tlinkit and Haida nations, T’sim-si-ans, and
others.
1877. Gibbs (George).
Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. In Contributions
to North American Ethnology. Washington, 1887, vol. 1.
This is a valuable article, and gives many interesting particulars of
the tribes of which it treats. References are here and there made to the
languages of the several tribes, with, however, no attempt at their
classification. A table follows the report, in which is given by Dall,
after Gibbs, a classification of the tribes mentioned by Gibbs. Five
families are mentioned, viz: Nūtka, Sahaptin, Tinneh, Selish, and
T’sinūk. The comparative vocabularies follow Part II.
1877. Powers (Stephen).
Tribes of California. In Contributions to North American Ethnology.
Washington, 1877, vol. 3.
The extended paper on the Californian tribes which makes up the bulk of
this volume is the most important contribution to the subject ever made.
The author’s unusual opportunities for personal observation among these
tribes were improved to the utmost and the result is a comparatively
full and comprehensive account of their habits and character.
Here and there are allusions to the languages spoken, with reference to
the families to which the tribes belong. No formal classification is
presented.
1877. Powell (John Wesley).
Appendix. Linguistics edited by J. W. Powell. In Contributions to
North American Ethnology. Washington, 1877, vol. 3.
This appendix consists of a series of comparative vocabularies collected
by Powers, Gibbs and others, classified into linguistic families, as
follows:
Family.
1. Ká-rok.
2. Yú-rok.
3. Chim-a-rí-ko.
4. Wish-osk.
5. Yú-ki.
6. Pómo.
7. Win-tūn´.
8. Mūt´-sūn.
9. Santa Barbara.
10. Yó-kuts.
11. Mai´-du.
12. A-cho-mâ´-wi.
13. Shaś-ta.
1877. Gatschet (Albert Samuel).
Indian languages of the Pacific States and Territories. In Magazine of
American History. New York, 1877, vol. 1.
After some remarks concerning the nature of language and of the special
characteristics of Indian languages, the author gives a synopsis of the
languages of the Pacific region. The families mentioned are:
1. Shóshoni. 15. Cahrok.
2. Yuma. 16. Tolewa.
3. Pima. 17. Shasta.
4. Santa Barbara. 18. Pit River.
5. Mutsun. 19. Klamath.
6. Yocut. 20. Tinné.
7. Meewoc. 21. Yakon.
8. Meidoo. 22. Cayuse.
9. Wintoon. 23. Kalapuya.
10. Yuka. 24. Chinook.
11. Pomo. 25. Sahaptin.
12. Wishosk. 26. Selish.
13. Eurok. 27. Nootka.
14. Weits-pek. 28. Kootenai.
This is an important paper, and contains notices of several new stocks,
derived from a study of the material furnished by Powers.
The author advocates the plan of using a system of nomenclature similar
in nature to that employed in zoology in the case of generic and
specific names, adding after the name of the tribe the family to which
it belongs; thus: Warm Springs, Sahaptin.
1878. Powell (John Wesley).
The nationality of the Pueblos. In the Rocky Mountain Presbyterian.
Denver, November, 1878.
This is a half-column article, the object of which is to assign the
several Pueblos to their proper stocks. A paragraph is devoted to
contradicting the popular belief that the Pueblos are in some way
related to the Aztecs. No vocabularies are given or cited, though the
classification is stated to be a linguistic one.
1878. Keane (Augustus H).
Appendix. Ethnography and philology of America. In Stanford’s
Compendium of Geography and Travel, edited and extended by H. W.
Bates. London, 1878.
In the appendix are given, first, some of the more general
characteristics and peculiarities of Indian languages, followed by a
classification of all the tribes of North America, after which is given
an alphabetical list of American tribes and languages, with their
habitats and the stock to which they belong.
The classification is compiled from many sources, and although it
contains many errors and inconsistencies, it affords on the whole a good
general idea of prevalent views on the subject.
1880. Powell (John Wesley).
Pueblo Indians. In the American Naturalist. Philadelphia, 1880,
vol. 14.
This is a two-page article in which is set forth a classification of the
Pueblo Indians from linguistic considerations. The Pueblos are divided
into four families or stocks, viz:
1. Shínumo.
2. Zunian.
3. Kéran.
4. Téwan.
Under the several stocks is given a list of those who have collected
vocabularies of these languages and a reference to their publication.
1880. Eells (Myron).
The Twana language of Washington Territory. In the American
Antiquarian. Chicago, 1880-’81, vol. 3.
This is a brief article--two and a half pages--on the Twana, Clallam,
and Chemakum Indians. The author finds, upon a comparison of
vocabularies, that the Chemakum language has little in common with
its neighbors.
1885. Dall (William Healey).
The native tribes of Alaska. In Proceedings of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, thirty-fourth meeting,
held at Ann Arbor, Mich., August, 1885. Salem, 1886.
This paper is a timely contribution to the subject of the Alaska tribes,
and carries it from the point at which the author left it in 1869 to
date, briefly summarizing the several recent additions to knowledge. It
ends with a geographical classification of the Innuit and Indian tribes
of Alaska, with estimates of their numbers.
1885. Bancroft (Hubert Howe).
The works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, vol. 3: the native races, vol. 3,
myths and languages. San Francisco, 1882.
[Transcriber’s Note:
Vols. 1-5 collectively are “The Native Races”; vol. 3 is _Myths and
Languages_.]
In the chapter on that subject the languages are classified by divisions
which appear to correspond to groups, families, tribes, and dialects.
The classification does not, however, follow any consistent plan, and is
in parts unintelligible.
1882. Gatschet (Albert Samuel).
Indian languages of the Pacific States and Territories and of the
Pueblos of New Mexico. In the Magazine of American History. New
York, 1882, vol. 8.
This paper is in the nature of a supplement to a previous one in the
same magazine above referred to. It enlarges further on several of the
stocks there considered, and, as the title indicates, treats also of the
Pueblo languages. The families mentioned are:
1. Chimariko.
2. Washo.
3. Yákona.
4. Sayúskla.
5. Kúsa.
6. Takilma.
7. Rio Grande Pueblo.
8. Kera.
9. Zuñi.
1883. Hale (Horatio).
Indian migrations, as evidenced by language. In The American
Antiquarian and Oriental Journal. Chicago, 1888, vol. 5.
In connection with the object of this paper--the study of Indian
migrations--several linguistic stocks are mentioned, and the linguistic
affinities of a number of tribes are given. The stocks mentioned are:
Huron-Cherokee.
Dakota.
Algonkin.
Chahta-Muskoki.
1885. Tolmie (W. Fraser) and Dawson (George M.)
Comparative vocabularies of the Indian tribes of British Columbia,
with a map illustrating distribution (Geological and Natural History
Survey of Canada). Montreal, 1884.
The vocabularies presented constitute an important contribution to
linguistic science. They represent “one or more dialects of every Indian
language spoken on the Pacific slope from the Columbia River north to
the Tshilkat River, and beyond, in Alaska; and from the outermost
sea-board to the main continental divide in the Rocky Mountains.”
A colored map shows the area occupied by each linguistic family.
* * * * *
LINGUISTIC MAP.
In 1836 Gallatin conferred a great boon upon linguistic students by
classifying all the existing material relating to this subject. Even in
the light of the knowledge of the present day his work is found to rest
upon a sound basis. The material of Gallatin’s time, however, was too
scanty to permit of more than an outline of the subject. Later writers
have contributed to the work, and the names of Latham, Turner, Prichard,
Buschmann, Hale, Gatschet, and others are connected with important
classificatory results.
The writer’s interest in linguistic work and the inception of a plan for
a linguistic classification of Indian languages date back about 20
years, to a time when he was engaged in explorations in the West. Being
brought into contact with many tribes, it was possible to collect a
large amount of original material. Subsequently, when the Bureau of
Ethnology was organized, this store was largely increased through the
labors of others. Since then a very large body of literature published
in Indian languages has been accumulated, and a great number of
vocabularies have been gathered by the Bureau assistants and by
collaborators in various parts of the country. The results of a study of
all this material, and of much historical data, which necessarily enters
largely into work of this character, appear in the accompanying map.
The contributions to the subject during the last fifty years have been
so important, and the additions to the material accessible to the
student of Gallatin’s time have been so large, that much of the reproach
which deservedly attached to American scholars because of the neglect of
American linguistics has been removed. The field is a vast one, however,
and the workers are comparatively few. Moreover, opportunities for
collecting linguistic material are growing fewer day by day, as tribes
are consolidated upon reservations, as they become civilized, and as the
older Indians, who alone are skilled in their language, die, leaving, it
may be, only a few imperfect vocabularies as a basis for future study.
History has bequeathed to us the names of many tribes, which became
extinct in early colonial times, of whose language not a hint is left
and whose linguistic relations must ever remain unknown.
It is vain to grieve over neglected opportunities unless their
contemplation stimulates us to utilize those at hand. There are yet many
gaps to be filled, even in so elementary a part of the study as the
classification of the tribes by language. As to the detailed study of
the different linguistic families, the mastery and analysis of the
languages composing them, and their comparison with one another and with
the languages of other families, only a beginning has been made.
After the above statement it is hardly necessary to add that the
accompanying map does not purport to represent final results. On the
contrary, it is to be regarded as tentative, setting forth in visible
form the results of investigation up to the present time, as a guide and
aid to future effort.
Each of the colors or patterns upon the map represents a distinct
linguistic family, the total number of families contained in the whole
area being fifty-eight. It is believed that the families of languages
represented upon the map can not have sprung from a common source; they
are as distinct from one another in their vocabularies and apparently in
their origin as from the Aryan or the Scythian families. Unquestionably,
future and more critical study will result in the fusion of some of
these families. As the means for analysis and comparison accumulate,
resemblances now hidden will be brought to light, and relationships
hitherto unsuspected will be shown to exist. Such a result may be
anticipated with the more certainty inasmuch as the present
classification has been made upon a conservative plan. Where
relationships between families are suspected, but can not be
demonstrated by convincing evidence, it has been deemed wiser not to
unite them, but to keep them apart until more material shall have
accumulated and proof of a more convincing character shall have been
brought forward. While some of the families indicated on the map may in
future be united to other families, and the number thus be reduced,
there seems to be no ground for the belief that the total of the
linguistic families of this country will be materially diminished, at
least under the present methods of linguistic analysis, for there is
little reason to doubt that, as the result of investigation in the
field, there will be discovered tribes speaking languages not
classifiable under any of the present families; thus the decrease in the
total by reason of consolidation may be compensated by a corresponding
increase through discovery. It may even be possible that some of the
similarities used in combining languages into families may, on further
study, prove to be adventitious, and the number may be increased
thereby. To which side the numerical balance will fall remains for the
future to decide.
As stated above, all the families occupy the same basis of dissimilarity
from one another--i.e., none of them are related--and consequently no
two of them are either more or less alike than any other two, except
in so far as mere coincidences and borrowed material may be said to
constitute likeness and relationship. Coincidences in the nature of
superficial word resemblances are common in all languages of the world.
No matter how widely separated geographically two families of languages
may be, no matter how unlike their vocabularies, how distinct their
origin, some words may always be found which appear upon superficial
examination to indicate relationship. There is not a single Indian
linguistic family, for instance, which does not contain words similar
in sound, and more rarely similar in both sound and meaning, to words
in English, Chinese, Hebrew, and other languages. Not only do such
resemblances exist, but they have been discovered and pointed out, not
as mere adventitious similarities, but as proof of genetic relationship.
Borrowed linguistic material also appears in every family, tempting the
unwary investigator into making false analogies and drawing erroneous
conclusions. Neither coincidences nor borrowed material, however, can be
properly regarded as evidence of cognation.
While occupying the same plane of genetic dissimilarity, the families
are by no means alike as regards either the extent of territory
occupied, the number of tribes grouped under them respectively, or the
number of languages and dialects of which they are composed. Some of
them cover wide areas, whose dimensions are stated in terms of latitude
and longitude rather than by miles. Others occupy so little space that
the colors representing them are hardly discernible upon the map. Some
of them contain but a single tribe; others are represented by scores of
tribes. In the case of a few, the term “family” is commensurate with
language, since there is but one language and no dialects. In the case
of others, their tribes spoke several languages, so distinct from one
another as to be for the most part mutually unintelligible, and the
languages shade into many dialects more or less diverse.
The map, designed primarily for the use of students who are engaged in
investigating the Indians of the United States, was at first limited to
this area; subsequently its scope was extended to include the whole of
North America north of Mexico. Such an extension of its plan was,
indeed, almost necessary, since a number of important families, largely
represented in the United States, are yet more largely represented in
the territory to the north, and no adequate conception of the size and
relative importance of such families as the Algonquian, Siouan,
Salishan, Athapascan, and others can be had without including
extralimital territory.
To the south, also, it happens that several linguistic stocks extend
beyond the boundaries of the United States. Three families are, indeed,
mainly extralimital in their position, viz: Yuman, the great body of the
tribes of which family inhabited the peninsula of Lower California;
Piman, which has only a small representation in southern Arizona; and
the Coahuiltecan, which intrudes into southwestern Texas. The Athapascan
family is represented in Arizona and New Mexico by the well known Apache
and Navajo, the former of whom have gained a strong foothold in northern
Mexico, while the Tañoan, a Pueblo family of the upper Rio Grande, has
established a few pueblos lower down the river in Mexico. For the
purpose of necessary comparison, therefore, the map is made to include
all of North America north of Mexico, the entire peninsula of Lower
California, and so much of Mexico as is necessary to show the range of
families common to that country and to the United States. It is left to
a future occasion to attempt to indicate the linguistic relations of
Mexico and Central America, for which, it may be remarked in passing,
much material has been accumulated.
It is apparent that a single map can not be made to show the locations
of the several linguistic families at different epochs; nor can a single
map be made to represent the migrations of the tribes composing the
linguistic families. In order to make a clear presentation of the latter
subject, it would be necessary to prepare a series of maps showing the
areas successively occupied by the several tribes as they were disrupted
and driven from section to section under the pressure of other tribes or
the vastly more potent force of European encroachment. Although the data
necessary for a complete representation of tribal migration, even for
the period subsequent to the advent of the European, does not exist,
still a very large body of material bearing upon the subject is at hand,
and exceedingly valuable results in this direction could be presented
did not the amount of time and labor and the large expense attendant
upon such a project forbid the attempt for the present.
The map undertakes to show the habitat of the linguistic families only,
and this is for but a single period in their history, viz, at the time
when the tribes composing them first became known to the European, or
when they first appear on recorded history. As the dates when the
different tribes became known vary, it follows as a matter of course
that the periods represented by the colors in one portion of the map are
not synchronous with those in other portions. Thus the data for the
Columbia River tribes is derived chiefly from the account of the journey
of Lewis and Clarke in 1803-’05, long before which period radical
changes of location had taken place among the tribes of the eastern
United States. Again, not only are the periods represented by the
different sections of the map not synchronous, but only in the case of a
few of the linguistic families, and these usually the smaller ones, is
it possible to make the coloring synchronous for different sections of
the same family. Thus our data for the location of some of the northern
members of the Shoshonean family goes back to 1804, a date at which
absolutely no knowledge had been gained of most of the southern members
of the group, our first accounts of whom began about 1850. Again, our
knowledge of the eastern Algonquian tribes dates back to about 1600,
while no information was had concerning the Atsina, Blackfeet, Cheyenne,
and the Arapaho, the westernmost members of the family, until two
centuries later.
Notwithstanding these facts, an attempt to fix upon the areas formerly
occupied by the several linguistic families, and of the pristine homes
of many of the tribes composing them, is by no means hopeless. For
instance, concerning the position of the western tribes during the
period of early contact of our colonies and its agreement with their
position later when they appear in history, it may be inferred that as a
rule it was stationary, though positive evidence is lacking. When
changes of tribal habitat actually took place they were rarely in the
nature of extensive migration, by which a portion of a linguistic family
was severed from the main body, but usually in the form of encroachment
by a tribe or tribes upon neighboring territory, which resulted simply
in the extension of the limits of one linguistic family at the expense
of another, the defeated tribes being incorporated or confined within
narrower limits. If the above inference be correct, the fact that
different chronologic periods are represented upon the map is of
comparatively little importance, since, if the Indian tribes were in the
main sedentary, and not nomadic, the changes resulting in the course of
one or two centuries would not make material differences. Exactly the
opposite opinion, however, has been expressed by many writers, viz, that
the North American Indian tribes were nomadic. The picture presented by
these writers is of a medley of ever-shifting tribes, to-day here,
to-morrow there, occupying new territory and founding new homes--if
nomads can be said to have homes--only to abandon them. Such a picture,
however, is believed to convey an erroneous idea of the former condition
of our Indian tribes. As the question has significance in the present
connection it must be considered somewhat at length.
INDIAN TRIBES SEDENTARY.
In the first place, the linguistic map, based as it is upon the earliest
evidence obtainable, itself offers conclusive proof, not only that the
Indian tribes were in the main sedentary at the time history first
records their position, but that they had been sedentary for a very long
period. In order that this may be made plain, it should be clearly
understood, as stated above, that each of the colors or patterns upon
the map indicates a distinct linguistic family. It will be noticed that
the colors representing the several families are usually in single
bodies, i.e., that they represent continuous areas, and that with some
exceptions the same color is not scattered here and there over the map
in small spots. Yet precisely this last state of things is what would be
expected had the tribes representing the families been nomadic to a
marked degree. If nomadic tribes occupied North America, instead of
spreading out each from a common center, as the colors show that the
tribes composing the several families actually did, they would have been
dispersed here and there over the whole face of the country. That they
are not so dispersed is considered proof that in the main they were
sedentary. It has been stated above that more or less extensive
migrations of some tribes over the country had taken place prior to
European occupancy. This fact is disclosed by a glance at the present
map. The great Athapascan family, for instance, occupying the larger
part of British America, is known from linguistic evidence to have sent
off colonies into Oregon (Wilopah, Tlatskanai, Coquille), California
(Smith River tribes, Kenesti or Wailakki tribes, Hupa), and Arizona and
New Mexico (Apache, Navajo). How long before European occupancy of this
country these migrations took place can not be told, but in the case of
most of them it was undoubtedly many years. By the test of language it
is seen that the great Siouan family, which we have come to look upon as
almost exclusively western, had one offshoot in Virginia (Tutelo),
another in North and South Carolina (Catawba), and a third in
Mississippi (Biloxi); and the Algonquian family, so important in the
early history of this country, while occupying a nearly continuous area
in the north and east, had yet secured a foothold, doubtless in very
recent times, in Wyoming and Colorado. These and other similar facts
sufficiently prove the power of individual tribes or gentes to sunder
relations with the great body of their kindred and to remove to distant
homes. Tested by linguistic evidence, such instances appear to be
exceptional, and the fact remains that in the great majority of cases
the tribes composing linguistic families occupy continuous areas, and
hence are and have been practically sedentary. Nor is the bond of a
common language, strong and enduring as that bond is usually thought to
be, entirely sufficient to explain the phenomenon here pointed out. When
small in number the linguistic tie would undoubtedly aid in binding
together the members of a tribe; but as the people speaking a common
language increase in number and come to have conflicting interests, the
linguistic tie has often proved to be an insufficient bond of union. In
the case of our Indian tribes feuds and internecine conflicts were
common between members of the same linguistic family. In fact, it is
probable that a very large number of the dialects into which Indian
languages are split originated as the result of internecine strife.
Factions, divided and separated from the parent body, by contact,
intermarriage, and incorporation with foreign tribes, developed distinct
dialects or languages.
But linguistic evidence alone need not be relied upon to prove that the
North American Indian was not nomadic.
Corroborative proof of the sedentary character of our Indian tribes is
to be found in the curious form of kinship system, with mother-right as
its chief factor, which prevails. This, as has been pointed out in
another place, is not adapted to the necessities of nomadic tribes,
which need to be governed by a patriarchal system, and, as well, to be
possessed of flocks and herds.
There is also an abundance of historical evidence to show that, when
first discovered by Europeans, the Indians of the eastern United States
were found living in fixed habitations. This does not necessarily imply
that the entire year was spent in one place. Agriculture not being
practiced to an extent sufficient to supply the Indian with full
subsistence, he was compelled to make occasional changes from his
permanent home to the more or less distant waters and forests to procure
supplies of food. When furnished with food and skins for clothing, the
hunting parties returned to the village which constituted their true
home. At longer periods, for several reasons--among which probably the
chief were the hostility of stronger tribes, the failure of the fuel
supply near the village, and the compulsion exercised by the ever lively
superstitious fancies of the Indians--the villages were abandoned and
new ones formed to constitute new homes, new focal points from which to
set out on their annual hunts and to which to return when these were
completed. The tribes of the eastern United States had fixed and
definitely bounded habitats, and their wanderings were in the nature of
temporary excursions to established points resorted to from time
immemorial. As, however, they had not yet entered completely into the
agricultural condition, to which they were fast progressing from the
hunter state, they may be said to have been nomadic to a very limited
extent. The method of life thus sketched was substantially the one which
the Indians were found practicing throughout the eastern part of the
United States, as also, though to a less degree, in the Pacific States.
Upon the Pacific coast proper the tribes were even more sedentary than
upon the Atlantic, as the mild climate and the great abundance and
permanent supply of fish and shellfish left no cause for a seasonal
change of abode.
When, however, the interior portions of the country were first visited
by Europeans, a different state of affairs was found to prevail. There
the acquisition of the horse and the possession of firearms had wrought
very great changes in aboriginal habits. The acquisition of the former
enabled the Indian of the treeless plains to travel distances with ease
and celerity which before were practically impossible, and the
possession of firearms stimulated tribal aggressiveness to the utmost
pitch. Firearms were everywhere doubly effective in producing changes in
tribal habitats, since the somewhat gradual introduction of trade placed
these deadly weapons in the hands of some tribes, and of whole congeries
of tribes, long before others could obtain them. Thus the general state
of tribal equilibrium which had before prevailed was rudely disturbed.
Tribal warfare, which hitherto had been attended with inconsiderable
loss of life and slight territorial changes, was now made terribly
destructive, and the territorial possessions of whole groups of tribes
were augmented at the expense of those less fortunate. The horse made
wanderers of many tribes which there is sufficient evidence to show were
formerly nearly sedentary. Firearms enforced migration and caused
wholesale changes in the habitats of tribes, which, in the natural order
of events, it would have taken many centuries to produce. The changes
resulting from these combined agencies, great as they were, are,
however, slight in comparison with the tremendous effects of the
wholesale occupancy of Indian territory by Europeans. As the acquisition
of territory by the settlers went on, a wave of migration from east to
west was inaugurated which affected tribes far remote from the point of
disturbance, ever forcing them within narrower and narrower bounds, and,
as time went on, producing greater and greater changes throughout the
entire country.
So much of the radical change in tribal habitats as took place in the
area remote from European settlements, mainly west of the Mississippi,
is chiefly unrecorded, save imperfectly in Indian tradition, and is
chiefly to be inferred from linguistic evidence and from the few facts
in our possession. As, however, the most important of these changes
occurred after, and as a result of, European occupancy, they are noted
in history, and thus the map really gives a better idea of the pristine
or prehistoric habitat of the tribes than at first might be thought
possible.
Before speaking of the method of establishing the boundary lines between
the linguistic families, as they appear upon the map, the nature of the
Indian claim to land and the manner and extent of its occupation should
be clearly set forth.
POPULATION.
As the question of the Indian population of the country has a direct
bearing upon the extent to which the land was actually occupied, a few
words on the subject will be introduced here, particularly as the area
included in the linguistic map is so covered with color that it may
convey a false impression of the density of the Indian population.
As a result of an investigation of the subject of the early Indian
population, Col. Mallery long ago arrived at the conclusion that their
settlements were not numerous, and that the population, as compared with
the enormous territory occupied, was extremely small.[1]
[Footnote 1: Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.]
Careful examination since the publication of the above tends to
corroborate the soundness of the conclusions there first formulated.
The subject may be set forth as follows:
The sea shore, the borders of lakes, and the banks of rivers, where fish
and shell-fish were to be obtained in large quantities, were naturally
the Indians’ chief resort, and at or near such places were to be found
their permanent settlements. As the settlements and lines of travel of
the early colonists were along the shore, the lakes and the rivers,
early estimates of the Indian population were chiefly based upon the
numbers congregated along these highways, it being generally assumed
that away from the routes of travel a like population existed. Again,
over-estimates of population resulted from the fact that the same body
of Indians visited different points during the year, and not
infrequently were counted two or three times; change of permanent
village sites also tended to augment estimates of population.
For these and other reasons a greatly exaggerated idea of the Indian
population was obtained, and the impressions so derived have been
dissipated only in comparatively recent times.
As will be stated more fully later, the Indian was dependent to no small
degree upon natural products for his food supply. Could it be affirmed
that the North American Indians had increased to a point where they
pressed upon the food supply, it would imply a very much larger
population than we are justified in assuming from other considerations.
But for various reasons the Malthusian law, whether applicable elsewhere
or not, can not be applied to the Indians of this country. Everywhere
bountiful nature had provided an unfailing and practically inexhaustible
food supply. The rivers teemed with fish and mollusks, and the forests
with game, while upon all sides was an abundance of nutritious roots and
seeds. All of these sources were known, and to a large extent they were
drawn upon by the Indian, but the practical lesson of providing in the
season of plenty for the season of scarcity had been but imperfectly
learned, or, when learned, was but partially applied. Even when taught
by dire experience the necessity of laying up adequate stores, it was
the almost universal practice to waste great quantities of food by a
constant succession of feasts, in the superstitious observances of which
the stores were rapidly wasted and plenty soon gave way to scarcity and
even to famine.
Curiously enough, the hospitality which is so marked a trait among our
North American Indians had its source in a law, the invariable practice
of which has had a marked effect in retarding the acquisition by the
Indian of the virtue of providence. As is well known, the basis of the
Indian social organization was the kinship system. By its provisions
almost all property was possessed in common by the gens or clan. Food,
the most important of all, was by no means left to be exclusively
enjoyed by the individual or the family obtaining it.
For instance, the distribution of game among the families of a party was
variously provided for in different tribes, but the practical effect of
the several customs relating thereto was the sharing of the supply. The
hungry Indian had but to ask to receive and this no matter how small the
supply, or how dark the future prospect. It was not only his privilege
to ask, it was his right to demand. Undoubtedly what was originally a
right, conferred by kinship connections, ultimately assumed broader
proportions, and finally passed into the exercise of an almost
indiscriminate hospitality. By reason of this custom, the poor hunter
was virtually placed upon equality with the expert one, the lazy with
the industrious, the improvident with the more provident. Stories of
Indian life abound with instances of individual families or parties
being called upon by those less fortunate or provident to share their
supplies.
The effect of such a system, admirable as it was in many particulars,
practically placed a premium upon idleness. Under such communal rights
and privileges a potent spur to industry and thrift is wanting.
There is an obverse side to this problem, which a long and intimate
acquaintance with the Indians in their villages has forced upon the
writer. The communal ownership of food and the great hospitality
practiced by the Indian have had a very much greater influence upon his
character than that indicated in the foregoing remarks. The peculiar
institutions prevailing in this respect gave to each tribe or clan a
profound interest in the skill, ability and industry of each member. He
was the most valuable person in the community who supplied it with the
most of its necessities. For this reason the successful hunter or
fisherman was always held in high honor, and the woman, who gathered
great store of seeds, fruits, or roots, or who cultivated a good
corn-field, was one who commanded the respect and received the highest
approbation of the people. The simple and rude ethics of a tribal people
are very important to them, the more so because of their communal
institutions; and everywhere throughout the tribes of the United States
it is discovered that their rules of conduct were deeply implanted in
the minds of the people. An organized system of teaching is always
found, as it is the duty of certain officers of the clan to instruct the
young in all the industries necessary to their rude life, and simple
maxims of industry abound among the tribes and are enforced in diverse
and interesting ways. The power of the elder men in the clan over its
young members is always very great, and the training of the youth is
constant and rigid. Besides this, a moral sentiment exists in favor of
primitive virtues which is very effective in molding character. This may
be illustrated in two ways.
Marriage among all Indian tribes is primarily by legal appointment, as
the young woman receives a husband from some other prescribed clan or
clans, and the elders of the clan, with certain exceptions, control
these marriages, and personal choice has little to do with the affair.
When marriages are proposed, the virtues and industry of the candidates,
and more than all, their ability to properly live as married couples and
to supply the clan or tribe with a due amount of subsistence, are
discussed long and earnestly, and the young man or maiden who fails in
this respect may fail in securing an eligible and desirable match. And
these motives are constantly presented to the savage youth.
A simple democracy exists among these people, and they have a variety of
tribal offices to fill. In this way the men of the tribe are graded, and
they pass from grade to grade by a selection practically made by the
people. And this leads to a constant discussion of the virtues and
abilities of all the male members of the clan, from boyhood to old age.
He is most successful in obtaining clan and tribal promotion who is most
useful to the clan and the tribe. In this manner all of the ambitious
are stimulated, and this incentive to industry is very great.
When brought into close contact with the Indian, and into intimate
acquaintance with his language, customs, and religious ideas, there is a
curious tendency observable in students to overlook aboriginal vices and
to exaggerate aboriginal virtues. It seems to be forgotten that after
all the Indian is a savage, with the characteristics of a savage, and he
is exalted even above the civilized man. The tendency is exactly the
reverse of what it is in the case of those who view the Indian at a
distance and with no precise knowledge of any of his characteristics. In
the estimation of such persons the Indian’s vices greatly outweigh his
virtues; his language is a gibberish, his methods of war cowardly, his
ideas of religion utterly puerile.
The above tendencies are accentuated in the attempt to estimate the
comparative worth and position of individual tribes. No being is more
patriotic than the Indian. He believes himself to be the result of a
special creation by a partial deity and holds that his is the one
favored race. The name by which the tribes distinguish themselves from
other tribes indicates the further conviction that, as the Indian is
above all created things, so in like manner each particular tribe is
exalted above all others. “Men of men” is the literal translation of one
name; “the only men” of another, and so on through the whole category. A
long residence with any one tribe frequently inoculates the student with
the same patriotic spirit. Bringing to his study of a particular tribe
an inadequate conception of Indian attainments and a low impression of
their moral and intellectual plane, the constant recital of its virtues,
the bravery and prowess of its men in war, their generosity, the chaste
conduct and obedience of its women as contrasted with the opposite
qualities of all other tribes, speedily tends to partisanship. He
discovers many virtues and finds that the moral and intellectual
attainments are higher than he supposed; but these advantages he
imagines to be possessed solely, or at least to an unusual degree, by
the tribe in question. Other tribes are assigned much lower rank in the
scale.
The above is peculiarly true of the student of language. He who studies
only one Indian language and learns its manifold curious grammatic
devices, its wealth of words, its capacity of expression, is speedily
convinced of its superiority to all other Indian tongues, and not
infrequently to all languages by whomsoever spoken.
If like admirable characteristics are asserted for other tongues he is
apt to view them but as derivatives from one original. Thus he is led to
overlook the great truth that the mind of man is everywhere practically
the same, and that the innumerable differences of its products are
indices merely of different stages of growth or are the results of
different conditions of environment. In its development the human mind
is limited by no boundaries of tribe or race.
Again, a long acquaintance with many tribes in their homes leads to the
belief that savage people do not lack industry so much as wisdom. They
are capable of performing, and often do perform, great and continuous
labor. The men and women alike toil from day to day and from year to
year, engaged in those tasks that are presented with the recurring
seasons. In civilization, hunting and fishing are often considered
sports, but in savagery they are labors, and call for endurance,
patience, and sagacity. And these are exercised to a reasonable degree
among all savage peoples.
It is probable that the real difficulty of purchasing quantities of food
from Indians has, in most cases, not been properly understood. Unless
the alien is present at a time of great abundance, when there is more on
hand or easily obtainable than sufficient to supply the wants of the
people, food can not be bought of the Indians. This arises from the fact
that the tribal tenure is communal, and to get food by purchase requires
a treaty at which all the leading members of the tribe are present and
give consent.
As an illustration of the improvidence of the Indians generally, the
habits of the tribes along the Columbia River may be cited. The Columbia
River has often been pointed to as the probable source of a great part
of the Indian population of this country, because of the enormous supply
of salmon furnished by it and its tributaries. If an abundant and
readily obtained supply of food was all that was necessary to insure a
large population, and if population always increased up to the limit of
food supply, unquestionably the theory of repeated migratory waves of
surplus population from the Columbia Valley would be plausible enough.
It is only necessary, however, to turn to the accounts of the earlier
explorers of this region, Lewis and Clarke, for example, to refute the
idea, so far at least as the Columbia Valley is concerned, although a
study of the many diverse languages spread over the United States would
seem sufficiently to prove that the tribes speaking them could not have
originated at a common center, unless, indeed, at a period anterior to
the formation of organized language.
The Indians inhabiting the Columbia Valley were divided into many
tribes, belonging to several distinct linguistic families. They all were
in the same culture status, however, and differed in habits and arts
only in minor particulars. All of them had recourse to the salmon of the
Columbia for the main part of their subsistence, and all practiced
similar crude methods of curing fish and storing it away for the winter.
Without exception, judging from the accounts of the above mentioned and
of more recent authors, all the tribes suffered periodically more or
less from insufficient food supply, although, with the exercise of due
forethought and economy, even with their rude methods of catching and
curing salmon, enough might here have been cured annually to suffice for
the wants of the Indian population of the entire Northwest for several
years.
In their ascent of the river in spring, before the salmon run, it was
only with great difficulty that Lewis and Clarke were able to provide
themselves by purchase with enough food to keep themselves from
starving. Several parties of Indians from the vicinity of the Dalles,
the best fishing station on the river, were met on their way down in
quest of food, their supply of dried salmon having been entirely
exhausted.
Nor is there anything in the accounts of any of the early visitors to
the Columbia Valley to authorize the belief that the population there
was a very large one. As was the case with all fish-stocked streams, the
Columbia was resorted to in the fishing season by many tribes living at
considerable distance from it; but there is no evidence tending to show
that the settled population of its banks or of any part of its drainage
basin was or ever had been by any means excessive.
The Dalles, as stated above, was the best fishing station on the river,
and the settled population there may be taken as a fair index of that of
other favorable locations. The Dalles was visited by Ross in July, 1811,
and the following is his statement in regard to the population:
The main camp of the Indians is situated at the head of the narrows,
and may contain, during the salmon season, 3,000 souls, or more; but
the constant inhabitants of the place do not exceed 100 persons, and
are called Wy-am-pams; the rest are all foreigners from different
tribes throughout the country, who resort hither, not for the
purpose of catching salmon, but chiefly for gambling and
speculation.[2]
[Footnote 2: Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.]
And as it was on the Columbia with its enormous supply of fish, so was
it elsewhere in the United States.
Even the practice of agriculture, with its result of providing a more
certain and bountiful food supply, seems not to have had the effect of
materially augmenting the Indian population. At all events, it is in
California and Oregon, a region where agriculture was scarcely practiced
at all, that the most dense aboriginal population lived. There is no
reason to believe that there ever existed within the limits of the
region included in the map, with the possible exception of certain areas
in California, a population equal to the natural food supply. On the
contrary, there is every reason for believing that the population at the
time of the discovery might have been many times more than what it
actually was had a wise economy been practised.
The effect of wars in decimating the people has often been greatly
exaggerated. Since the advent of the white man on the continent, wars
have prevailed to a degree far beyond that existing at an earlier time.
From the contest which necessarily arose between the native tribes and
invading nations many wars resulted, and their history is well known.
Again, tribes driven from their ancestral homes often retreated to lands
previously occupied by other tribes, and intertribal wars resulted
therefrom. The acquisition of firearms and horses, through the agency of
white men, also had its influence, and when a commercial value was given
to furs and skins, the Indian abandoned agriculture to pursue hunting
and traffic, and sought new fields for such enterprises, and many new
contests arose from this cause. Altogether the character of the Indian
since the discovery of Columbus has been greatly changed, and he has
become far more warlike and predatory. Prior to that time, and far away
in the wilderness beyond such influence since that time, Indian tribes
seem to have lived together in comparative peace and to have settled
their difficulties by treaty methods. A few of the tribes had distinct
organizations for purposes of war; all recognized it to a greater or
less extent in their tribal organization; but from such study as has
been given the subject, and from the many facts collected from time to
time relating to the intercourse existing between tribes, it appears
that the Indians lived in comparative peace. Their accumulations were
not so great as to be tempting, and their modes of warfare were not
excessively destructive. Armed with clubs and spears and bows and
arrows, war could be prosecuted only by hand-to-hand conflict, and
depended largely upon individual prowess, while battle for plunder,
tribute, and conquest was almost unknown. Such intertribal wars as
occurred originated from other causes, such as infraction of rights
relating to hunting grounds and fisheries, and still oftener prejudices
growing out of their superstitions.
That which kept the Indian population down sprang from another source,
which has sometimes been neglected. The Indians had no reasonable or
efficacious system of medicine. They believed that diseases were caused
by unseen evil beings and by witchcraft, and every cough, every
toothache, every headache, every chill, every fever, every boil, and
every wound, in fact, all their ailments, were attributed to such cause.
Their so-called medicine practice was a horrible system of sorcery, and
to such superstition human life was sacrificed on an enormous scale. The
sufferers were given over to priest doctors to be tormented, bedeviled,
and destroyed; and a universal and profound belief in witchcraft made
them suspicious, and led to the killing of all suspected and obnoxious
people, and engendered blood feuds on a gigantic scale. It may be safely
said that while famine, pestilence, disease, and war may have killed
many, superstition killed more; in fact, a natural death in a savage
tent is a comparatively rare phenomenon; but death by sorcery, medicine,
and blood feud arising from a belief in witchcraft is exceedingly
common.
Scanty as was the population compared with the vast area teeming with
natural products capable of supporting human life, it may be safely said
that at the time of the discovery, and long prior thereto, practically
the whole of the area included in the present map was claimed and to
some extent occupied by Indian tribes; but the possession of land by the
Indian by no means implies occupancy in the modern or civilized sense of
the term. In the latter sense occupation means to a great extent
individual control and ownership. Very different was it with the
Indians. Individual ownership of land was, as a rule, a thing entirely
foreign to the Indian mind, and quite unknown in the culture stage to
which he belonged. All land, of whatever character or however utilized,
was held in common by the tribe, or in a few instances by the clan.
Apparently an exception to this broad statement is to be made in the
case of the Haida of the northwest coast, who have been studied by
Dawson. According to him[3] the land is divided among the different
families and is held as strictly personal property, with hereditary
rights or possessions descending from one generation to another. “The
lands may be bartered or given away. The larger salmon streams are,
however, often the property jointly of a number of families.” The
tendency in this case is toward personal right in land.
[Footnote 3: Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.]
TRIBAL LAND.
For convenience of discussion, Indian tribal land may be divided into
three classes: First, the land occupied by the villages; second, the
land actually employed in agriculture; third, the land claimed by the
tribe but not occupied, except as a hunting ground.
_Village sites_.--The amount of land taken up as village sites varied
considerably in different parts of the country. It varied also in the
same tribe at different times. As a rule, the North American Indians
lived in communal houses of sufficient size to accommodate several
families. In such cases the village consisted of a few large structures
closely grouped together, so that it covered very little ground. When
territory was occupied by warlike tribes, the construction of rude
palisades around the villages and the necessities of defense generally
tended to compel the grouping of houses, and the permanent village sites
of even the more populous tribes covered only a very small area. In the
case of confederated tribes and in the time of peace the tendency was
for one or more families to establish more or less permanent settlements
away from the main village, where a livelihood was more readily
obtainable. Hence, in territory which had enjoyed a considerable
interval of peace the settlements were in the nature of small
agricultural communities, established at short distances from each other
and extending in the aggregate over a considerable extent of country. In
the case of populous tribes the villages were probably of the character
of the Choctaw towns described by Adair.[4] “The barrier towns, which
are next to the Muskohge and Chikkasah countries, are compactly settled
for social defense, according to the general method of other savage
nations; but the rest, both in the center and toward the Mississippi,
are only scattered plantations, as best suits a separate easy way of
living. A stranger might be in the middle of one of their populous,
extensive towns without seeing half a dozen houses in the direct course
of his path.” More closely grouped settlements are described by Wayne in
American State Papers, 1793, in his account of an expedition down the
Maumee Valley, where he states that “The margins of the Miamis of the
Lake and the Au Glaize appear like one continuous village for a number
of miles, nor have I ever beheld such immense fields of corn in any part
of America from Canada to Florida.” Such a chain of villages as this was
probably highly exceptional; but even under such circumstances the
village sites proper formed but a very small part of the total area
occupied.
[Footnote 4: Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.]
From the foregoing considerations it will be seen that the amount of
land occupied as village sites under any circumstances was
inconsiderable.
_Agricultural land_.--It is practically impossible to make an accurate
estimate of the relative amount of land devoted to agricultural purposes
by any one tribe or by any family of tribes. None of the factors which
enter into the problem are known to us with sufficient accuracy to
enable reliable estimates to be made of the amount of land tilled or of
the products derived from the tillage; and only in few cases have we
trustworthy estimates of the population of the tribe or tribes
practicing agriculture. Only a rough approximation of the truth can be
reached from the scanty data available and from a general knowledge of
Indian methods of subsistence.
The practice of agriculture was chiefly limited to the region south of
the St. Lawrence and east of the Mississippi. In this region it was far
more general and its results were far more important than is commonly
supposed. To the west of the Mississippi only comparatively small areas
were occupied by agricultural tribes and these lay chiefly in New Mexico
and Arizona and along the Arkansas, Platte, and Missouri Rivers. The
rest of that region was tenanted by non-agricultural tribes--unless
indeed the slight attention paid to the cultivation of tobacco by a few
of the west coast tribes, notably the Haida, may be considered
agriculture. Within the first mentioned area most of the tribes, perhaps
all, practiced agriculture to a greater or less extent, though
unquestionably the degree of reliance placed upon it as a means of
support differed much with different tribes and localities.
Among many tribes agriculture was relied upon to supply an
important--and perhaps in the case of a few tribes, the most
important--part of the food supply. The accounts of some of the early
explorers in the southern United States, where probably agriculture was
more systematized than elsewhere, mention corn fields of great extent,
and later knowledge of some northern tribes, as the Iroquois and some of
the Ohio Valley tribes, shows that they also raised corn in great
quantities. The practice of agriculture to a point where it shall prove
the main and constant supply of a people, however, implies a degree of
sedentariness to which our Indians as a rule had not attained and an
amount of steady labor without immediate return which was peculiarly
irksome to them. Moreover, the imperfect methods pursued in clearing,
planting, and cultivating sufficiently prove that the Indians, though
agriculturists, were in the early stages of development as such--a fact
also attested by the imperfect and one-sided division of labor between
the sexes, the men as a rule taking but small share of the burdensome
tasks of clearing land, planting, and harvesting.
It is certain that by no tribe of the United States was agriculture
pursued to such an extent as to free its members from the practice of
the hunter’s or fisher’s art. Admitting the most that can be claimed for
the Indian as an agriculturist, it may be stated that, whether because
of the small population or because of the crude manner in which his
operations were carried on, the amount of land devoted to agriculture
within the area in question was infinitesimally small as compared with
the total. Upon a map colored to show only the village sites and
agricultural land, the colors would appear in small spots, while by far
the greater part of the map would remain uncolored.
_Hunting claims_.--The great body of the land within the area mapped
which was occupied by agricultural tribes, and all the land outside it,
was held as a common hunting ground, and the tribal claim to territory,
independent of village sites and corn fields, amounted practically to
little else than hunting claims. The community of possession in the
tribe to the hunting ground was established and practically enforced by
hunting laws, which dealt with the divisions of game among the village,
or among the families of the hunters actually taking part in any
particular hunt. As a rule, such natural landmarks as rivers, lakes,
hills, and mountain chains served to mark with sufficient accuracy the
territorial tribal limits. In California, and among the Haida and
perhaps other tribes of the northwest coast, the value of certain
hunting and fishing claims led to their definition by artificial
boundaries, as by sticks or stones.[5]
[Footnote 5: Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson,
Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.]
Such precautions imply a large population, and in such regions as
California the killing of game upon the land of adjoining tribes was
rigidly prohibited and sternly punished.
As stated above, every part of the vast area included in the present map
is to be regarded as belonging, according to Indian ideas of land title,
to one or another of the Indian tribes. To determine the several tribal
possessions and to indicate the proper boundary lines between individual
tribes and linguistic families is a work of great difficulty. This is
due more to the imperfection and scantiness of available data concerning
tribal claims than to the absence of claimants or to any ambiguity in
the minds of the Indians as to the boundaries of their several
possessions.
Not only is precise data wanting respecting the limits of land actually
held or claimed by many tribes, but there are other tribes, which
disappeared early in the history of our country, the boundaries to whose
habitat is to be determined only in the most general way. Concerning
some of these, our information is so vague that the very linguistic
family they belonged to is in doubt. In the case of probably no one
family are the data sufficient in amount and accuracy to determine
positively the exact areas definitely claimed or actually held by the
tribes. Even in respect of the territory of many of the tribes of the
eastern United States, much of whose land was ceded by actual treaty
with the Government, doubt exists. The fixation of the boundary points,
when these are specifically mentioned in the treaty, as was the rule, is
often extremely difficult, owing to the frequent changes of geographic
names and the consequent disagreement of present with ancient maps.
Moreover, when the Indian’s claim to his land had been admitted by
Government, and the latter sought to acquire a title through voluntary
cession by actual purchase, land assumed a value to the Indian never
attaching to it before.
Under these circumstances, either under plea of immemorial occupancy or
of possession by right of conquest, the land was often claimed, and the
claims urged with more or less plausibility by several tribes, sometimes
of the same linguistic family, sometimes of different families.
It was often found by the Government to be utterly impracticable to
decide between conflicting claims, and not infrequently the only way out
of the difficulty lay in admitting the claim of both parties, and in
paying for the land twice or thrice. It was customary for a number of
different tribes to take part in such treaties, and not infrequently
several linguistic families were represented. It was the rule for each
tribe, through its representatives, to cede its share of a certain
territory, the natural boundaries of which as a whole are usually
recorded with sufficient accuracy. The main purpose of the Government in
treaty-making being to obtain possession of the land, comparatively
little attention was bestowed to defining the exact areas occupied by
the several tribes taking part in a treaty, except in so far as the
matter was pressed upon attention by disputing claimants. Hence the
territory claimed by each tribe taking part in the treaty is rarely
described, and occasionally not all the tribes interested in the
proposed cession are even mentioned categorically. The latter statement
applies more particularly to the territory west of the Mississippi, the
data for determining ownership to which is much less precise, and the
doubt and confusion respecting tribal boundary lines correspondingly
greater than in the country east of that river. Under the above
circumstances, it will be readily understood that to determine tribal
boundaries within accurately drawn lines is in the vast majority of
cases quite impossible.
Imperfect and defective as the terms of the treaties frequently are as
regards the definition of tribal boundaries, they are by far the most
accurate and important of the means at our command for fixing boundary
lines upon the present map. By their aid the territorial possessions of
a considerable number of tribes have been determined with desirable
precision, and such areas definitely established have served as checks
upon the boundaries of other tribes, concerning the location and extent
of whose possessions little is known.
For establishing the boundaries of such tribes as are not mentioned in
treaties, and of those whose territorial possessions are not given with
sufficient minuteness, early historical accounts are all important. Such
accounts, of course, rarely indicate the territorial possessions of the
tribes with great precision. In many cases, however, the sites of
villages are accurately given. In others the source of information
concerning a tribe is contained in a general statement of the occupancy
of certain valleys or mountain ranges or areas at the heads of certain
rivers, no limiting lines whatever being assigned. In others, still, the
notice of a tribe is limited to a brief mention of the presence in a
certain locality of hunting or war parties.
Data of this loose character would of course be worthless in an attempt
to fix boundary lines in accordance with the ideas of the modern
surveyor. The relative positions of the families and the relative size
of the areas occupied by them, however, and not their exact boundaries,
are the chief concern in a linguistic map, and for the purpose of
establishing these, and, in a rough way, the boundaries of the territory
held by the tribes composing them, these data are very important, and
when compared with one another and corrected by more definite data, when
such are at hand, they have usually been found to be sufficient for the
purpose.
SUMMARY OF DEDUCTIONS.
In conclusion, the more important deductions derivable from the data
upon which the linguistic map is based, or that are suggested by it, may
be summarized as follows:
First, the North American Indian tribes, instead of speaking related
dialects, originating in a single parent language, in reality speak many
languages belonging to distinct families, which have no apparent unity
of origin.
Second, the Indian population of North America was greatly exaggerated
by early writers, and instead of being large was in reality small as
compared with the vast territory occupied and the abundant food supply;
and furthermore, the population had nowhere augmented sufficiently,
except possibly in California, to press upon the food supply.
Third, although representing a small population, the numerous tribes had
overspread North America and had possessed themselves of all the
territory, which, in the case of a great majority of tribes, was owned
in common by the tribe.
Fourth, prior to the advent of the European, the tribes were probably
nearly in a state of equilibrium, and were in the main sedentary, and
those tribes which can be said with propriety to have been nomadic
became so only after the advent of the European, and largely as the
direct result of the acquisition of the horse and the introduction of
firearms.
Fifth, while agriculture was general among the tribes of the eastern
United States, and while it was spreading among western tribes, its
products were nowhere sufficient wholly to emancipate the Indian from
the hunter state.
* * * * *
LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.
Within the area covered by the map there are recognized fifty-eight
distinct linguistic families.
These are enumerated in alphabetical order and each is accompanied by
a table of the synonyms of the family name, together with a brief
statement of the geographical area occupied by each family, so far as it
is known. A list of the principal tribes of each family also is given.
ADAIZAN FAMILY.
= Adaize, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306,
1836. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond., II, 31-59, 1846. Latham,
Opuscula, 293, 1860. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Latham, Elements
Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the most isolated
languages of N.A.). Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.
Am.), 478, 1878 (or Adees).
= Adaizi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847.
= Adaise, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
= Adahi, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Latham in Trans. Philolog.
Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 368, 1860. Latham,
Elements Comp., Phil., 473, 477, 1863 (same as his Adaize above).
= Adaes, Buschmann, Spuren der aztekischen Sprache, 424, 1859.
= Adees. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.) 478, 1878
(same as his Adaize).
= Adái, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., 41, 1884.
Derivation: From a Caddo word hadai, sig. “brush wood.”
This family was based upon the language spoken by a single tribe who,
according to Dr. Sibley, lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish
fort or mission of Adaize, “about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the
Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with the
division of Red River that passes by Bayau Pierre.”[6] A vocabulary of
about two hundred and fifty words is all that remains to us of their
language, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, “differs from
all others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nation
can speak ten words of it.”
[Footnote 6: Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.]
It was from an examination of Sibley’s vocabulary that Gallatin reached
the conclusion of the distinctness of this language from any other
known, an opinion accepted by most later authorities. A recent
comparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoan
dialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of the
Adái words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he
regards it as a Caddoan dialect. The amount of material, however,
necessary to establish its relationship to Caddoan is not at present
forthcoming, and it may be doubted if it ever will be, as recent inquiry
has failed to reveal the existence of a single member of the tribe, or
of any individual of the tribes once surrounding the Adái who remembers
a word of the language.
Mr. Gatschet found that some of the older Caddo in the Indian Territory
remembered the Adái as one of the tribes formerly belonging to the Caddo
Confederacy. More than this he was unable to learn from them.
Owing to their small numbers, their remoteness from lines of travel, and
their unwarlike character the Adái have cut but a small figure in
history, and accordingly the known facts regarding them are very meager.
The first historical mention of them appears to be by Cabeça de Vaca,
who in his “Naufragios,” referring to his stay in Texas, about 1530,
calls them Atayos. Mention is also made of them by several of the early
French explorers of the Mississippi, as d’Iberville and Joutel.
The Mission of Adayes, so called from its proximity to the home of the
tribe, was established in 1715. In 1792 there was a partial emigration
of the Adái to the number of fourteen families to a site south of San
Antonio de Bejar, southwest Texas, where apparently they amalgamated
with the surrounding Indian population and were lost sight of. (From
documents preserved at the City Hall, San Antonio, and examined by Mr.
Gatschet in December, 1886.) The Adái who were left in their old homes
numbered one hundred in 1802, according to Baudry de Lozieres. According
to Sibley, in 1809 there were only “twenty men of them remaining, but
more women.” In 1820 Morse mentions only thirty survivors.
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
> Algonkin-Lenape, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 23, 305,
1836. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid, 1852.
> Algonquin, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 337, 1840. Prichard Phys.
Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847 (follows Gallatin).
> Algonkins, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77,
1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
> Algonkin, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rept., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (gives
Delaware and Shawnee vocabs.). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri
Inds., 232, 1862 (treats only of Crees, Blackfeet, Shyennes). Hale in
Am. Antiq., 112, April, 1883 (treated with reference to migration).
< Algonkin, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 1856 (adds to
Gallatin’s list of 1836 the Bethuck, Shyenne, Blackfoot, and
Arrapaho). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860 (as in preceding). Latham,
Elements Comp. Phil, 447, 1862.
< Algonquin, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp., (Cent. and S. Am.), 460,
465, 1878 (list includes the Maquas, an Iroquois tribe).
> Saskatschawiner, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (probably
designates the Arapaho).
> Arapahoes, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
X Algonkin und Beothuk, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
Derivation: Contracted from Algomequin, an Algonkin word, signifying
“those on the other side of the river,” i.e., the St. Lawrence River.
ALGONQUIAN AREA.
The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more extensive
than that of any other linguistic stock in North America, their
territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and from
Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound of
North Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an area
occupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their
Algonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered
by those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest and
west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by the
Kitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast of
Labrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with
the Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. In
Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but a
single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period had
separated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee and
pushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where,
known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with the
surrounding tribes until about the beginning of the eighteenth century
they were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon
afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee and
Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north to
the Ohio River.
The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had become
separated from their kindred on the north and had forced their way
through hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country of
South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus forming
the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having the
Siouan tribes behind them and those of the Shoshonean family in front.
PRINCIPAL ALGONQUINIAN TRIBES.
Abnaki. Menominee. Ottawa.
Algonquin. Miami. Pamlico.
Arapaho. Micmac. Pennacook.
Cheyenne. Mohegan. Pequot.
Conoy. Montagnais. Piankishaw.
Cree. Montauk. Pottawotomi.
Delaware. Munsee. Powhatan.
Fox. Nanticoke. Sac.
Illinois. Narraganset. Shawnee.
Kickapoo. Nauset. Siksika.
Mahican. Nipmuc. Wampanoag.
Massachuset. Ojibwa. Wappinger.
_Population._--The present number of the Algonquian stock is about
95,600, of whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the
United States. Below is given the population of the tribes officially
recognized, compiled chiefly from the United States Indian
Commissioner’s report for 1889 and the Canadian Indian report for 1888.
It is impossible to give exact figures, owing to the fact that in many
instances two or more tribes are enumerated together, while many
individuals are living with other tribes or amongst the whites:
Abnaki:
“Oldtown Indians,” Maine 410
Passamaquoddy Indians, Maine 215?
Abenakis of St. Francis and Bécancour, Quebec 369
“Amalecites” of Témiscouata and Viger, Quebec 198
“Amalecites” of Madawaska, etc., New Brunswick 683
----- 1,874?
Algonquin:
Of Renfrew, Golden Lake and Carleton, Ontario 797
With Iroquois (total 131) at Gibson, Ontario 31?
With Iroquois at Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec 30
Quebec Province 3,909
----- 4,767?
Arapaho:
Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 1,272
Shoshone Agency, Wyoming (Northern Arapaho) 885
Carlisle school, Pennsylvania,
and Lawrence school, Kansas 55
----- 2,212
Cheyenne:
Pine Ridge Agency, South Dakota (Northern Cheyenne) 517
Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 2,091
Carlisle school, Pennsylvania,
and Lawrence school, Kansas 153
Tongue River Agency, Montana (Northern Cheyenne) 865
----- 3,626
Cree:
With Salteau in Manitoba, etc., British America
(treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5: total, 6,066) 3,066?
Plain and Wood Cree, treaty No. 6, Manitoba, etc. 5,790
Cree (with Salteau, etc.), treaty No. 4,
Manitoba, etc. 8,530
----- 17,386?
Delaware, etc.:
Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Agency, Indian Territory 95
Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 1,000?
Delaware with the Seneca in New York 3
Hampton and Lawrence schools 3
Muncie in New York,
principally with Onondaga and Seneca 36
Munsee with Stockbridge (total 133),
Green Bay Agency, Wis. 23?
Munsee with Chippewa at Pottawatomie and
Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas (total 75) 37?
Munsee with Chippewa on the Thames, Ontario 131
“Moravians” of the Thames, Ontario 288
Delaware with Six Nations on Grand River, Ontario 134
----- 1,750?
Kickapoo:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 325
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 237
In Mexico 200?
----- 762?
Menominee:
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 1,311
Carlisle school 1
----- 1,312
Miami:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 67
Indiana, no agency 300?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 7
----- 374?
Micmac:
Restigouche, Maria, and Gaspé, Quebec 732
In Nova Scotia 2,145
New Brunswick 912
Prince Edward Island 319
----- 4,108
Misisauga:
Alnwick, New Credit, etc., Ontario 774
Monsoni, Maskegon, etc.:
Eastern Rupert’s Land, British America 4,016
Montagnais:
Betsiamits, Lake St. John, Grand Romaine, etc., Quebec 1,607
Seven Islands, Quebec 312
----- 1,919
Nascapee:
Lower St. Lawrence, Quebec 2,860
Ojibwa:
White Earth Agency, Minnesota 6,263
La Pointe Agency, Wisconsin 4,778
Mackinac Agency, Michigan
(about one-third of 5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 1,854?
Mackinac Agency, Michigan (Chippewa alone) 1,351
Devil’s Lake Agency, North Dakota
(Turtle Mountain Chippewa) 1,340
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas
(one-half of 75 Chippewa and Muncie) 38?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 15
“Ojibbewas” of Lake Superior and Lake Huron, Ontario 5,201
“Chippewas” of Sarnia, etc., Ontario 1,956
“Chippewas” with Munsees on Thames, Ontario 454
“Chippewas” with Pottawatomies
on Walpole Island, Ontario 658
“Ojibbewas” with Ottawas (total 1,856)
on Manitoulin and Cockburn Islands, Ontario 928?
“Salteaux” of treaty Nos. 3 and 4, etc.,
Manitoba, etc. 4,092
“Chippewas” with Crees in Manitoba, etc.,
treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (total Chippewa
and Cree, 6,066) 3,000?
----- 31,928?
Ottawa:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 137
Mackinac Agency, Michigan (5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 3,709?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 20
With “Ojibbewas” on Manitoulin and Cockburn
Islands, Ontario 928
----- 4,794?
Peoria, etc.:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 160
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 5
----- 165
Pottawatomie:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 480
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 462
Mackinac Agency, Michigan 77
Prairie band, Wisconsin 280
Carlisle, Lawrence and Hampton schools 117
With Chippewa on Walpole Island, Ontario 166
----- 1,582
Sac and Fox:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 515
Sac and Fox Agency, Iowa 381
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 77
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 8
----- 981
Shawnee:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 79
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 640
Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 800?
Lawrence, Carlisle, and Hampton schools 40
----- 1,559?
Siksika:
Blackfoot Agency, Montana. (Blackfoot, Blood, Piegan) 1,811
Blackfoot reserves in Alberta, British America
(with Sarcee and Assiniboine) 4,932
----- 6,743
Stockbridge (Mahican):
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 110
In New York (with Tuscarora and Seneca) 7
Carlisle school 4
----- 121
ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 16,
305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in
Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845),
Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,”
281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on
linguistic evidence).
> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
(Evident misprint.) [Transcriber’s Note: In original text.]
> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere
mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as
shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be
Athapascan.)
> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern
Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis,
Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under
Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)
= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856.
Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs,
Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham,
El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II,
31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with
Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 161, 1848
(Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour.
Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860.
Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.
> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 14, 305,
1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family,
though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with
Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 440-448, 1847 (follows
Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans.
Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 32-34, 1846.
Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862
(referred to Esquimaux stock).
> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 441, 1847 (same as his
Kinai above).
> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai
above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to
Athapaskan).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841.
(Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).
> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847 (same as
Athapascas above).
> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846
(“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes
Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in
Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.
> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi,
Loucheux, ibid. 1852.
> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between
Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).
> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the
Saintskla).
> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(“perhaps Athapascas”).
> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 72, 1854 (a single
tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.
> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853
(a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856
(a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.
> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith
River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.
> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (tribe on
Lower Trinity, California).
> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.
> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be
Athapascan).
= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S., XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly
Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in
Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races, III, 562, 583,
603, 1882.
= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of
Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877.
Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and
Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72,
1887.
= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
463, 1878.
X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475,
1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)
Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to
Lacombe, “place of hay and reeds.”
As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is
included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi
River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north
branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky
Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the
Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30′.
The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably
a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of
Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be
Athapascan.
The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbia
and of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom they
were cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northern
family in North America.
Since Gallatin’s time the history of this family has been further
elucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolated
branches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, and
along the southern border of the United States.
The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are best
given under three primary groups--Northern, Pacific, and Southern.
_Northern group_.--This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British
North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy
most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic
Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo
of Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river
the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the
Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and
Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area
they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose
territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and
Dawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan
tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan,
and Chimmesyan families.
The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family.
Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the
Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to
somewhat below Shageluk Island,[7] and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite
to Kolmakoff Redoubt.[8] Upon the two latter they reach quite to their
heads.[9] A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine
and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they
extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of
Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the
north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map
is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan
tribes reach the coast--the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and the
Ahtena, of Copper River.
[Footnote 7: Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.]
[Footnote 8: Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,
1885, p. 13.]
[Footnote 9: Cruise of the _Corwin_, 1887.]
_Pacific group_.--Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those
of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the
advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following:
Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower
Chinook;[10] Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of
the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being
practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the
northwest side of Wapatoo Island.[11] Gibbs was informed by an old
Indian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at
the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the
country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to the
south”--a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the
Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations,
Oregon,[12] whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille
River southward to the California line, including, among others, the
Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tûnnĕ, and other
“Rogue River” or “Tou-touten bands,” Chasta Costa, Galice Creek,
Naltunne tûnnĕ and Chetco villages;[13] the Athapascan villages formerly
on Smith River and tributaries, California;[14] those villages extending
southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of
Klamath River;[15] the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on Lower
Trinity River, California;[16] the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as
follows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains,
from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad
Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and
Larrabie Creeks;”[17] and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue of
land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen’s Fork.”[18]
[Footnote 10: Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep. I, 1855, p. 428.]
[Footnote 11: Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.]
[Footnote 12: Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.]
[Footnote 13: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]
[Footnote 14: Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers,
Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.]
[Footnote 15: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]
[Footnote 16: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.]
[Footnote 17: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.]
[Footnote 18: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.]
_Southern group_.--Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer José
Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in
1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north
and south from 29° N. to 36° N., and east and west from 99° W. to 114°
W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in
Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied
the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the
Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande.[19] More
recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into
Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.[20]
[Footnote 19: Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3,
pp. 118, 119.]
[Footnote 20: Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog.,
1864.]
The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on
and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and
extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by
the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean
tribes.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
A. Northern group: B. Pacific group: C. Southern group:
Ah-tena. Ătaăkût. Arivaipa.
Kaiyuh-khotana. Chasta Costa. Chiricahua.
Kcaltana. Chetco. Coyotero.
K’naia-khotana. Dakube tede Faraone.
Koyukukhotana. (on Applegate Creek). Gileño.
Kutchin. Euchre Creek. Jicarilla.
Montagnais. Hupâ. Lipan.
Montagnards. Kălts’erea tûnnĕ. Llanero.
Nagailer. Kenesti or Wailakki. Mescalero.
Slave. Kwalhioqua. Mimbreño.
Sluacus-tinneh. Kwaʇami. Mogollon.
Taculli. Micikqwûtme tûnnĕ. Na-isha.
Tahl-tan (1). Mikono tûnnĕ. Navajo.
Unakhotana. Owilapsh. Pinal Coyotero.
Qwinctûnnetûn. Tchĕkûn.
Saiaz. Tchishi.
Taltûctun tûde.
(on Galice Creek).
Tcêmê (Joshuas).
Tcĕtlĕstcan tûnnĕ.
Terwar.
Tlatscanai.
Tolowa.
Tutu tûnnĕ.
_Population._--The present number of the Athapascan family is about
32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in
Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the
Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific
group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409,
belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee
Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above
enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.
Northern group.--This may be said to consist of the following:
Ah-tena (1877) 364?
Ai-yan (1888) 250
Al-ta-tin (Sicannie) estimated (1888) 500
of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887) 73
of whom there are at Fort Liard (1887) 78
Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib
at Fort Resolution 469
Dog Rib at Fort Norman 133
Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae 657
Hare at Fort Good Hope 364
Hare at Fort Norman 103
Kai-yuh-kho-tána (1877), Koyukukhotána (1877),
and Unakhotána (1877) 2,000?
K’nai-a Khotána (1880) 250?
Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope 95
Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre’s House 337
Kutchin on the Yukon (six tribes) 842
Nahanie at Fort Good Hope 8
Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde,
Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians) 332
Nahanie at Fort Liard 38
Nahanie at Fort Norman 43
---
421
Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island
(Hudson Bay Company’s Territory) 87
Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island
(Hudson Bay Company’s Territory) 658
Slave at Fort Liard 281
Slave at Fort Norman 84
Tenán Kutchin (1877) 700?
-----
8,595?
To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following:
Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California 468
Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 47
Siletz Reservation, Oregon
(about one-half the Indians thereon) 300?
Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 80
---
895?
Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo:
Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania 142
Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama 356
Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation) 733?
Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado) 808
Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory 15?
Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico) 513
Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation,
Indian Territory) 326
Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona
and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania) 17,208
San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 1,352?
White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 36
White Mountain Apache
(under military at Camp Apache, Arizona) 1,920
------
23,409?
ATTACAPAN FAMILY.
= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II. pt. 1, xcix, 77,
1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and
Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.
= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846.
Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham
in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293,
1860.
= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to
as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).
= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I. 45, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.
Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning “man-eater.”
Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of
the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived
from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John
Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states
that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the
Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas,”
who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language
besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by
the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at
Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10
miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in
western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe.
Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body
of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by
Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of
the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of
their brethren farther to the east.
The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct
from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.
BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.
= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to
be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.
= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885.
Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a
distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.
Derivation: Beothuk signifies “Indian” or “red Indian.”
The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland
must be considered to be doubtful.
In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to the
somewhat ambiguous statement that the language “was akin to those of the
ordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; further
investigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it was
Algonkin rather than aught else.”
Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more
satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor
quality is the material sufficient to permit final and satisfactory
deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite
distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other
American tongue.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time of
its discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians.
In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the
island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is
too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern
portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians,
whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the
northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About
the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was
colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the
persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was
also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French,
the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon
confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was
finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the
few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the
Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.
Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the
Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz.,
the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it
seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.
CADDOAN FAMILY.
> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306,
1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406,
1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1858 [gives as
languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].
[Transcriber’s Note: Bracketed passage in original text.]
> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406,
1847.
> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846
(indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo
only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.).
Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the
Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101,
1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds
resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der
aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.
> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and
Riccari).
> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 128, 306,
1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees).
Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat.
Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees).
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (gives as
languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden,
Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes
Pawnees and Arikaras).
> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 117, 128,
1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated
as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847
(supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa).
Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from
Pawnee family).
> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see
Pawnee above).
> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856
(Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).
= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478,
1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas;
Caddoes).
= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik.
Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V,
407, 1847.
> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach,
Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).
> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any
other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist.
Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).
> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not
classified).
> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any
other; referred to as a family).
> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from
Pawnee family).
> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856.
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous
opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).
> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).
Derivation: From the Caddo term ka´-ede, signifying “chief” (Gatschet).
The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family,
were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and
accordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as family
designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has
priority by a few pages preference is given to it.
Gallatin states “that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red River
but have now moved to a branch of Red River.” He refers to the
Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialects
of the Caddo language.
Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper
and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte
River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper
Missouri in latitude 46° 30′. The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as
at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups,
Northern, Middle, and Southern.
_Northern group_.--This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a
small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they
share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The
Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas,” who had
been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the
Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in
three villages, nearer their present location.[21]
[Footnote 21: Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.]
According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these
two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River.[22]
Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest
corner of North Dakota.
[Footnote 22: Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.]
_Middle group_.--This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee,
the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: “The original
hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara,” in Nebraska,
“south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed.” In
modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of
Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them
near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on
the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork.[23] The Pawnee
were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage
did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican
Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village
on a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have
given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different
parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they
rejoined the Grand Pawnee.” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup),
according to Omaha tradition,[24] formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi
River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc.
After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand
Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to
this day. De L’Isle[25] gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri
River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.
[Footnote 23: Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.]
[Footnote 24: Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.]
[Footnote 25: Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.]
_Southern group_.--This includes the Caddo, Wichita, Kichai, and other
tribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas,
and Indian Territory.
The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscan
habitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names
(Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and the
statement of La Harpe,[26] are now in or near one of their early abodes.
Dr. Sibley[27] locates the Caddo habitat 35 miles west of the main
branch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and they
formerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell’s Atlas (1870) places Caddo
Lake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It also
gives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red River
of Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichita
migrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to the
Indian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (as
above) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, Ioni, Nabadache, and
Eyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kädo hadatco,[28] of Le
Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti[29] and La
Harpe[30] about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita,
and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon the
following as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southern
group of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that part
of Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowa
and Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of the
Choctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to the
headwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thence
through Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river to
its mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine River
near Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to Tawakonay
Creek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following that
stream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the North
Fork of Red River; and thence to the beginning.
[Footnote 26: In 1719, _fide_ Margry, VI, 289, “the Ousita village
is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”]
[Footnote 27: 1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.]
[Footnote 28: Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.]
[Footnote 29: 1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.]
[Footnote 30: 1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.]
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
A. Pawnee.
Grand Pawnee.
Tappas.
Republican Pawnee.
Skidi.
B. Arikara.
C. Wichita.
(Ki-¢i´-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe,
Ki-dhi´-chash or Ki-ri´-chash).
D. Kichai.
E. Caddo (Kä´-do).
_Population._--The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of whom
447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest in
the Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation,
the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below is
given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled
chiefly from the Indian Report for 1889:
Arikara 448
Pawnee 824
Wichita 176
Towakarehu 145
Waco 64
--- 385
Kichai 63
Caddo 539
-----
Total 2,259
CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.
= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep., I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).
= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers
language different from any of its neighbors).
< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).
< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).
Derivation unknown.
Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:
The language of the Chimakum “differs materially from either that of the
Clallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of their
neighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. To
what family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided.”
Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of its
neighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language family
rank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison of
vocabularies and finds the language to be quite distinct from any other,
gives it the above name.
The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most
powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to
diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted
only about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteen
small lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs “their territory
seems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow.”[31]
In 1884 there were, according to Mr. Myron Eells, about twenty
individuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend,
Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at the
southern end of Hood’s Canal.
[Footnote 31: Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum
woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the
peninsula between Hood’s Canal and Port Townsend.]
The Quile-ute, of whom in 1889 there were 252 living on the Pacific
south of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe of
the latter, number 71 and are under the Puyallup Agency.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
The following tribes are recognized:
Chimakum.
Quile-ute.
CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.
= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 474, 1877. Gatschet
in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).
According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by
two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River,
a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the
Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork,
California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as
the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the
arrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left.
In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundred
words from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of that
tribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko man
seventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two living
survivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and much
valuable information relative to the former habitat and history of the
tribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of words
having correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet the
greater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latter
family, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed as
distinct.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Chimariko.
Chimalakwe.
CHIMMESYAN FAMILY.
= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 154, 1848 (between
53° 30′ and 55° 30′ N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.
Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok,
Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc.
Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp.
Phil., 401, 1862.
= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of
tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).
= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list
but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269,
1869 (published in 1870). Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 39, 40, 1877
(probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564,
607, 1882.
= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.
= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of
family).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841
(includes Chimmesyans).
X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841 (same
as his Northern family).
< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848
(including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).
< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and
Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).
= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present
family).
Derivation: From the Chimsian ts’em, “on;” kcian, “main river:” “On the
main (Skeena) river.”
This name appears in a paper of Latham’s published in 1848. To it is
referred a vocabulary of Tolmie’s. The area where it is spoken is said
by Latham to be 50° 30′ and 55° 30′. The name has become established by
long usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been given
preference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter name
was given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be not
related, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billechola
belongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin’s of 1836.
Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply to
Chimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of Chimsian
Indians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk,
which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from the
Chimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favor
of Chimmesyan of the same date.
For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmie
and Dawson, in 1884, is followed.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:[32]
A. Nasqa´:
Nasqa´.
Gyitksa´n.
B. Tsimshian proper:
Ts’emsia´n.
Gyits’umrä´lon.
Gyits’ala´ser.
Gyitqā´tla.
Gyitg·ā´ata.
Gyidesdzo´.
[Footnote 32: B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of
Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.]
_Population._--The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total for
all the tribes of this family of 5,000. In the fall of 1887 about 1,000
of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removed to Annette
Island, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, near
Port Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called New
Metlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schools
established, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkable
progress in civilization.
CHINOOKAN FAMILY.
> Chinooks, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134,
306, 1836 (a single tribe at mouth of Columbia).
= Chinooks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 198, 1846. Gallatin, after
Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 15, 1848 (or Tsinuk).
= Tshinuk, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 562, 569, 1846 (contains
Watlala or Upper Chinook, including Watlala, Nihaloitih, or Echeloots;
and Tshinuk, including Tshinuk, Tlatsap, Wakaikam).
= Tsinuk, Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
15, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
> Cheenook, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 236, 1848. Latham,
Opuscula, 253, 1860.
> Chinuk, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 317, 1850 (same as Tshinúk; includes
Chinúks proper, Klatsops, Kathlamut, Wakáikam, Watlala, Nihaloitih).
Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of
family name). Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Buschmann. Spuren der
aztek. Sprache, 616-619, 1859.
= Tschinuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of family name).
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 402, 1862 (cites
a short vocabulary of Watlala).
= Tshinook, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(Chinooks, Clatsops, and Watlala). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs.
Brit. Col., 51, 61, 1884.
> Tshinuk, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 616, 1859 (same as
his Chinuk).
= T’sinūk, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (mere
mention of family).
= Chinook, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 167, 1877 (names and gives
habitats of tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.
< Chinooks, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (includes Skilloots, Watlalas, Lower Chinooks, Wakiakurns,
Cathlamets, Clatsops, Calapooyas, Clackamas, Killamooks, Yamkally,
Chimook Jargon; of these Calapooyas and Yamkally are Kalapooian,
Killamooks are Salishan).
> Chinook, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 626-628, 1882 (enumerates
Chinook, Wakiakum, Cathlamet, Clatsop, Multnomah, Skilloot, Watlala).
X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224,
1841 (includes Cheenooks, and Cathlascons of present family).
X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 234 (same as his Nootka-Columbian family
above).
The vocabulary of the Chinook tribe, upon which the family name was
based, was derived from the mouth of the Columbia. As now understood the
family embraces a number of tribes, speaking allied languages, whose
former homes extended from the mouth of the river for some 200 miles, or
to The Dalles. According to Lewis and Clarke, our best authorities on
the pristine home of this family, most of their villages were on the
banks of the river, chiefly upon the northern bank, though they probably
claimed the land upon either bank for several miles back. Their villages
also extended on the Pacific coast north nearly to the northern extreme
of Shoalwater Bay, and to the south to about Tillamook Head, some 20
miles from the mouth of the Columbia.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Lower Chinook:
Chinook.
Clatsop.
Upper Chinook:
Cathlamet.
Cathlapotle.
Chilluckquittequaw.
Clackama.
Cooniac.
Echeloot.
Multnoma.
Wahkiacum.
Wasco.
_Population._--There are two hundred and eighty-eight Wasco on the Warm
Springs Reservation, Oregon, and one hundred and fifty on the Yakama
Reservation, Washington. On the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon, there
are fifty-nine Clackama. From information derived from Indians by Mr.
Thomas Priestly, United States Indian Agent at Yakama, it is learned
that there still remain three or four families of “regular Chinook
Indians,” probably belonging to one of the down-river tribes, about 6
miles above the mouth of the Columbia. Two of these speak the Chinook
proper, and three have an imperfect command of Clatsop. There are eight
or ten families, probably also of one of the lower river tribes, living
near Freeport, Washington.
Some of the Watlala, or Upper Chinook, live near the Cascades, about 55
miles below The Dalles. There thus remain probably between five and six
hundred of the Indians of this family.
CHITIMACHAN FAMILY.
= Chitimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 114,
117, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847.
= Chetimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham,
Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III,
402, 1853.
= Chetimacha, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846.
Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.
= Chetemachas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848
(same as Chitimachas).
= Shetimasha, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 44, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 29, 1887.
Derivation: From Choctaw words tchúti, “cooking vessels,” másha, “they
possess,” (Gatschet).
This family was based upon the language of the tribe of the same name,
“formerly living in the vicinity of Lake Barataria, and still existing
(1836) in lower Louisiana.”
Du Pratz asserted that the Taensa and Chitimacha were kindred tribes of
the Na’htchi. A vocabulary of the Shetimasha, however, revealed to
Gallatin no traces of such affinity. He considered both to represent
distinct families, a conclusion subsequent investigations have
sustained.
In 1881 Mr. Gatschet visited the remnants of this tribe in Louisiana. He
found about fifty individuals, a portion of whom lived on Grand River,
but the larger part in Charenton, St. Mary’s Parish. The tribal
organization was abandoned in 1879 on the death of their chief.
CHUMASHAN FAMILY.
> Santa Barbara, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 85, 1856
(includes Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, San Luis Obispo languages).
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 531, 535, 538, 602, 1859.
Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860. Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 550, 567,
1877 (Kasuá, Santa Inez, Id. of Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara). Gatschet
in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 419, 1879 (cites La Purísima,
Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, Kasuá, Mugu, Santa Cruz Id.).
X Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (Santa Inez,
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Id., San Luis Obispo, San Antonio).
Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders.
The several dialects of this family have long been known under the group
or family name, “Santa Barbara,” which seems first to have been used in
a comprehensive sense by Latham in 1856, who included under it three
languages, viz: Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term
has no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the fact
that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the dialects of the
family was spoken, is perhaps more widely known than any of the others.
Nevertheless, as it is the family name first applied to the group and
has, moreover, passed into current use its claim to recognition would
not be questioned were it not a compound name. Under the rule adopted
the latter fact necessitates its rejection. As a suitable substitute the
term Chumashan is here adopted. Chumash is the name of the Santa Rosa
Islanders, who spoke a dialect of this stock, and is a term widely known
among the Indians of this family.
The Indians of this family lived in villages, the villages as a whole
apparently having no political connection, and hence there appears to
have been no appellation in use among them to designate themselves as a
whole people.
Dialects of this language were spoken at the Missions of San
Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Iñez, Purísima, and San Luis Obispo.
Kindred dialects were spoken also upon the Islands of Santa Rosa and
Santa Cruz, and also, probably, upon such other of the Santa Barbara
Islands as formerly were permanently inhabited.
These dialects collectively form a remarkably homogeneous family, all of
them, with the exception of the San Luis Obispo, being closely related
and containing very many words in common. Vocabularies representing six
dialects of the language are in possession of the Bureau of Ethnology.
The inland limits of this family can not be exactly defined, although a
list of more than one hundred villages with their sites, obtained by Mr.
Henshaw in 1884, shows that the tribes were essentially maritime and
were closely confined to the coast.
_Population._--In 1884 Mr. Henshaw visited the several counties formerly
inhabited by the populous tribes of this family and discovered that
about forty men, women, and children survived. The adults still speak
their old language when conversing with each other, though on other
occasions they use Spanish. The largest settlement is at San
Buenaventura, where perhaps 20 individuals live near the outskirts of
the town.
COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.
= Coahuilteco, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México,
map, 1864.
= Tejano ó Coahuilteco, Pimentel, Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de
las Lenguas Indígenas de México, II, 409, 1865. (A preliminary notice
with example from the language derived from Garcia’s Manual, 1760.)
Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila.
This family appears to have included numerous tribes in southwestern
Texas and in Mexico. They are chiefly known through the record of the
Rev. Father Bartolomé Garcia (Manual para administrar, etc.), published
in 1760. In the preface to the “Manual” he enumerates the tribes and
sets forth some phonetic and grammatic differences between the dialects.
On page 63 of his Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 1864, Orozco y
Berra gives a list of the languages of Mexico and includes Coahuilteco,
indicating it as the language of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas.
He does not, however, indicate its extension into Texas. It would thus
seem that he intended the name as a general designation for the language
of all the cognate tribes.
Upon his colored ethnographic map, also, Orozco y Berra designates the
Mexican portion of the area formerly occupied by the tribes of this
family Coahuilteco.[33] In his statement that the language and tribes
are extinct this author was mistaken, as a few Indians still survive who
speak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschet
collected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, who
live on the Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas. Of the
Comecrudo some twenty-five still remain, of whom seven speak the
language.
[Footnote 33: Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.]
The Cotoname are practically extinct, although Mr. Gatschet obtained one
hundred and twenty-five words from a man said to be of this blood.
Besides the above, Mr. Gatschet obtained information of the existence of
two women of the Pinto or Pakawá tribe who live at La Volsa, near
Reynosa, Tamaulipas, on the Rio Grande, and who are said to speak their
own language.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Alasapa. Pajalate.
Cachopostate. Pakawá.
Casa chiquita. Pamaque.
Chayopine. Pampopa.
Comecrudo. Pastancoya.
Cotoname. Patacale.
Mano de perro. Pausane.
Mescal. Payseya.
Miakan. Sanipao.
Orejone. Tâcame.
Pacuâche. Venado.
COPEHAN FAMILY.
> Cop-eh, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853 (mentioned
as a dialect).
= Copeh, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 79, 1856 (of Upper
Sacramento; cites vocabs. from Gallatin and Schoolcraft). Latham,
Opuscula, 345, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 412, 1862.
= Wintoons, Powers in Overland Monthly, 530, June, 1874 (Upper
Sacramento and Upper Trinity). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, 1877
(defines habitat and names tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind.
Miscellany, 434, 1877.
= Win-tún, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 518-534, 1877 (vocabularies
of Wintun, Sacramento River, Trinity Indians). Gatschet in U.S. Geog.
Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 418, 1879 (defines area occupied by family).
X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475,
1878 (cited as including Copahs, Patawats, Wintoons). Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Copah).
> Napa, Keane, ibid., 476, 524, 1878 (includes Myacomas, Calayomanes,
Caymus, Ulucas, Suscols). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 567, 1882
(includes Napa, Myacoma, Calayomane, Caymus, Uluca, Suscol).
This name was proposed by Latham with evident hesitation. He says of it:
“How far this will eventually turn out to be a convenient name for the
group (or how far the group itself will be real), is uncertain.” Under
it he places two vocabularies, one from the Upper Sacramento and the
other from Mag Redings in Shasta County. The head of Putos Creek is
given as headquarters for the language. Recent investigations have
served to fully confirm the validity of the family.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north by Mount
Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian families, on the
east by the territory of the Palaihnihan, Yanan, and Pujunan families,
and on the south by the bays of San Pablo and Suisun and the lower
waters of the Sacramento.
The eastern boundary of the territory begins about 5 miles east of Mount
Shasta, crosses Pit River a little east of Squaw Creek, and reaches to
within 10 miles of the eastern bank of the Sacramento at Redding. From
Redding to Chico Creek the boundary is about 10 miles east of the
Sacramento. From Chico downward the Pujunan family encroaches till at
the mouth of Feather River it occupies the eastern bank of the
Sacramento. The western boundary of the Copehan family begins at the
northernmost point of San Pablo Bay, trends to the northwest in a
somewhat irregular line till it reaches John’s Peak, from which point it
follows the Coast Range to the tipper waters of Cottonwood Creek, whence
it deflects to the west, crossing the headwaters of the Trinity and
ending at the southern boundary of the Sastean family.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
A. Patwin: B. Wintu:
Chenposel. Daupom.
Gruilito. Nomlaki.
Korusi. Nommuk.
Liwaito. Norelmuk.
Lolsel. Normuk.
Makhelchel. Waikenmuk.
Malaka. Wailaki.
Napa.
Olelato.
Olposel.
Suisun.
Todetabi.
Topaidisel.
Waikosel.
Wailaksel.
COSTANOAN FAMILY.
= Costano, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 82, 1856 (includes
the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos, Romonans, Tulornos, Altatmos).
Latham, Opuscula, 348, 1860.
< Mutsun, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (includes Ahwastes,
Olhones, Altahmos, Romonans, Tulomos). Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III,
535, 1877 (includes under this family vocabs. of Costano, Mutsun,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz).
Derivation: From the Spanish costano, “coast-men.”
Under this group name Latham included five tribes, given above, which
were under the supervision of the Mission Dolores. He gives a few words
of the Romonan language, comparing it with Tshokoyem which he finds to
differ markedly. He finally expresses the opinion that, notwithstanding
the resemblance of a few words, notably personal pronouns, to Tshokoyem
of the Moquelumnan group, the affinities of the dialects of the Costano
are with the Salinas group, with which, however, he does not unite it
but prefers to keep it by itself. Later, in 1877, Mr. Gatschet,[34]
under the family name Mutsun, united the Costano dialects with the ones
classified by Latham under Moquelumnan. This arrangement was followed by
Powell in his classification of vocabularies.[35] More recent comparison
of all the published material by Mr. Curtin, of the Bureau, revealed
very decided and apparently radical differences between the two groups
of dialects. In 1888 Mr. H. W. Henshaw visited the coast to the north
and south of San Francisco, and obtained a considerable body of
linguistic material for further comparison. The result seems fully
to justify the separation of the two groups as distinct families.
[Footnote 34: Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.]
[Footnote 35: Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The territory of the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a
point near the southern end of Monterey Bay. On the south it is bounded
from Monterey Bay to the mountains by the Esselenian territory. On the
east side of the mountains it extends to the southern end of Salinas
Valley. On the east it is bounded by a somewhat irregular line running
from the southern end of Salinas Valley to Gilroy Hot Springs and the
upper waters of Conestimba Creek, and, northward from the latter points
by the San Joaquin River to its mouth. The northern boundary is formed
by Suisun Bay, Carquinez Straits, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays, and
the Golden Gate.
_Population._--The surviving Indians of the once populous tribes of this
family are now scattered over several counties and probably do not
number, all told, over thirty individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.
Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the towns of Santa
Cruz and Monterey. Only the older individuals speak the
language.
ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
> Eskimaux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 9, 305,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
= Eskimo, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 288, 1850 (general remarks on origin and
habitat). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 689, 1859. Latham, El.
Comp. Phil., 385, 1862. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 574, 1882.
> Esquimaux, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 367-371, 1847 (follows
Gallatin). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 182-191, 1848. Latham,
Opuscula, 266-274, 1860.
> Eskimo, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869 (treats of Alaskan Eskimo
and Tuski only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (excludes the
Aleutian).
> Eskimos, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878
(excludes Aleutian).
> Ounángan, Veniamínoff, Zapíski ob ostrovaχ Unaláshkinskago otdailo,
II, 1, 1840 (Aleutians only).
> Ūnŭǵŭn, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 22, 1877 (Aleuts a division of
his Orarian group).
> Unangan, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841
(includes Ugalentzes of present family).
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224, 1841 (same as his Northern family).
> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(lat. 60°, between Prince Williams Sound and Mount St. Elias, perhaps
Athapascas).
Aleuten, Holmberg, Ethnog. Skizzen d. Völker Russ. Am., 1855.
> Aleutians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869. Dall, Alaska and
Resources, 374, 1870 (in both places a division of his Orarian
family).
> Aleuts, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878
(consist of Unalaskans of mainland and of Fox and Shumagin Ids., with
Akkhas of rest of Aleutian Arch.).
> Aleut, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 1882 (two dialects, Unalaska
and Atkha).
> Konjagen, Holmberg, Ethnograph. Skizzen Volker Russ. Am., 1855
(Island of Koniag or Kadiak).
= Orarians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 265, 1869 (group name; includes
Innuit, Aleutians, Tuski). Dall, Alaska and Resources, 374, 1870. Dall
in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 8, 9, 1877.
X Tinneb, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (includes “Ugalense”).
> Innuit, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 9, 1877 (“Major group” of
Orarians: treats of Alaska Innuit only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map
73, 1887 (excludes the Aleutians).
Derivation: From an Algonkin word eskimantik, “eaters of raw flesh.”
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The geographic boundaries of this family were set forth by Gallatin
in 1836 with considerable precision, and require comparatively little
revision and correction.
In the linear extent of country occupied, the Eskimauan is the most
remarkable of the North American linguistic families. It extends
coastwise from eastern Greenland to western Alaska and to the extremity
of the Aleutian Islands, a distance of considerably more than 5,000
miles. The winter or permanent villages are usually situated on the
coast and are frequently at considerable distances from one another,
the intervening areas being usually visited in summer for hunting and
fishing purposes. The interior is also visited by the Eskimo for the
purpose of hunting reindeer and other animals, though they rarely
penetrate farther than 50 miles. A narrow strip along the coast,
perhaps 30 miles wide, will probably, on the average, represent
Eskimo occupancy.
Except upon the Aleutian Islands, the dialects spoken over this vast
area are very similar, the unity of dialect thus observable being in
marked contrast to the tendency to change exhibited in other linguistic
families of North America.
How far north the east coast of Greenland is inhabited by Eskimo is
not at present known. In 1823 Capt. Clavering met with two families of
Eskimo north of 74° 30′. Recent explorations (1884-’85) by Capt. Holm,
of the Danish Navy, along the southeast coast reveal the presence of
Eskimo between 65° and 66° north latitude. These Eskimo profess entire
ignorance of any inhabitants north of themselves, which may be taken as
proof that if there are fiords farther up the coast which are inhabited
there has been no intercommunication in recent times at least between
these tribes and those to the south. It seems probable that more or less
isolated colonies of Eskimo do actually exist along the east coast of
Greenland far to the north.
Along the west coast of Greenland, Eskimo occupancy extends to
about 74°. This division is separated by a considerable interval of
uninhabited coast from the Etah Eskimo who occupy the coast from Smith
Sound to Cape York, their most northerly village being in 78° 18′. For
our knowledge of these interesting people we are chiefly indebted to
Ross and Bessels.
In Grinnell Land, Gen. Greely found indications of permanent Eskimo
habitations near Fort Conger, lat. 81° 44′.
On the coast of Labrador the Eskimo reach as far south as Hamilton
Inlet, about 55° 30′. Not long since they extended to the Straits of
Belle Isle, 50° 30′.
On the east coast of Hudson Bay the Eskimo reach at present nearly to
James Bay. According to Dobbs[36] in 1744 they extended as far south as
east Maine River, or about 52°. The name Notaway (Eskimo) River at the
southern end of the bay indicates a former Eskimo extension to that
point.
[Footnote 36: Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining
to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.]
According to Boas and Bessels the most northern Eskimo of the middle
group north of Hudson Bay reside on the southern extremity of Ellesmere
Land around Jones Sound. Evidences of former occupation of Prince
Patrick, Melville, and other of the northern Arctic islands are not
lacking, but for some unknown cause, probably a failure of food supply,
the Eskimo have migrated thence and the islands are no longer inhabited.
In the western part of the central region the coast appears to be
uninhabited from the Coppermine River to Cape Bathurst. To the west of
the Mackenzie, Herschel Island marks the limit of permanent occupancy by
the Mackenzie Eskimo, there being no permanent villages between that
island and the settlements at Point Barrow.
The intervening strip of coast is, however, undoubtedly hunted over more
or less in summer. The Point Barrow Eskimo do not penetrate far into the
interior, but farther to the south the Eskimo reach to the headwaters of
the Nunatog and Koyuk Rivers. Only visiting the coast for trading
purposes, they occupy an anomalous position among Eskimo.
Eskimo occupancy of the rest of the Alaska coast is practically
continuous throughout its whole extent as far to the south and east as
the Atna or Copper River, where begin the domains of the Koluschan
family. Only in two places do the Indians of the Athapascan family
intrude upon Eskimo territory, about Cook’s Inlet, and at the mouth of
Copper River.
Owing to the labors of Dall, Petroff, Nelson, Turner, Murdoch, and
others we are now pretty well informed as to the distribution of the
Eskimo in Alaska.
Nothing is said by Gallatin of the Aleutian Islanders and they were
probably not considered by him to be Eskimauan. They are now known to
belong to this family, though the Aleutian dialects are unintelligible
to the Eskimo proper. Their distribution has been entirely changed since
the advent of the Russians and the introduction of the fur trade, and at
present they occupy only a very small portion of the islands. Formerly
they were much more numerous than at present and extended throughout the
chain.
The Eskimauan family is represented in northeast Asia by the Yuit of the
Chukchi peninsula, who are to be distinguished from the sedentary
Chukchi or the Tuski of authors, the latter being of Asiatic origin.
According to Dall the former are comparatively recent arrivals from the
American continent, and, like their brethren of America, are confined
exclusively to the coast.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND VILLAGES.
Greenland group-- Labrador group: Alaska group:
East Greenland villages: Itivimiut. Chiglit.
Akorninak. Kiguaqtagmiut. Chugachigmiut.
Aluik. Suqinimiut. Ikogmiut.
Anarnitsok. Taqagmiut. Imahklimiut.
Angmagsalik. Inguhklimiut.
Igdlolnarsuk. Middle Group: Kaialigmiut.
Ivimiut. Aggomiut. Kangmaligmiut.
Kemisak. Ahaknanelet. Kaviagmiut.
Kikkertarsoak. Aivillirmiut. Kittegareut.
Kinarbik. Akudliarmiut. Kopagmiut.
Maneetsuk. Akudnirmiut. Kuagmiut.
Narsuk. Amitormiut. Kuskwogmiut.
Okkiosorbik. Iglulingmiut. Magemiut.
Sermiligak. Kangormiut. Mahlemiut.
Sermilik. Kinnepatu. Nunatogmiut.
Taterat. Kramalit. Nunivagmiut.
Umanak. Nageuktormiut. Nushagagmiut.
Umerik. Netchillirmiut. Nuwungmiut.
Nugumiut. Oglemiut.
West coast villages: Okomiut. Selawigmiut.
Akbat. Pilinginiut. Shiwokugmiut.
Karsuit. Sagdlirmiut. Ukivokgmiut.
Tessuisak. Sikosuilarmiut. Unaligmiut.
Sinimiut.
Ugjulirmiut. Aleutian group:
Ukusiksalingmiut. Atka.
Unalashka.
Asiatic group:
Yuit.
_Population._--Only a rough approximation of the population of the
Eskimo can be given, since of some of the divisions next to nothing is
known. Dall compiles the following estimates of the Alaskan Eskimo from
the most reliable figures up to 1885: Of the Northwestern Innuit 3,100
(?), including the Kopagmiut, Kangmaligmiut, Nuwukmiut, Nunatogmiut,
Kuagmiut, the Inguhklimiut of Little Diomede Island 40 (?), Shiwokugmiut
of St. Lawrence Island 150 (?), the Western Innuit 14,500 (?), the
Aleutian Islanders (Unungun) 2,200 (?); total of the Alaskan Innuit,
about 20,000.
The Central or Baffin Land Eskimo are estimated by Boas to number about
1,100.[37]
[Footnote 37: Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.]
From figures given by Rink, Packard, and others, the total number of
Labrador Eskimo is believed to be about 2,000.
According to Holm (1884-’85) there are about 550 Eskimo on the east
coast of Greenland. On the west coast the mission Eskimo numbered 10,122
in 1886, while the northern Greenland Eskimo, the Arctic Highlanders of
Ross, number about 200.
Thus throughout the Arctic regions generally there is a total of about
34,000.
ESSELENIAN FAMILY.
< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Gioloco?, Ruslen, Soledad, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, and San Miguel,
cited as including Eslen). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.
As afterwards mentioned under the Salinan family, the present family was
included by Latham in the heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. For
reasons there given the term Salinan was restricted to the San Antonio
and San Miguel languages, leaving the present family without a name. It
is called Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of
which it is composed.
Its history is a curious and interesting one. Apparently the first
mention of the tribe and language is to be found in the Voyage de la
Pérouse, Paris, 1797, page 288, where Lamanon (1786) states that the
language of the Ecclemachs (Esselen) differs “absolutely from all those
of their neighbors.” He gives a vocabulary of twenty-two words and by
way of comparison a list of the ten numerals of the Achastlians
(Costanoan family). It was a study of the former short vocabulary,
published by Taylor in the California Farmer, October 24, 1862, that
first led to the supposition of the distinctness of this language.
A few years later the Esselen people came under the observation of
Galiano,[38] who mentions the Eslen and Runsien as two distinct nations,
and notes a variety of differences in usages and customs which are of no
great weight. It is of interest to note, however, that this author also
appears to have observed essential differences in the languages of the
two peoples, concerning which he says: “The same difference as in usage
and custom is observed in the languages of the two nations, as will be
perceived from the following comparison with which we will conclude this
chapter.”
[Footnote 38: Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y
Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.]
Galiano supplies Esselen and Runsien vocabularies of thirty-one words,
most of which agree with the earlier vocabulary of Lamanon. These were
published by Taylor in the California Farmer under date of April 20,
1860.
In the fall of 1888 Mr. H. W. Henshaw visited the vicinity of Monterey
with the hope of discovering survivors of these Indians. Two women were
found in the Salinas Valley to the south who claimed to be of Esselen
blood, but neither of them was able to recall any of the language, both
having learned in early life to speak the Runsien language in place of
their own. An old woman was found in the Carmelo Valley near Monterey
and an old man living near the town of Cayucos, who, though of Runsien
birth, remembered considerable of the language of their neighbors with
whom they were connected by marriage. From them a vocabulary of one
hundred and ten words and sixty-eight phrases and short sentences were
obtained. These serve to establish the general correctness of the short
lists of words collected so long ago by Lamanon and Galiano, and they
also prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Esselen language forms a
family by itself and has no connection with any other known.
The tribe or tribes composing this family occupied a narrow strip of the
California coast from Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa
Lucia Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles.
IROQUOIAN FAMILY.
> Iroquois, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 21, 23, 305, 1836
(excludes Cherokee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847
(follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix,
77, 1848 (as in 1836). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401,
1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 463, 1862.
> Irokesen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
X Irokesen, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (includes Kataba and
said to be derived from Dakota).
> Huron-Iroquois, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 243, 1840.
> Wyandot-Iroquois, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
460, 468, 1878.
> Cherokees, Gallatin in Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 89, 306, 1836 (kept
apart from Iroquois though probable affinity asserted). Bancroft,
Hist. U.S., III, 246, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 401,
1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848.
Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (a separate group
perhaps to be classed with Iroquois and Sioux). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853. Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860.
Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 472, 1878 (same
as Chelekees or Tsalagi--“apparently entirely distinct from all other
American tongues”).
> Tschirokies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848.
> Chelekees, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (or Cherokees).
> Cheroki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
= Huron-Cherokee, Hale in Am. Antiq., 20, Jan., 1883 (proposed as a
family name instead of Huron-Iroquois; relationship to Iroquois
affirmed).
Derivation: French, adaptation of the Iroquois word hiro, used to
conclude a speech, and koué, an exclamation (Charlevoix). Hale gives as
possible derivations ierokwa, the indeterminate form of the verb to
smoke, signifying “they who smoke;” also the Cayuga form of bear,
iakwai.[39] Mr. Hewitt[39] suggests the Algonkin words īrīn, true, or
real; ako, snake; with the French termination ois, the word becomes
Irinakois.
[Footnote 39: Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.]
[Footnote 40: American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.]
With reference to this family it is of interest to note that as early as
1798 Barton[41] compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquois
and stated his belief that there was a connection between them.
Gallatin, in the Archæologia Americana, refers to the opinion expressed
by Barton, and although he states that he is inclined to agree with that
author, yet he does not formally refer Cheroki to that family,
concluding that “We have not a sufficient knowledge of the grammar, and
generally of the language of the Five Nations, or of the Wyandots, to
decide that question.”[42]
[Footnote 41: New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of
America. Phila., 1798.]
[Footnote 42: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.]
Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the
affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois.[43] Recently extensive Cheroki
vocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a
careful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made by
Mr. Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of the
two languages as affirmed by Barton so long ago.
[Footnote 43: Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
Unlike most linguistic stocks, the Iroquoian tribes did not occupy a
continuous area, but when first known to Europeans were settled in three
distinct regions, separated from each other by tribes of other lineage.
The northern group was surrounded by tribes of Algonquian stock, while
the more southern groups bordered upon the Catawba and Maskoki.
A tradition of the Iroquois points to the St. Lawrence region as the
early home of the Iroquoian tribes, whence they gradually moved down to
the southwest along the shores of the Great Lakes.
When Cartier, in 1534, first explored the bays and inlets of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence he met a Huron-Iroquoian people on the shores of the Bay of
Gaspé, who also visited the northern coast of the gulf. In the following
year when he sailed up the St. Lawrence River he found the banks of the
river from Quebec to Montreal occupied by an Iroquoian people. From
statements of Champlain and other early explorers it seems probable that
the Wyandot once occupied the country along the northern shore of Lake
Ontario.
The Conestoga, and perhaps some allied tribes, occupied the country
about the Lower Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and have
commonly been regarded as an isolated body, but it seems probable that
their territory was contiguous to that of the Five Nations on the north
before the Delaware began their westward movement.
As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southern
colonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations,
they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to which
they had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract in
South Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of the
Edisto,[44] but about one-half of this tract, forming the present
Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree.[45] In 1755 they sold a
second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from
the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree),[46] but all of this tract east
of Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between the
Congaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in the
upper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawba
boundary.[48] In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and
West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha,[47] but the Iroquois
claimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of the
Alleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to the
Kentucky River,[49] and two years previously they had made a treaty
with Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners of
all between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee.[50]
The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which the
Cherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, the
Shawnee, about 1721.[51] The Cherokee had no villages north of the
Tennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and at
a conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquois
the skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as the
animal had been killed north of the Tennessee.[52] In 1805, 1806, and
1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in middle Tennessee, north of the
Tennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, but
this territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, and
at one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim.[53] The adjacent
tract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa,
was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to move
westward, about 1770.
[Footnote 44: Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]
[Footnote 45: Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4,
p. 163.]
[Footnote 46: Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]
[Footnote 47: Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp.
155-159.]
[Footnote 48: Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]
[Footnote 49: Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of
Pontiac, app.]
[Footnote 50: Bancroft, Hist. U.S.]
[Footnote 51: Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.]
[Footnote 52: Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.]
[Footnote 53: Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4,
p. 336.]
The whole region of West Virginia, Kentucky, and the Cumberland River
region of Tennessee was claimed by the Iroquois and Cherokee, but the
Iroquois never occupied any of it and the Cherokee could not be said to
occupy any beyond the Cumberland Mountains. The Cumberland River was
originally held by the Shawnee, and the rest was occupied, so far as it
was occupied at all, by the Shawnee, Delaware, and occasionally by the
Wyandot and Mingo (Iroquoian), who made regular excursions southward
across the Ohio every year to hunt and to make salt at the licks. Most
of the temporary camps or villages in Kentucky and West Virginia were
built by the Shawnee and Delaware. The Shawnee and Delaware were the
principal barrier to the settlement of Kentucky and West Virginia for a
period of 20 years, while in all that time neither the Cherokee nor the
Iroquois offered any resistance or checked the opposition of the Ohio
tribes.
The Cherokee bounds in Virginia should be extended along the mountain
region as far at least as the James River, as they claim to have lived
at the Peaks of Otter,[54] and seem to be identical with the Rickohockan
or Rechahecrian of the early Virginia writers, who lived in the
mountains beyond the Monacan, and in 1656 ravaged the lowland country as
far as the site of Richmond and defeated the English and the Powhatan
Indians in a pitched battle at that place.[55]
[Footnote 54: Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.]
[Footnote 55: Bancroft, Hist. U.S.]
The language of the Tuscarora, formerly of northeastern North Carolina,
connect them directly with the northern Iroquois. The Chowanoc and
Nottoway and other cognate tribes adjoining the Tuscarora may have been
offshoots from that tribe.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Cayuga.
Cherokee.
Conestoga.
Erie.
Mohawk.
Neuter.
Nottoway.
Oneida.
Onondaga.
Seneca.
Tionontate.
Tuscarora.
Wyandot.
_Population._--The present number of the Iroquoian stock is about
43,000, of whom over 34,000 (including the Cherokees) are in the United
States while nearly 9,000 are in Canada. Below is given the population
of the different tribes, compiled chiefly from the Canadian Indian
Report for 1888, and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890:
Cherokee:
Cherokee and Choctaw Nations, Indian Territory
(exclusive of adopted Indians, negroes, and whites) 25,557
Eastern Band, Qualla Reservation, Cheowah, etc., North Carolina
(exclusive of those practically white) 1,500?
Lawrence school, Kansas 6
------
27,063
Caughnawaga:
Caughnawaga, Quebec 1,673
Cayuga:
Grand River, Ontario 972?
With Seneca, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255) 128?
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 165
Other Reserves in New York 36
------
1,301?
“Iroquois”:
Of Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec, mainly Mohawk
(with Algonquin) 345
With Algonquin at Gibson, Ontario (total 131) 31?
------
376?
Mohawk:
Quinte Bay, Ontario 1,050
Grand River, Ontario 1,302
Tonawanda, Onondaga, and Cattaraugus Reserves, New York 6
------
2,358
Oneida:
Oneida and other Reserves, New York 295
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin (“including homeless Indians”) 1,716
Carlisle and Hampton schools 104
Thames River, Ontario 778
Grand River, Ontario 236
------
3,129
Onondaga:
Onondaga Reserve, New York 380
Allegany Reserve, New York 77
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 38
Tuscarora (41) and Tonawanda (4) Reserves, New York 45
Carlisle and Hampton schools 4
Grand River, Ontario 346
------
890
Seneca:
With Cayuga, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255) 127?
Allegany Reserve, New York 862
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 1,318
Tonawanda Reserve, New York 517
Tusarora and Onondaga Reserves, New York 12
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 13
Grand River, Ontario 206
------
3,055?
St. Regis:
St. Regis Reserve, New York 1,053
Onondaga and other Reserves, New York 17
St. Regis Reserve, Quebec 1,179
------
2,249
Tuscarora:
Tuscarora Reserve, New York 398
Cattaraugus and Tonawanda Reserves, New York 6
Grand River, Ontario 329
------
733
Wyandot:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 288
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 18
“Hurons” of Lorette, Quebec 279
“Wyandots” of Anderdon, Ontario 98
------
683
The Iroquois of St. Regis, Caughnawaga, Lake of Two Mountains (Oka), and
Gibson speak a dialect mainly Mohawk and Oneida, but are a mixture of
all the tribes of the original Five Nations.
KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.
= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 335, 1841
(includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon
languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599,
617, 1859, (follows Scouler).
= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet
Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., I pt. 1, c, 17,
77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in
Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog.
Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859.
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877.
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.
> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 639, 1883.
X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).
> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain
relationship to Calapooya).
Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooiah,
inhabiting “the fertile Willamat plains” and the Yamkallie, who live
“more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.”
Scouler adds that the Umpqua “appear to belong to this Family, although
their language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than the
Yamkallie is.” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascan
family. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascon
tribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan.
The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette
River, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to the headwaters
of that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River,
being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently were
not met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat were
derived solely from natives.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES
_Ahántchuyuk_
(Pudding River Indians).
Atfálati.
Calapooya.
Chelamela.
Lákmiut.
Santiam.
Yámil.
_Population._--So far as known the surviving Indians of this family are
all at the Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon.
The following is a census for 1890:
Atfálati 28
Calapooya 22
Lákmiut 29
Mary’s River 28
Santiam 27
Yámil 30
Yonkalla 7
---
Total 171
KARANKAWAN FAMILY.
= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus, XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary
of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 9, 1887.
The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley,
upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay).
In 1804 this author, upon hearsay evidence, stated their number to be
500 men.[56] In several places in the paper cited it is explicitly
stated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa was
a coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a
Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among
the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained,
which was all of the language he remembered.
[Footnote 56: Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.]
The vocabulary is unsatisfactory, not only because of its meagerness,
but because most of the terms are unimportant for comparison.
Nevertheless, such as it is, it represents all of the language that is
extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not
only from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as the
linguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the language
provisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than to
accept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially as
we know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed his
statement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language.
A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivors
of this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe has
been discovered and it is probable that not one is now living.
KERESAN FAMILY.
> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856
(includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).
= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San
Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate,
Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 417,
1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.
= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and
gives linguistic literature).
= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479,
1878.
= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855
(includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana,
Cochite, Sille).
= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479,
1878 (misprint; follows Lane).
= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855 (same
as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.
Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).
Derivation unknown. The name is pronounced with an explosive initial
sound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris.
Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies of
Kiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma.
The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They are
situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small
western affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also are
tributaries of the Rio Grande.
VILLAGES.
Acoma.
Acomita.[57]
Cochití.
Hasatch.
Laguna.
Paguate.
Pueblito.[57]
Punyeestye.
Punyekia.
Pusityitcho.
San Felipe.
Santa Ana.
Santo Domingo.
Seemunah.
Sia.
Wapuchuseamma.
Ziamma.
[Footnote 57: Summer pueblos only.]
_Population._--According to the census of 1890 the total population of
the villages of the family is 3,560, distributed as follows:
Acoma[58] 566
Cochití 268
Laguna[59] 1,143
Santa Ana 253
San Felipe 554
Santo Domingo 670
Sia 106
[Footnote 58: Includes Acomita and Pueblito.]
[Footnote 59: Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia,
Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.]
KIOWAN FAMILY.
= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (on
upper waters Arkansas).
= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based
on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache,
432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than
aught else”).
= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics
of).
Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning “Káyowe
man.” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat.”
The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been
Turner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the loss
of Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas and
Kaskaias languages were harsh, guttural, and extremely difficult.”[60]
Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieut. Whipple,
dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect
that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while
admitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any other
family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long
intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any
other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The
family is represented by the Kiowa tribe.
[Footnote 60: Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. II,
p. 133.]
So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since
known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home.
By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comanches
were assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, both
resigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims and
rights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of the
eastern boundary of New Mexico.
The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership of
territory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined the
Comanche on the northwest. In fact Pope[61] definitely locates the Kiowa
in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory
(Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of
other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the
Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear
upon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned them
upon the map.[62] This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne and
Arapaho of Algonquian stock.
[Footnote 61: Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.]
[Footnote 62: Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810,
pt. 3, p. 9.]
_Population._--According to the United States census for 1890 there are
1,140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian
Territory.
KITUNAHAN FAMILY.
= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the
forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52°
and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag.
Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).
= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).
= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).
= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).
= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.
= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).
= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with
Kitunaha).
= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area
occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 565, 1882.
= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary
of Upper Kootenuha).
= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after
Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El.
Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170,
1877.
= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).
This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha, Kutenay,
Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River, a branch of the
Columbia in Oregon.
Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of the
language spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southern
portions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are not
sufficient to definitely settle the question.
The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between the
northern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along the
Cootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied by
these tribes is in British Columbia.
TRIBES.
The principal divisions or tribes are Cootenai, or Upper Cootenai;
Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai; Klanoh-Klatklam, or Flathead Cootenai;
Yaketahnoklatakmakanay, or Tobacco Plains Cootenai.
_Population._--There are about 425 Cootenai at Flathead Agency, Montana,
and 539 at Kootenay Agency, British Columbia; total, 964.
KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.
= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 14,
1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).
= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848,
(Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).
< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846
(tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc.
Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham,
Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.
= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 433, 1847 (follows
Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 231, 1848.
< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a
subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s
Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas,
Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as
“doubtful Kolúches”).
= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid.,
1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus,
Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family
with short vocabulary).
= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and
population).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841
(includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).
= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 489, 1855.
= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of
N.W. coast tribes classified by language).
= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann,
676, 1859).
= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into
Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).
= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 1877 (divided into
Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).
= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460,
462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes,
Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas,
Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562,
579, 1882.
= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of
Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus,
Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and
gives population).
Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga,
meaning “dish,” the allusion being to the dish-shaped lip ornaments.
This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the
Tshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacent
coast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude.”
In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies to
the Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as the
Kinai, are more marked than in any other.
The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially in
accordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southern
boundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by the
census agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farther
north than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Prince
of Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal,
indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouth
of Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have been
supposed to be exclusively an insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawson
has made the interesting discovery[63] that the Tagish, a tribe living
inland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto been
supposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family.
This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, which
for the most part limits the extension of this people inland and
confines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanent
foothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboring
Athapascan tribes.
[Footnote 63: Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada,
1887.]
TRIBES.
Auk.
Chilcat.
Hanega.
Hoodsunu.
Hunah.
Kek.
Sitka.
Stahkin.
Tagish.
Taku.
Tongas.
Yakutat.
_Population._--The following figures are from the census of 1880.[64]
The total population of the tribes of this family, exclusive of the
Tagish, is 6,437, distributed as follows:
Auk 640
Chilcat 988
Hanega (including Kouyon
and Klanak) 587
Hoodsunu 666
Hunah 908
Kek 568
Sitka 721
Stahkin 317
Taku 269
Tongas 273
Yakutat 500
[Footnote 64: Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and
Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.]
KULANAPAN FAMILY.
X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 431, 1853 (the
name of one of the Clear Lake bands).
> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name
suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu
languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410,
1863 (as above).
> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly, IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general
description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III,
146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro,
Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana,
Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am.
Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto,
Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos,
Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).
< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah,
Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios,
Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju.
Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).
The name applied to this family was first employed by Gibbs in 1853, as
above cited. He states that it is the “name of one of the Clear Lake
bands,” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupying
the large valley.” The distinctness of the language is now generally
admitted.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by the
Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on the
north by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a line
drawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory,
near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of this
family, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located in
the valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, and
on the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow strip
to the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the main
body by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north by
the warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language and
many of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to have
extensively intermarried with them.
TRIBES.
Balló Kaì Pomo, “Oat Valley People.”
Batemdikáyi.
Búldam Pomo (Rio Grande or Big River).
Chawishek.
Choam Chadila Pomo (Capello).
Chwachamajù.
Dápishul Pomo (Redwood Cañon).
Eastern People (Clear Lake about Lakeport).
Erío (mouth of Russian River).
Erússi (Fort Ross).
Gallinoméro (Russian River Valley below Cloverdale
and in Dry Creek Valley).
Grualála (northwest corner of Sonoma County).
Kabinapek (western part of Clear Lake basin).
Kaimé (above Healdsburgh).
Kai Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).
Kastel Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).
Kato Pomo, “Lake People.”
Komácho (Anderson and Rancheria Valleys).
Kulá Kai Pomo (Sherwood Valley).
Kulanapo.
Láma (Russian River Valley).
Misálamagūn or Musakakūn (above Healdsburgh).
Mitoám Kai Pomo, “Wooded Valley People” (Little Lake).
Poam Pomo.
Senel (Russian River Valley).
Shódo Kaí Pomo (Coyote Valley).
Síako (Russian River Valley).
Sokóa (Russian River Valley).
Yokáya Pomo, “Lower Valley People” (Ukiah City).
Yusâl (or Kámalel) Pomo, “Ocean People”
(on coast and along Yusal Creek).
KUSAN FAMILY.
= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.
Derivation: Milhau, in a manuscript letter to Gibbs (Bureau of
Ethnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to mean
lake, lagoon or inland bay.”
The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on a
river of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet.[65] Lewis and
Clarke[66] also mention them in the same location as the Cookkoo-oose.
The tribe was referred to also under the name Kaus by Latham,[67] who
did not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for the
purpose.
[Footnote 65: U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.]
[Footnote 66: Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.]
[Footnote 67: Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.]
Mr. Gatschet, as above, distinguishes the language as forming a distinct
stock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River and
Bay, and at the mouth of Coquille River, Oregon.
TRIBES.
Anasitch.
Melukitz.
Mulluk or Lower Coquille.
Nacu?.
_Population._--Most of the survivors of this family are gathered upon
the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated as
the agency returns are not given by tribes.
LUTUAMIAN FAMILY.
= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters
Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850
(headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854. Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310,
1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).
= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).
= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of
Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of
Lutuami).
= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach.
Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general
remarks upon family).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475,
1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in
addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs,
Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots,
Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel
River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct
families). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami
or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan
family).
= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,
II, pt. 1, XXXIII, 1890.
Derivation: From a Pit River word meaning “lake.”
The tribes of this family appear from time immemorial to have occupied
Little and Upper Klamath Lakes, Klamath Marsh, and Sprague River,
Oregon. Some of the Modoc have been removed to the Indian Territory,
where 84 now reside; others are in Sprague River Valley.
The language is a homogeneous one and, according to Mr. Gatschet who has
made a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions of
the family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language.
The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people.” The Modoc
are termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people.”
TRIBES.
Klamath.
Modoc.
_Population._--There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on the Klamath
Reservation in 1889. Since then they have slightly decreased.
MARIPOSAN FAMILY.
> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons
language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El.
Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).
= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid.,
570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s
River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).
= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches,
Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in
Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.
Derivation: A Spanish word meaning “butterfly,” applied to a county in
California and subsequently taken for the family name.
Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon,
each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are
classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking
languages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the family
name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound
basis, his name is here restored.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. On
the north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of its
junction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeast
corner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on the
west by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middle
of the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on the
south, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along the
foothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shore
of Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from the
southeast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of the
Sierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On the
east the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposan
boundary.
In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the eastern
bank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of the
Mariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the San
Joaquin turns to the west before entering Suisun Bay.
TRIBES.
Ayapaì (Tule River).
Chainímaini (lower King’s River).
Chukaímina (Squaw Valley).
Chūk’chansi (San Joaquin River above Millerton).
Ćhunut (Kaweah River at the lake).
Coconūn´ (Merced River).
Ititcha (King’s River).
Kassovo (Day Creek).
Kau-í-a (Kaweah River; foothills).
Kiawétni (Tule River at Porterville).
Mayáyu (Tule River, south fork).
Notoánaiti (on the lake).
Ochíngita (Tule River).
Pitkachì (extinct; San Joaquin River below Millerton).
Pohállin Tinleh (near Kern lake).
Sawákhtu (Tule River, south fork).
Táchi (Kingston).
Télumni (Kaweah River below Visalia).
Tínlinneh (Fort Tejon).
Tisèchu (upper King’s River).
Wíchikik (King’s River).
Wikchúmni (Kaweah River; foothills).
Wíksachi (upper Kaweah Valley).
Yúkol (Kaweah River plains).
_Population._--There are 145 of the Indians of this family now attached
to the Mission Agency, California.
MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.
> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853
(mentioned as a band and dialect).
> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856
(includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi,
Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band of
Aplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyem vocabulary, Cocouyem and
Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters
for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras,
Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco).
Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same
as above).
= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general
account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am.
Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in
Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).
< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of
Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke).
Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of
family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.
X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel,
Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches,
Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).
Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County,
California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is
Wakalumitoh.
The Talatui mentioned by Hale[68] as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River
belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the
language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere
expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a
family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an
incomplete vocabulary.
[Footnote 68: U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.]
It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was
fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author
gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and
dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne
from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem
vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke
of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally
the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los
Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San
Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of
Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans,
Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan
language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the
affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the next
group, especially in that of the Ruslen.” He adds: “Nevertheless, for
the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of
speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San
Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have
confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of
the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be
distinct.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by
the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the
Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the
exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part
of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San
Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the
Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a
line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa
Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the
northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Miwok division: Olamentke division:
Awani. Olowidok. Bollanos.
Chauchila. Olowit. Chokuyem.
Chumidok. Olowiya. Guimen.
Chumtiwa. Sakaiakumni. Likatuit.
Chumuch. Seroushamne. Nicassias.
Chumwit. Talatui. Numpali.
Hettitoya. Tamoleka. Olamentke.
Kani. Tumidok. Olumpali.
Lopolatimne. Tumun. Sonomi.
Machemni. Walakumni. Tamal.
Mokelumni. Yuloni. Tulare.
Newichumni. Utchium.
_Population._--Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive,
and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes
of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate
census has not been taken.
In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin
County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none
remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San
Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at
Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a
woman.
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 94,
306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard,
Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles,
Hitchittees).
> Muskhogies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid.,
1852.
> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws,
Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).
= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 50, 1884 (general account
of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta).
Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II,
119, 1836.
> Chocta-Muskhog, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix,
77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with
reference to migration).
> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 100, 306,
1836 (or Choctaws).
> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs
or Flatheads).
> Tschahtas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid.,
1852.
> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs,
Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856.
Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.
> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.
> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or
Choktahs).
> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).
> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above
New Orleans).
Derivation: From the name of the principal tribe of the Creek
Confederacy.
In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, who
lived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on the
Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula of
Florida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies,
that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under this
family. In fact, he called[69] the family Choctaw Muskhogee. In
deference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were kept
separate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to be
fully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in
1836, and calls the family the Chocta-Muskhog.
[Footnote 69: On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The area occupied by this family was very extensive. It may be described
in a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlantic
west to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to the
Tennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribes
except the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some small
settlements of Shawni.
Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creek
claimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasi
are believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to the
eighteenth century.[70] The territorial line between the Muskhogean
family and the Catawba tribe in South Carolina can only be conjectured.
[Footnote 70: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.]
It seems probable that the whole peninsula of Florida was at one time
held by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when the
Apalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also were
forced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasi
were the only Indians that held possession of the Floridian peninsula.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Alibamu.
Apalachi.
Chicasa.
Choctaw.
Creek or Maskoki proper.
Koasáti.
Seminole.
Yamacraw.
Yamasi.
_Population._--There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory,
an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants
are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria,
Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.
So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and
they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States
Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at
9,996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the
Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539;
of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.
There are four families of Koasáti, about twenty-five individuals, near
the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are
known to survive.
NATCHESAN FAMILY.
> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 95, 806,
1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 402, 403, 1847.
> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat.
Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas,
Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the
Utchees).
> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 29, 1887.
> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am.
Antiq., IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 33, 1884.
Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).
The Na’htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation
of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the
Creek less than one hundred years ago.[71] The seashore from Mobile to
the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the
Na’htchi was the principal.
[Footnote 71: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.]
Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St.
Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of
the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They
are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.
The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have
long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As
no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the
“Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et
commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in
1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar
interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the
above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic
isolation of the language.
Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have,
however, more recently been brought forward.[72] The text contains
internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at
least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these
that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the
inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a
competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and
grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence
whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.
[Footnote 72: D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885,
pp. 109-114.]
D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa
towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most
of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade
jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which
is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we
can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of
the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of
the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that
effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the
Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be
totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To
supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements
of M. de Montigny, the missionary who affirmed the affinity of the
Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the
latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the
present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of
the Na’htchi.
The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the
Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of
the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the
French upon Mobile Bay.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Na’htchi.
Taensa.
_Population._--There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian
Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.
PALAIHNIHAN FAMILY.
= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in
family sense).
= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast
of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of
Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in
Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham
in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities).
Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848.
(after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).
= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three
principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or
Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat;
quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.
= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs. of
A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of
tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa,
Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475,
1878 (includes Palaiks).
< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of
present family).
Derivation: From the Klamath word _p’laikni_, signifying “mountaineers”
or “uplanders” (Gatschet).
In two places[73] Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks
interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of
linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this
is given preference over the shorter form of the name.
[Footnote 73: U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.]
Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River
dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of
the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,”
* * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simple languages of the Sacramento.”
He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian
tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to
believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related
to the Sastean languages.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami
(Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in
extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round
Valley Reservation, California.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the
following principal tribal divisions:[74]
Achomâ´wi.
Atua´mih.
Chumâ´wa.
Estake´wach.
Hante´wa.
Humâ´whi.
Ilmâ´wi.
Pakamalli?
[Footnote 74: Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.]
PIMAN FAMILY.
= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from
the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R.
R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve,
Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427,
1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui,
Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877
(includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429,
1877 (defines area and gives habitat).
Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or
languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the
five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and
Sinaloa.
The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct
language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River,
Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also
described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the
Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological Society
Journal, vol. XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian
Tribes, vol. III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was
collected by Lieut. Whipple.
Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is
included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico
where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in
the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The
former have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the
Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the
Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no
longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to
the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been
separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly
continuous to the Gila River.
According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language
is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be
demonstrated.[75]
[Footnote 75: Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der
Koloschen, pp. 321-432.]
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Northern group:
Opata.
Papago.
Pima.
Southern group:
Cahita.
Cora.
Tarahumara.
Tepeguana.
_Population._--Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within
our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,[76] are
Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.
[Footnote 76: According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.]
PUJUNAN FAMILY.
> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains
Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham,
Opuscula, 346, 1860.
> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.
= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and
tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 282, 1877 (same as
Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586
(vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,”
Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).
> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers
this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).
> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 313, 1877
(distinguishes them from Maidu family).
X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne,
Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).
The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni,
Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted
for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.[77] This was one of
the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as
derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be
divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but
language.”
[Footnote 77: U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, p. 631.]
Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale
did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a
family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled
later.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom
we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They
occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning
some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a
short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the
Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of
the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming
them in in this direction.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Bayu. Olla.
Boka. Otaki.
Eskin. Paupákan.
Hélto. Pusúna.
Hoak. Taitchida.
Hoankut. Tíshum.
Hololúpai. Toámtcha.
Koloma. Tosikoyo.
Konkau. Toto.
Kū´lmeh. Ustóma.
Kulomum. Wapúmni.
Kwatóa. Wima.
Nakum. Yuba.
QUORATEAN FAMILY.
> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853
(proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).
> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 423, 1853 (given as
name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).
> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of
Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.
= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath
and Salmon Rivers).
= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid.,
447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).
< Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475,
1878 (cited as including Cahrocs).
Derivation: Name of a band at mouth of Salmon River, California.
Etymology unknown.
This family name is equivalent to the Cahroc or Karok of Powers and
later authorities.
In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of
his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remark that it
is “The name of a band at the mouth of the Salmon, or Quoratem river.”
He adds that “This latter name may perhaps be considered as proper to
give to the family, should it be held one.” He defines the territory
occupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluff
creek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty or
forty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point to
point.”
The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficiently
formal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated by
Gibbs.
In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band,
locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti and
Lutuami areas.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, though
the main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupy
both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above
Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its
mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the
Athapascan territory near the Oregon line.
TRIBES.
Ehnek.
Karok.
Pehtsik.
_Population._--According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in the
region in 1889, the Indians of this family number about 600.
SALINAN FAMILY.
< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San
Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.
> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary
of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).
< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as
containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,
VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).
X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).
Derivation: From river of same name.
The language formerly spoken at the Missions of San Antonio and San
Miguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtful
position. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from each
other, but from all other languages. Others have held that they
represent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group of
languages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearly
that the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wise
related to any other family.
The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is a
heterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than four
distinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to this
group, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco,”
really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to the
Mendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoan
family mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslen
and Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio,
and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong within
the drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied to
them, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name.
_Population._--Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably never
very populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, when
first established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively
1,400 and 1,300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these converts
were gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belonged
to this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he was
able to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of this
family, and not all of these could speak their own language.
SALISHAN FAMILY.
> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134, 306, 1836 (or
Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50,
1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).
X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474,
1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi,
Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).
= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 618, 1882.
> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab.
of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884
(vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).
> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853
(obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).
= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and
tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.
< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877
(includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).
> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846
(includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale,
Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,
II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas,
map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper,
Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish,
Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl,
Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).
> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134, 135, 306, 1836
(on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 427, 1847 (on
Fraser River).
> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856
(Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).
X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224,
1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum,
Squallyamish of present family).
X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).
X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).
X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).
> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 154, 1848 (assigns
Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives
Tolmie’s vocabulary).
> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon
River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same).
Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.
> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas
only; specimen vocabulary).
> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of
Noothlākimish).
> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions
Sātsq, Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).
X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848
(cited as including Billechola).
> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of
Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap,
Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits,
Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).
X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including
Klallems).
X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).
X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).
X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums,
Kwantlums, Teets of present family).
X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains the following
Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish,
Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo,
Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).
< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually,
Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums,
Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last
being Salishan).
> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).
> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of
Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).
> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.
> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or
Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).
The extent of the Salish or Flathead family was unknown to Gallatin, as
indeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which he
gives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribe
is stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the Columbia
River, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s River
or the most northern branch of Lewis’s River.” The former supposition
was correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a single
tribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, were
considered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible as
the family name; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few words
from the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given by
Gallatin in Archæologia Americana, II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong under
this family.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
Since Gallatin’s time, through the labors of Riggs, Hale, Tolmie,
Dawson, Boas, and others, our knowledge of the territorial limits of
this linguistic family has been greatly extended. The most southern
outpost of the family, the Tillamook and Nestucca, were established on
the coast of Oregon, about 50 miles to the south of the Columbia, where
they were quite separated from their kindred to the north by the
Chinookan tribes. Beginning on the north side of Shoalwater Bay,
Salishan tribes held the entire northwestern part of Washington,
including the whole of the Puget Sound region, except only the Macaw
territory about Cape Flattery, and two insignificant spots, one near
Port Townsend, the other on the Pacific coast to the south of Cape
Flattery, which were occupied by Chimakuan tribes. Eastern Vancouver
Island to about midway of its length was also held by Salishan tribes,
while the great bulk of their territory lay on the mainland opposite and
included much of the upper Columbia. On the south they were hemmed in
mainly by the Shahaptian tribes. Upon the east Salishan tribes dwelt to
a little beyond the Arrow Lakes and their feeder, one of the extreme
north forks of the Columbia. Upon the southeast Salishan tribes extended
into Montana, including the upper drainage of the Columbia. They were
met here in 1804 by Lewis and Clarke. On the northeast Salish territory
extended to about the fifty-third parallel. In the northwest it did not
reach the Chilcat River.
Within the territory thus indicated there is considerable diversity of
customs and a greater diversity of language. The language is split into
a great number of dialects, many of which are doubtless mutually
unintelligible.
The relationship of this family to the Wakashan is a very interesting
problem. Evidences of radical affinity have been discovered by Boas and
Gatschet, and the careful study of their nature and extent now being
prosecuted by the former may result in the union of the two, though
until recently they have been considered quite distinct.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Atnah. Pentlatc. Skitsuish.
Bellacoola. Pisquow. Skokomish.
Chehalis. Puyallup. Skopamish.
Clallam. Quaitso. Sktehlmish.
Colville. Queniut. Smulkamish.
Comux. Queptlmamish. Snohomish.
Copalis. Sacumehu. Snoqualmi.
Cowichin. Sahewamish. Soke.
Cowlitz. Salish. Songish.
Dwamish. Samamish. Spokan.
Kwantlen. Samish. Squawmisht.
Lummi. Sanetch. Squaxon.
Met’how. Sans Puell. Squonamish.
Nanaimo. Satsop. Stehtsasamish.
Nanoos. Sawamish. Stillacum.
Nehalim. Sekamish. Sumass.
Nespelum. Shomamish. Suquamish.
Nicoutamuch. Shooswap. Swinamish.
Nisqualli. Shotlemamish. Tait.
Nuksahk. Skagit. Tillamook.
Okinagan. Skihwamish. Twana.
Pend d’Oreilles.
_Population._--The total Salish population of British Columbia is
12,325, inclusive of the Bellacoola, who number, with the Hailtzuk,
2,500, and those in the list of unclassified, who number 8,522,
distributed as follows:
Under the Fraser River Agency, 4,986; Kamloops Agency, 2,579; Cowichan
Agency, 1,852; Okanagan Agency, 942; Williams Lake Agency, 1,918;
Kootenay Agency, 48.
Most of the Salish in the United States are on reservations. They number
about 5,500, including a dozen small tribes upon the Yakama Reservation,
which have been consolidated with the Clickatat (Shahaptian) through
intermarriage. The Salish of the United States are distributed as
follows (Indian Affairs Report, 1889, and U.S. Census Bulletin, 1890):
Colville Agency, Washington, Coeur d’ Alene, 422; Lower Spokane, 417;
Lake, 303; Colville, 247; Okinagan, 374; Kespilem, 67; San Pueblo (Sans
Puell), 300; Calispel, 200; Upper Spokane, 170.
Puyallup Agency, Washington, Quaitso, 82; Quinaielt (Queniut), 101;
Humptulip, 19; Puyallup, 563; Chehalis, 135; Nisqually, 94; Squaxon, 60;
Clallam, 351; Skokomish, 191; Oyhut, Hoquiam, Montesano, and Satsup, 29.
Tulalip Agency, Washington, Snohomish, 443; Madison, 144; Muckleshoot,
103; Swinomish, 227; Lummi, 295.
Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon, Tillamook, 5.
SASTEAN FAMILY.
= Saste, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846. Gallatin in
Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik.
Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 572, 1859.
= Shasty, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 1846 (= Saste). Buschmann,
Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 573, 1859 (= Saste).
= Shasties, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 569, 1846 (= Saste).
Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Shasti, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (southwest of Lutuami).
Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond., VI, 82, 1854. Latham, ibid, 74,
1856. Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860 (allied to both Shoshonean and
Shahaptian families). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Shaste, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (mentions
Watsa-he’-wa, a Scott’s River band).
= Sasti, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(= Shasties).
= Shasta, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 607, 1877. Gatschet in Mag.
Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
= Shas-ti-ka, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 243, 1877.
= Shasta, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (= Shasteecas).
< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (includes Palaik,
Watsahewah, Shasta).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878
(contains Shastas of present family).
Derivation: The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his
name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath
tribes. He calls the tribe indifferently Shasties or Shasty, but the
form applied by him to the family (see pp. 218, 569) is Saste, which
accordingly is the one taken.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the
Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade
range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills
east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the
Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the
Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland,
Oregon.
SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY.
X Shahaptan, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc., XI, 225, 1841 (three
tribes, Shahaptan or Nez-percés, Kliketat, Okanagan; the latter being
Salishan).
< Shahaptan, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 428, 1847 (two classes,
Nez-perces proper of mountains, and Polanches of plains; includes also
Kliketat and Okanagan).
> Sahaptin, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 198, 212, 542, 1846
(Shahaptin or Nez-percés, Wallawallas, Pelooses, Yakemas, Klikatats).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 14, 1848 (follows
Hale). Gallatin, ibid., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (Nez-percés only).
Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft,
Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Nez-perces and Wallawallas). Dall, after
Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Taitinapam and
Kliketat).
> Saptin, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 428, 1847 (or Shahaptan).
< Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (includes Wallawallas,
Kliketat, Proper Sahaptin or Nez-percés, Pelús, Yakemas, Cayús?).
Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (includes Waiilatpu).
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 614, 615, 1859. Latham,
Opuscula, 340, 1860 (as in 1856). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862
(vocabularies Sahaptin, Wallawalla, Kliketat). Keane, App. Stanford’s
Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Palouse, Walla
Wallas, Yakimas, Tairtlas, Kliketats or Pshawanwappams, Cayuse,
Mollale; the two last are Waiilatpuan).
= Sahaptin, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 168, 1877 (defines habitat and
enumerates tribes of). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.
Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 620, 1882.
> Shahaptani, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 78, 1884 (Whulwhaipum
tribe).
< Nez-percés, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 428, 1847 (see
Shahaptan). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (see his Sahaptin).
X Seliah, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 241, 1877
(includes Yakama which belongs here).
Derivation: From a Selish word of unknown significance.
The Shahaptan family of Scouler comprised three tribes--the Shahaptan or
Nez Percés, the Kliketat, a scion of the Shahaptan, dwelling near Mount
Ranier, and the Okanagan, inhabiting the upper part of Fraser River and
its tributaries; “these tribes were asserted to speak dialects of the
same language.” Of the above tribes the Okinagan are now known to be
Salishan.
The vocabularies given by Scouler were collected by Tolmie. The term
“Sahaptin” appears on Gallatin’s map of 1836, where it doubtless refers
only to the Nez Percé tribe proper, with respect to whose linguistic
affinities Gallatin apparently knew nothing at the time. At all events
the name occurs nowhere in his discussion of the linguistic families.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The tribes of this family occupied a large section of country along the
Columbia and its tributaries. Their western boundary was the Cascade
Mountains; their westernmost bands, the Klikitat on the north, the Tyigh
and Warm Springs on the south, enveloping for a short distance the
Chinook territory along the Columbia which extended to the Dalles.
Shahaptian tribes extended along the tributaries of the Columbia for a
considerable distance, their northern boundary being indicated by about
the forty-sixth parallel, their southern by about the forty-fourth.
Their eastern extension was interrupted by the Bitter Root Mountains.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.
Chopunnish (Nez Percé), 1,515 on Nez Percé Reservation, Idaho.
Klikitat, say one-half of 330 natives, on Yakama Reservation,
Washington.
Paloos, Yakama Reservation, number unknown.
Tenaino, 69 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.
Tyigh, 430 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.
Umatilla, 179 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
Walla Walla, 405 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 120,
133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI,
218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin
in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin,
ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft,
Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3,
55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo).
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.
> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846
(Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.
> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes;
both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).
= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach,
Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.
< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 567, 661, 1882.
> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 120, 133,
1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 1846 (as under
Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 429, 1847 (as under
Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under
Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as
under Shoshonees).
< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878
(contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).
> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language
only).
> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).
> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches,
Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853)
in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast,
Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856.
Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.
< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks,
Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?,
Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp.
Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni,
Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo,
Kioway, the latter not belonging here).
> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 76,
1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San
Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).
> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or
Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).
In his synopsis of the Indian tribes[78] Gallatin’s reference to this
great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of
“some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of the
river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to
be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the
family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his list of tribes and
vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is
sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group.
The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.
[Footnote 78: Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 1836.]
Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a
northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence
presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin
of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into
Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel
or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of
the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative
of Lewis and Clarke[79] contains the explicit statement that the
Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home
was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their
own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains,
whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree
(Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is
indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite
indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was
formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the
finest portion of southwestern Montana,[80] whence apparently they were
being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.[81] Upon the
east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,
where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied
southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was
held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts
of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne
(Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country
included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a
short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family
extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the
Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha
tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River,
probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe
on the upper Kansas River in 1724.[82] According to Pike the Comanche
territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the
head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande.[83] How
far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is
not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down
into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years,
viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian
Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory
was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on
both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan
on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork.[84] The Kwaiantikwoket
also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain,
while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including
one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado
Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across
California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their
extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which
territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving
a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.[85]
[Footnote 79: Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.]
[Footnote 80: U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.]
[Footnote 81: Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.]
[Footnote 82: Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.]
[Footnote 83: Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16,
1810.]
[Footnote 84: Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.]
[Footnote 85: Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.]
A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the
heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly
the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The
entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni
extraction.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.
Bannock, 514 on Fort Hall Reservation
and 75 on the Lemhi Reservation, Idaho.
Chemehuevi, about 202 attached to the Colorado River Agency, Arizona.
Comanche, 1,598 on the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation,
Indian Territory.
Gosiute, 256 in Utah at large.
Pai Ute, about 2,300 scattered in southeastern California and
southwestern Nevada.
Paviotso, about 3,000 scattered in western Nevada and southern Oregon.
Saidyuka, 145 under Klamath Agency.
Shoshoni, 979 under Fort Hall Agency and 249 at the Lemhi Agency.
Tobikhar, about 2,200, under the Mission Agency, California.
Tukuarika, or Sheepeaters, 108 at Lemhi Agency.
Tusayan (Moki), 1,996 (census of 1890).
Uta, 2,839 distributed as follows:
985 under Southern Ute Agency, Colorado;
1,021 on Ouray Reserve, Utah;
833 on Uintah Reserve, Utah.
SIOUAN FAMILY.
X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 121, 306,
1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist.
Mankind, V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth.
Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik.
Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes,
Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family).
Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.
> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 87, 1836
(Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 245, et map, 1840.
Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.
> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied).
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian, IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek
Mig. Legend, I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306, 1836
(numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently
noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)
> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 243, 1840.
> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862
(treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas,
Iowas).
> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties,
Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas,
Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas,
Minnetarees.)
> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
Derivation: A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,” “the
snake-like ones,” “the enemies” (Trumbull).
Under the family Gallatin makes four subdivisions, viz, the Winnebagos,
the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins, the Minnetare group, and the
Osages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distribution
of the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats on
the Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock River
of the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gens
du Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north to
Spirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoans
inhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and that
on the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of the
Red River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, the
Yanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and the
Missouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distance
west of the Missouri, between 43° and 47° of latitude. The “Shyennes”
are included in the family but are marked as doubtfully belonging here.
Owing to the fact that “Sioux” is a word of reproach and means snake or
enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family
designation, and “Dakota,” which signifies friend or ally, has been
employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly
synonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or
family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him
to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense
only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here
employed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin
to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of
the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of
the term with this signification should be perpetuated.
It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting
the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe
known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin
thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban
language with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,” though these were not
sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the
first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a
considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba
linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by
the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its
inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the only
exceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba and
Woccon.
Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend of
Siouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistoric
times, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the Mississippi
River.
The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the Hudson
Bay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part of
the watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi.
It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distance
on the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line ran
eastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to the
Winnebago.[86]
[Footnote 86: See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.]
It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing the
Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began the
Algonquian territory (Sac, etc.) on the west side of the Mississippi,
extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returned
to the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of the
present States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied by
Algonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a short
distance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ran
west of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, and
Mississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties,
Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippi
became the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan from
the Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerly
tribe in the main Siouan territory. In 1673[87] they were east of the
Mississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansas
and two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, in
our present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the opposite
side, in Arkansas. Shea says[88] that the Kaskaskias were found by De
Soto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up the
Mississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and the
northeast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged to
Algonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason for
believing that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, or
a sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable to
compromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all of
Arkansas up to about 36° north.
[Footnote 87: Marquette’s Autograph Map.]
[Footnote 88: Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.]
On the southwest of the Siouan family was the Southern Caddoan group,
the boundary extending from the west side of the Mississippi River in
Louisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and running
northwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana;
thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansas
and Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osages
came in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the western
boundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latter
being recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of the
Kansa or Kaw.
The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska and
northwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from the
Kansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the east
from Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoples
occupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of the
Elkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrara
in northern Nebraska.
There seems to be sufficient evidence for assigning to the Crows
(Siouan) the northwest corner of Nebraska (i.e., that part north of the
Kiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (not
claimed by Cheyenne[89]), as well as the northern part of Wyoming and
the southern part of Montana, where they met the Shoshonean stock.[90]
[Footnote 89: See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp.
124, 5481-5489.]
[Footnote 90: Lewis and Clarke, Trav., Lond., 1807, p. 25. Lewis
and Clarke, Expl., 1874, vol. 2, p. 390. A. L. Riggs, MS. letter
to Dorsey, 1876 or 1877. Dorsey, Ponka tradition: “The Black Hills
belong to the Crows.” That the Dakotas were not there till this
century see Corbusier’s Dakota Winter Counts, in 4th Rept. Bur.
Eth., p. 130, where it is also said that the Crow were the
original owners of the Black Hills.]
The Biloxi habitat in 1699 was on the Pascogoula river,[91] in the
southeast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxi
subsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found by
Mr. Gatschet in 1886.
[Footnote 91: Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.]
The Tutelo habitat in 1671 was in Brunswick County, southern Virginia,
and it probably included Lunenburgh and Mecklenburg Counties.[92] The
Earl of Bellomont (1699) says[93] that the Shateras were “supposed to be
the Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia,” and Pownall, in his map of
North America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i.e., Big Sandy) River.
Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to North
Carolina.[94] They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined the
Nottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed into
Pennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, where
they joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand River
Reservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The last
full-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of the
Siouan affinity of the Tutelo language we are indebted to Mr. Hale.
[Footnote 92: Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194.
Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.]
[Footnote 93: Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.]
[Footnote 94: Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860,
p. 384.]
The Catawba lived on the river of the same name on the northern boundary
of South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leading
people of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of the
Carolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in North
Carolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers.
The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of the
same linguistic connection.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
I. _Dakota_.
(A) Santee: include Mde´-wa-kaⁿ-toⁿ-waⁿ (Spirit Lake village, Santee
Reservation, Nebraska), and Wa-qpe´-ku-te (Leaf Shooters);
some on Fort Peck Reservation, Montana.
(B) Sisseton (Si-si´-toⁿ-waⁿ), on Sisseton Reservation, South Dakota,
and part on Devil’s Lake Reservation, North Dakota.
(C) Wahpeton (Wa-qpe´-toⁿ-waⁿ, Wa-hpe-ton-wan); Leaf village.
Some on Sisseton Reservation; most on Devil’s Lake Reservation.
(D) Yankton (I-hañk´-toⁿ-waⁿ), at Yankton Reservation, South Dakota.
(E) Yanktonnais (I-hañk´-toⁿ-waⁿ´-na); divided into _Upper_ and
_Lower_. Of the _Upper Yanktonnais_, there are some of the
_Cut-head band_ (Pa´-ba-ksa gens) on Devil’s Lake Reservation.
_Upper Yanktonnais_, most are on Standing Rock Reservation, North
Dakota; _Lower Yanktonnais_, most are on Crow Creek Reservation,
South Dakota, some are on Standing Rock Reservation, and some on
Fort Peck Reservation, Montana.
(F) Teton (Ti-toⁿ-waⁿ); some on Fort Peck Reservation, Montana.
(a) _Brulé_ (Si-tcaⁿ´-xu); some are on Standing Rock Reservation.
Most of the _Upper Brulé_ (Highland Sitcaⁿxu) are on Rosebud
Reservation, South Dakota. Most of the _Lower Brulé_ (Lowland
Sitcaⁿxu) are on Lower Brulé Reservation, South Dakota.
(b) _Sans Arcs_ (I-ta´-zip-tco´, Without Bows).
Most are on Cheyenne Reservation, South Dakota; some on Standing
Rock Reservation.
(c) _Blackfeet_ (Si-ha´sa´-pa).
Most are on Cheyenne Reservation; some on Standing Rock
Reservation.
(d) _Minneconjou_ (Mi´-ni-ko´-o-ju).
Most are on Cheyenne Reservation, some are on Rosebud Reservation,
and some on Standing Rock Reservation.
(e) _Two Kettles_ (O-o´-he-noⁿ´-pa, Two Boilings), on Cheyenne
Reservation.
(f) _Ogalalla_ (O-gla´-la). Most on Pine Ridge Reservation, South
Dakota; some on Standing Rock Reservation. _Wa-ża-ża_ (Wa-ja-ja,
Wa-zha-zha), a gens of the Oglala (Pine Ridge Reservation);
_Loafers_ (Wa-glu-xe, In-breeders), a gens of the Oglala;
most on Pine Ridge Reservation; some on Rosebud Reservation.
(g) _Uncpapa_ (1862-’63), _Uncapapa_ (1880-’81), (Huñ´-kpa-pa), on
Standing Rock Reservation.
II. _Assinaboin_ (Hohe, Dakota name); most in British North America;
some on Fort Peck Reservation, Montana.
III. _Omaha_ (U-maⁿ´-haⁿ), on Omaha Reservation, Nebraska.
IV. _Ponca_ (formerly _Ponka_ on maps; Ponka); 605 on Ponca Reservation,
Indian Territory; 217 at Santee Agency, Nebraska.
[Transcriber’s Note: [K] and [S] represent inverted K and S]
V. _Kaw_ ([K]aⁿ´-ze; the Kansa Indians); on the Kansas Reservation,
Indian Territory.
VI. _Osage_; _Big Osage_ (Pa-he´-tsi, Those on a Mountain); _Little
Osage_ (Those at the foot of the Mountain); _Arkansas Band_
([S]an-ʇsu-ʞ¢iⁿ, Dwellers in a Highland Grove), Osage Reservation,
Indian Territory.
VII. _Quapaw_ (U-ʞa´-qpa; Kwapa). A few are on the Quapaw Reserve, but
about 200 are on the Osage Reserve, Oklahoma. (They are the _Arkansa_
of early times.)
VIII. _Iowa_, on Great Nemaha Reserve, Kansas and Nebraska, and 86 on
Sac and Fox Reserve, Indian Territory.
IX. _Otoe_ (Wa-to´-qta-ta), on Otoe Reserve, Indian Territory.
X. _Missouri_ or _Missouria_ (Ni-u´-t’a-tci), on Otoe Reserve.
XI. _Winnebago_ (Ho-tcañ´-ga-ra); most in Nebraska, on their reserve:
some are in Wisconsin; some in Michigan, according to Dr. Reynolds.
XII. _Mandan_, on Fort Berthold Reserve, North Dakota.
XIII. _Gros Ventres_ (a misleading name; syn. _Minnetaree_; Hi-da´-tsa);
on the same reserve.
XIV. _Crow_ (Absáruqe, Aubsároke, etc.), Crow Reserve, Montana.
XV. _Tutelo_ (Ye-saⁿ´); among the Six Nations, Grand River Reserve,
Province of Ontario, Canada.
XVI. _Biloxi_ (Ta´-neks ha´-ya), part on the Red River, at Avoyelles,
Louisiana; part in Indian Territory, among the Choctaw and Caddo.
XVII. _Catawba_.
XVIII. _Woccon_.
_Population._--The present number of the Siouan family is about 43,400,
of whom about 2,204 are in British North America, the rest being in the
United States. Below is given the population of the tribes officially
recognized, compiled chiefly from the Canadian Indian Report for 1888,
the United States Indian Commissioner’s Report for 1889, and the United
States Census Bulletin for 1890:
Dakota:
Mdewakantonwan and Wahpekute (Santee) on Santee Reserve,
Nebraska 869
At Flandreau, Dakota 292
Santee at Devil’s Lake Agency 54
Sisseton and Wahpeton on Sisseton Reserve, South Dakota 1,522
Sisseton, Wahpeton, and Cuthead (Yanktonnais)
at Devil’s Lake Reservation 857
Yankton:
On Yankton Reservation, South Dakota 1,725
At Devil’s Lake Agency 123
On Fort Peck Reservation, Montana 1,121
A few on Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota 10
A few on Lower Brulé Reservation, South Dakota 10
----- 2,989
Yanktonnais:
Upper Yanktonnais on Standing Rock Reservation 1,786
Lower Yanktonnais on Crow Creek Reservation 1,058
At Standing Rock Agency 1,739
----- 4,583
Teton:
Brulé, Upper Brulé on Rosebud Reservation 3,245
On Devil’s Lake Reservation 2
Lower Brulé at Crow Creek and Lower Brulé Agency 1,026
Minneconjou (mostly) and Two Kettle, on Cheyenne
River Reserve 2,823
Blackfeet on Standing Rock Reservation 545
Two Kettle on Rosebud Reservation 315
Oglala on Pine Ridge Reservation 4,552
Wajaja (Oglala gens) on Rosebud Reservation 1,825
Wagluxe (Oglala gens) on Rosebud Reservation 1,353
Uncapapa, on Standing Rock Reservation 571
Dakota at Carlisle, Lawrence, and Hampton schools 169
----- 16,426
Dakota in British North America (tribes not stated):
On Bird Tail Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency,
Northwest Territory 108
On Oak River Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency 276
On Oak Lake Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency 55
On Turtle Mountain Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency 34
On Standing Buffalo Reserve, under Northwest Territory 184
Muscowpetung’s Agency:
White Cap Dakota (Moose Woods Reservation) 105
American Sioux (no reserve) 95
----- 857
Assinaboin:
On Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana 952
On Fort Peck Reservation, Montana 719
At Devil’s Lake Agency 2
The following are in British North America:
Pheasant Rump’s band, at Moose Mountain (of whom 6 at
Missouri and 4 at Turtle Mountain) 69
Ocean Man’s band, at Moose Mountain (of whom 4 at
Missouri) 68
The-man-who-took-the-coat’s band, at Indian Head (of
whom 5 are at Milk River) 248
Bear’s Head band, Battleford Agency 227
Chee-pooste-quahn band, at Wolf Creek, Peace Hills
Agency 128
Bear’s Paw band, at Morleyville 236
Chiniquy band, Reserve, at Sarcee Agency 134
Jacob’s band 227
----- 3,008
Omaha:
Omaha and Winnebago Agency, Nebraska 1,158
At Carlisle School, Pennsylvania 19
At Hampton School, Virginia 10
At Lawrence School, Kansas 10
----- 1,197
Ponka:
In Nebraska (under the Santee agent) 217
In Indian Territory (under the Ponka agent) 605
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1
At Lawrence, Kansas 24
----- 847
Osage:
At Osage Agency, Indian Territory 1,509
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 7
At Lawrence, Kansas 65
----- 1,581
Kansa or Kaw:
At Osage Agency, Indian Territory 198
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1
At Lawrence, Kansas 15
----- 214
Quapaw:
On Quapaw Reserve, Indian Territory 154
On Osage Reserve, Indian Territory 71
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 3
At Lawrence, Kansas 4
----- 232
Iowa:
On Great Nemaha Reservation, Kansas 165
On Sac and Fox Reservation, Oklahoma 102
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1
At Lawrence, Kansas 5
----- 273
Oto and Missouri, in Indian Territory 358
Winnebago:
In Nebraska 1,215
In Wisconsin (1889) 930
At Carlisle, Pennsylvania 27
At Lawrence, Kansas 2
At Hampton, Virginia 10
----- 2,184
Mandan:
On Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota 251
At Hampton, Virginia 1
----- 252
Hidatsa, on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota 522
Crow, on Crow Reservation, Montana 2,287
Tutelo, about a dozen mixed bloods on Grand River
Reserve, Ontario, Canada, and a few more near
Montreal (?), say, about 20
Biloxi:
In Louisiana, about 25
At Atoka, Indian Territory 1
----- 26
Catawba:
In York County, South Carolina, about 80
Scattered through North Carolina, about 40?
----- 120?
SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.
> Skittagets, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
c, 1848 (the equivalent of his Queen Charlotte’s Island group, p. 77).
> Skittagetts, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
> Skidegattz, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853
(obvious typographical error; Queen Charlotte Island).
X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224, 1841 (same
as his Northern family; see below).
= Haidah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (Skittegats, Massets,
Kumshahas, Kyganie). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856
(includes Skittigats, Massetts, Kumshahas, and Kyganie of Queen
Charlotte’s Ids. and Prince of Wales Archipelago). Latham, Opuscula,
339, 1860. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 673, 1859. Latham,
El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (as in 1856). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass’n. 269,
1869 (Queen Charlotte’s Ids. and southern part of Alexander
Archipelago). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 604, 1882.
> Hai-dai, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 489, 1855. Kane, Wanderings of
an Artist, app., 1859, (Work’s census, 1836-’41, of northwest coast
tribes, classified by language).
= Haida, Gibbs in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 135, 1877. Tolmie and Dawson,
Comp. Vocabs., 15, 1884 (vocabs. of Kaigani Sept, Masset, Skidegate,
Kumshiwa dialects; also map showing distribution). Dall in Proc. Am.
Ass’n, 375, 1885 (mere mention of family).
< Hydahs, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473,
1878 (enumerates Massets, Klue, Kiddan, Ninstance, Skid-a-gate,
Skid-a-gatees, Cum-she-was, Kaiganies, Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas,
Sebasses, Hailtzas, Bellacoolas).
> Queen Charlotte’s Island, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq.
Soc., II, 15, 306, 1836 (no tribe indicated). Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (based on Skittagete language). Latham
in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., 1, 154, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 349, 1860.
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 219, 1841
(includes Queen Charlotte’s Island and tribes on islands and coast up
to 60° N.L.; Haidas, Massettes, Skittegás, Cumshawás). Prichard,
Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 433, 1847 (follows Scouler).
= Kygáni, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass’n, 269, 1869 (Queen Charlotte’s Ids.
or Haidahs).
X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains Quane,
probably of present family; Quactoe, Saukaulutuck).
The vocabulary referred by Gallatin[95] to “Queen Charlotte’s Islands”
unquestionably belongs to the present family. In addition to being a
compound word and being objectionable as a family name on account of its
unwieldiness, the term is a purely geographic one and is based upon no
stated tribe; hence it is not eligible for use in systematic
nomenclature. As it appears in the Archæologia Americana it represents
nothing but the locality whence the vocabulary of an unknown tribe was
received.
[Footnote 95: Archæologia Americana, 1836, II, pp. 15, 306.]
The family name to be considered as next in order of date is the
Northern (or Haidah) of Scouler, which appears in volume XI, Royal
Geographical Society, page 218, et seq. The term as employed by Scouler
is involved in much confusion, and it is somewhat difficult to determine
just what tribes the author intended to cover by the designation.
Reduced to its simplest form, the case stands as follows: Scouler’s
primary division of the Indians of the Northwest was into two groups,
the insular and the inland. The insular (and coast tribes) were then
subdivided into two families, viz, Northern or Haidah family (for the
terms are interchangeably used, as on page 224) and the Southern or
Nootka-Columbian family. Under the Northern or Haidah family the author
classes all the Indian tribes in the Russian territory, the Kolchians
(Athapascas of Gallatin, 1836), the Koloshes, Ugalentzes, and Tun Ghaase
(the Koluscans of Gallatin, 1836); the Atnas (Salish of Gallatin, 1836);
the Kenaians (Athapascas, Gallatin, 1836); the Haidah tribes proper of
Queen Charlotte Island, and the Chimesyans.
It will appear at a glance that such a heterogeneous assemblage of
tribes, representing as they do several distinct stocks, can not have
been classed together on purely linguistic evidence. In point of fact,
Scouler’s remarkable classification seems to rest only in a very slight
degree upon a linguistic basis, if indeed it can be said to have a
linguistic basis at all. Consideration of “physical character, manners,
and customs” were clearly accorded such weight by this author as to
practically remove his Northern or Haidah family from the list of
linguistic stocks.
The next family name which was applied in this connection is the
Skittagets of Gallatin as above cited. This name is given to designate a
family on page _c_, volume II, of Transactions of the Ethnological
Society, 1848. In his subsequent list of vocabularies, page 77, he
changes his designation to Queen Charlotte Island, placing under this
family name the Skittagete tribe. His presentation of the former name of
Skittagets in his complete list of families is, however, sufficiently
formal to render it valid as a family designation, and it is, therefore,
retained for the tribes of the Queen Charlotte Archipelago which have
usually been called Haida.
From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language with others
of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz Boas is inclined to
consider that the two are genetically related. The two languages possess
a considerable number of words in common, but a more thorough
investigation is requisite for the settlement of the question than has
yet been given. Pending this the two families are here treated
separately.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The tribes of this family occupy Queen Charlotte Islands, Forrester
Island to the north of the latter, and the southeastern part of Prince
of Wales Island, the latter part having been ascertained by the agents
of the Tenth Census.[96]
[Footnote 96: See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.]
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
The following is a list of the principal villages:
Haida: Kaigani:
Aseguang. Chatcheeni.
Cumshawa. Clickass.
Kayung. Howakan.
Kung. Quiahanless.
Kunχit. Shakan.
Massett.
New Gold Harbor.
Skedan.
Skiteiget.
Tanu.
Tartanee.
Uttewas.
_Population._--The population of the Haida is 2,500, none of whom are at
present under an agent.
TAKILMAN FAMILY.
= Takilma, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 1882 (Lower Rogue River).
This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct language spoken on
the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue River. Mr. Dorsey obtained a
vocabulary in 1884 which he has compared with Athapascan, Kusan,
Yakonan, and other languages spoken in the region without finding any
marked resemblances. The family is hence admitted provisionally. The
language appears to be spoken by but a single tribe, although there is
a manuscript vocabulary in the Bureau of Ethnology exhibiting certain
differences which may be dialectic.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue River, Oregon,
all the latter, with one exception, being on the south side, from
Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep Rock, which was nearer the head
of the stream. They are now included among the “Rogue River Indians,”
and they reside to the number of twenty-seven on the Siletz Reservation,
Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey found them in 1884.
TAÑOAN FAMILY.
> Tay-waugh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V. 689, 1855
(Pueblos of San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe. San Il de Conso,
and one Moqui pueblo). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So.
Am.), 479, 1878.
> Taño, Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes
Sandia, Téwa, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojoaque, Nambé,
Tesuque, Sinecú, Jemez, Taos, Picuri).
> Tegna, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878
(includes S. Juan, Sta. Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe, Tesugue, S. Ildefonso,
Haro).
= Téwan, Powell in Am. Nat., 605, Aug., 1880 (makes five divisions: 1.
Taño (Isleta, Isleta near El Paso, Sandía); 2. Taos (Taos, Picuni); 3.
Jemes (Jemes); 4. Tewa or Tehua (San Ildefonso, San Juan, Pojoaque,
Nambe, Tesuque, Santa Clara, and one Moki pueblo); 5. Piro).
> E-nagh-magh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855
(includes Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, Ystete, and two pueblos near
El Paso, Texas). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.),
479, 1878 (follows Lane, but identifies Texan pueblos with Lentis? and
Socorro?).
> Picori, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878
(or Enaghmagh).
= Stock of Rio Grande Pueblos, Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th
M., vii, 415, 1879.
= Rio Grande Pueblo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 258, 1882.
Derivation: Probably from “taínin,” plural of tá-ide, “Indian,” in the
dialect of Isleta and Sandia (Gatschet).
In a letter[97] from Wm. Carr Lane to H. R. Schoolcraft, appear some
remarks on the affinities of the Pueblo languages, based in large part
on hearsay evidence. No vocabularies are given, nor does any real
classification appear to be attempted, though referring to such of his
remarks as apply in the present connection, Lane states that the Indians
of “Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, and Ystete, and of two pueblos of
Texas, near El Paso, are said to speak the same language, which I have
heard called E-nagh-magh,” and that the Indians of “San Juan, Santa
Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe, San Il de Conso, and one Moqui pueblo, all speak
the same language, as it is said: this I have heard called Tay-waugh.”
The ambiguous nature of his reference to these pueblos is apparent from
the above quotation.
[Footnote 97: Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.]
The names given by Lane as those he had “heard” applied to certain
groups of pueblos which “it is said” speak the same language, rest on
too slender a basis for serious consideration in a classificatory sense.
Keane in the appendix to Stanford’s Compendium (Central and South
America), 1878, p. 479, presents the list given by Lane, correcting his
spelling in some cases and adding the name of the Tusayan pueblo as Haro
(Hano). He gives the group no formal family name, though they are
classed together as speaking “Tegua or Tay-waugh.”
The Taño of Powell (1878), as quoted, appears to be the first name
formally given the family, and is therefore accepted. Recent
investigations of the dialect spoken at Taos and some of the other
pueblos of this group show a considerable body of words having
Shoshonean affinities, and it is by no means improbable that further
research will result in proving the radical relationship of these
languages to the Shoshonean family. The analysis of the language has not
yet, however, proceeded far enough to warrant a decided opinion.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The tribes of this family in the United States resided exclusively upon
the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from about 33° to about 36°.
A small body of these people joined the Tusayan in northern Arizona,
as tradition avers to assist the latter against attacks by the
Apache--though it seems more probable that they fled from the Rio Grande
during the pueblo revolt of 1680--and remained to found the permanent
pueblo of Hano, the seventh pueblo of the group. A smaller section of
the family lived upon the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas, just over the
New Mexico border.
_Population._--The following pueblos are included in the family, with a
total population of about 3,237:
Hano (of the Tusayan group) 132
Isleta (New Mexico) 1,059
Isleta (Texas) few
Jemez 428
Nambé 79
Picuris 100
Pojoaque 20
Sandia 140
San Ildefonso 148
San Juan 406
Santa Clara 225
Senecú (below El Paso) few
Taos 409
Tesuque 91
TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
= Timuquana, Smith in Hist. Magazine, II, 1, 1858 (a notice of the
language with vocabulary; distinctness of the language affirmed).
Brinton. Floridian Peninsula, 134, 1859 (spelled also Timuaca,
Timagoa, Timuqua).
= Timucua, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., XVI, April 6, 1877 (from
Cape Cañaveral to mouth of St. John’s River). Gatschet, Creek Mig.
Legend I, 11-13, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
= Atimuca, Gatschet in Science, ibid, (proper name).
Derivation: From ati-muca, “ruler,” “master;” literally, “servants
attend upon him.”
In the Historical Magazine as above cited appears a notice of the
Timuquana language by Buckingham Smith, in which is affirmed its
distinctness upon the evidence of language. A short vocabulary is
appended, which was collated from the “Confessionario” by Padre Pareja,
1613. Brinton and Gatschet have studied the Timuquana language and have
agreed as to the distinctness of the family from any other of the United
States. Both the latter authorities are inclined to take the view that
it has affinities with the Carib family to the southward, and it seems
by no means improbable that ultimately the Timuquana language will be
considered an offshoot of the Carib linguistic stock. At the present
time, however, such a conclusion would not be justified by the evidence
gathered and published.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
It is impossible to assign definite limits to the area occupied by the
tribes of this family. From documentary testimony of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries the limits of the family domain appear to have
been about as follows: In general terms the present northern limits of
the State of Florida may be taken as the northern frontier, although
upon the Atlantic side Timuquanan territory may have extended into
Georgia. Upon the northwest the boundary line was formed in De Soto’s
time by the Ocilla River. Lake Okeechobee on the south, or as it was
then called Lake Sarrape or Mayaimi, may be taken as the boundary
between the Timuquanan tribes proper and the Calusa province upon the
Gulf coast and the Tegesta province upon the Atlantic side. Nothing
whatever of the languages spoken in these two latter provinces is
available for comparison. A number of the local names of these provinces
given by Fontanedo (1559) have terminations similar to many of the
Timuquanan local names. This slender evidence is all that we have from
which to infer the Timuquanan relationship of the southern end of the
peninsula.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
The following settlements appear upon the oldest map of the regions we
possess, that of De Bry (Narratio; Frankf. a. M. 15, 1590):
(A) Shores of St. John’s River, from mouth to sources:
Patica. Utina.
Saturiwa. Patchica.
Atore. Chilili.
Homolua or Molua. Calanay.
Alimacani. Onochaquara.
Casti. Mayarca.
Malica. Mathiaca.
Melona. Maiera.
Timoga or Timucua. Mocoso.
Enecaqua. Cadica.
Choya. Eloquale.
Edelano (island). Aquonena.
Astina.
(B) On a (fictitious) western tributary of St. John’s River, from mouth
to source:
Hicaranaou.
Appalou.
Oustaca.
Onathcaqua.
Potanou.
Ehiamana.
Anouala.
(C) East Floridian coast, from south to north:
Mocossou.
Oathcaqua.
Sorrochos.
Hanocoroucouay.
Marracou.
(D) On coast north of St. John’s River:
Hiouacara.
(E) The following are gathered from all other authorities, mostly from
the accounts of De Soto’s expedition:
Acquera. San Mateo (1688).
Aguile. Santa Lucia de Acuera
Basisa or Vacissa (SE. coast).
(1688). Tacatacuru.
Cholupaha. Tocaste.
Hapaluya. Tolemato.
Hirrihiqua. Topoqui.
Itafi Tucururu
(perhaps a province). (SE. coast)
Itara Ucita.
Machaua (1688). Urriparacuxi.
Napetuca. Yupaha
Osile (Oxille). (perhaps a province).
San Juan de Guacara
(1688).
TONIKAN FAMILY.
= Tunicas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 115, 116,
1836 (quotes Dr. Sibley, who states they speak a distinct language).
Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (opposite mouth of Red River; quotes
Dr. Sibley as to distinctness of language).
= Tonica, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 39, 1884 (brief account of
tribe).
= Tonika, Gatschet in Science, 412, April 29, 1887 (distinctness as a
family asserted; the tribe calls itself Túniχka).
Derivation: From the Tonika word óni, “man,” “people;” t- is a prefix or
article; -ka, -χka a nominal suffix.
The distinctness of the Tonika language, has long been suspected, and
was indeed distinctly stated by Dr. Sibley in 1806.[98] The statement to
this effect by Dr. Sibley was quoted by Gallatin in 1836, but as the
latter possessed no vocabulary of the language he made no attempt to
classify it. Latham also dismisses the language with the same quotation
from Sibley. Positive linguistic proof of the position of the language
was lacking until obtained by Mr. Gatschet in 1886, who declared it to
form a family by itself.
[Footnote 98: President’s message, February 19, 1806.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities: First, on the
Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of Mississippi River (about
1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville,
the county seat of that parish, about twenty-five are now living.
TONKAWAN FAMILY.
= Tonkawa, Gatschet, Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nordamerikas,
76, 1876 (vocabulary of about 300 words and some sentences). Gatschet,
Die Sprache der Tonkawas, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 64, 1877.
Gatschet (1876), in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., XVI, 318, 1877.
Derivation: the full form is the Caddo or Wako term tonkawéya, “they all
stay together” (wéya, “all”).
After a careful examination of all the linguistic material available for
comparison, Mr. Gatschet has concluded that the language spoken by the
Tonkawa forms a distinct family.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a _colluvies gentium_, whose
earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at that
time and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts of
what is now Texas. About 1847 they were engaged as scouts in the United
States Army, and from 1860-’62 (?) were in the Indian Territory; after
the secession war till 1884 they lived in temporary camps near Fort
Griffin, Shackelford County, Texas, and in October, 1884, they removed
to the Indian Territory (now on Oakland Reserve). In 1884 there were
seventy-eight individuals living; associated with them were nineteen
Lipan Apache, who had lived in their company for many years, though in a
separate camp. They have thirteen divisions (partly totem-clans) and
observe mother-right.
UCHEAN FAMILY.
= Uchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 95, 1836
(based upon the Uchees alone). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III., 247, 1840.
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II., pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane,
App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878 (suggests that
the language may have been akin to Natchez).
= Utchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 306,
1836. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III., 401, 1853. Keane,
App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878.
= Utschies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
= Uché, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (Coosa River). Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II., 31-50, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 293,
1860.
= Yuchi, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 17, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
The following is the account of this tribe given by Gallatin (probably
derived from Hawkins) in Archæologia Americana, page 95:
The original seats of the Uchees were east of Coosa and probably of
the Chatahoochee; and they consider themselves as the most ancient
inhabitants of the country. They may have been the same nation which
is called Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto’s expedition, and
their towns were till lately principally on Flint River.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with any degree of
certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto during
his memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is
believed by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the
left bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is
supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this would
locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, was
occupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat
farther down the Savannah, on the eastern and also the western side, as
far as the Ogeechee River, and also upon tracts above and below Augusta,
Georgia. These tracts were claimed by them as late as 1736.
In 1739 a portion of the Yuchi left their old seats and settled among
the Lower Creek on the Chatahoochee River; there they established three
colony villages in the neighborhood, and later on a Yuchi settlement is
mentioned on Lower Tallapoosa River, among the Upper Creek.[99]
Filson[100] gives a list of thirty Indian tribes and a statement
concerning Yuchi towns, which he must have obtained from a much earlier
source: “Uchees occupy four different places of residence--at the head
of St. John’s, the fork of St. Mary’s, the head of Cannouchee, and the
head of St. Tillis” (Satilla), etc.[101]
[Footnote 99: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 21-22, 1884.]
[Footnote 100: Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793, II, 84-7.]
[Footnote 101: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, p. 20.]
_Population._--More than six hundred Yuchi reside in northeastern Indian
Territory, upon the Arkansas River, where they are usually classed as
Creek. Doubtless the latter are to some extent intermarried with them,
but the Yuchi are jealous of their name and tenacious of their position
as a tribe.
WAIILATPUAN.
= Waiilatpu, Hale, in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 214, 569, 1846
(includes Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and Molele). Gallatin,
after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 14, 56, 77, 1848
(after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann,
Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 628, 1859. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565,
1882 (Cayuse and Mollale).
= Wailatpu, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(Cayuse and Molele).
X Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (cited as including
Cayús?).
X Sahaptins, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (cited because it includes Cayuse and Mollale).
= Molele, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850 (includes Molele, Cayús?).
> Cayús?, Latham, ibid.
= Cayuse, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 166, 1877 (Cayuse and Moléle).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.
Derivation: Wayíletpu, plural form of Wa-ílet, “one Cayuse man”
(Gatschet).
Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux or Cayuse
or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Hale
are the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about Mounts
Hood and Vancouver.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Cayuse lived chiefly near the mouth of the Walla Walla River,
extending a short distance above and below on the Columbia, between the
Umatilla and Snake Rivers. The Molále were a mountain tribe and occupied
a belt of mountain country south of the Columbia River, chiefly about
Mounts Hood and Jefferson.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Cayuse.
Molále.
_Population._--There are 31 Molále now on the Grande Ronde Reservation,
Oregon,[102] and a few others live in the mountains west of Klamath
Lake. The Indian Affairs Report for 1888 credits 401 and the United
States Census Bulletin for 1890, 415 Cayuse Indians to the Umatilla
Reservation, but Mr. Henshaw was able to find only six old men and women
upon the reservation in August, 1888, who spoke their own language. The
others, though presumably of Cayuse blood, speak the Umatilla tongue.
[Footnote 102: U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.]
WAKASHAN FAMILY.
> Wakash, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 15, 306,
1836 (of Nootka Sound; gives Jewitt’s vocab.). Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (based on Newittee). Berghaus (1851),
Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,
III, 402, 1853 (includes Newittee and Nootka Sound). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (of Quadra and Vancouver’s Island).
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 403, 1862
(Tlaoquatsh and Wakash proper; Nutka and congeners also referred
here).
X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301. 1850 (includes Naspatle, proper
Nutkans, Tlaoquatsh, Nittenat, Klasset, Klallems; the last named is
Salishan).
X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc., XI, 221, 1841
(includes Quadra and Vancouver Island, Haeeltzuk, Billechoola,
Tlaoquatch, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish, Cheenooks). Prichard,
Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 435, 1847 (follows Scouler). Latham in Jour.
Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 162, 1848 (remarks upon Scouler’s group of this
name). Latham, Opuscula, 257, 1860 (the same).
< Nootka, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 220, 569, 1846 (proposes family
to include tribes of Vancouver Island and tribes on south side of Fuca
Strait).
> Nutka, Buschmann, Neu-Mexico, 329, 1858.
> Nootka, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (mentions only Makah,
and Classet tribes of Cape Flattery). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc.,
446. 1877.
X Nootkahs, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (includes Muchlahts, Nitinahts, Ohyahts, Manosahts, and
Quoquoulths of present family, together with a number of Salishan
tribes).
X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 607, 1882 (a heterogeneous
group, largely Salishan, with Wakashan, Skittagetan, and other
families represented).
> Straits of Fuca, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II,
134, 306, 1836 (vocabulary of, referred here with doubt; considered
distinct by Gallatin).
X Southern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc., XI, 224, 1841 (same as
his Noctka-Columbian above).
X Insular, Scouler ibid. (same as his Nootka-Columbian above).
X Haeltzuk, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 155, 1848 (cities
Tolmie’s vocab. Spoken from 50°30' to 53°30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula,
251, 1860 (the same).
> Haeeltsuk and Hailtsa, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes
Hyshalla, Hyhysh, Esleytuk, Weekenoch, Nalatsenoch, Quagheuil,
Tlatla-Shequilla, Lequeeltoch).
> Hailtsa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Buschmann,
Neu-Mexico, 322, 1858. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, El. Comp.
Phil., 401, 1862 (includes coast dialects between Hawkesbury Island,
Broughton’s Archipelago, and northern part of Vancouver Island).
> Ha-eelb-zuk, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 487, 1855. Kane, Wand. of
an Artist, app., 1859 (or Ballabola; a census of N.W. tribes
classified by language).
> Ha-ilt´-zŭkh, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 144, 1877
(vocabularies of Bel-bella of Milbank Sound and of Kwákiūtl’).
< Nass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt 1, c, 1848.
< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848
(includes Hailstla, Haceltzuk, Billechola, Chimeysan). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (includes Huitsla).
X Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Hailtza of
present family).
> Aht, Sproat, Savage Life, app., 312, 1868 (name suggested for family
instead of Nootka-Columbian).
> Aht, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 1884 (vocab. of
Kaiookwāht).
X Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
460, 474, 1878.
X Hydahs, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878
(includes Hailtzas of the present family).
> Kwakiool, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 27-48, 1884 (vocabs. of
Haishilla, Hailtzuk, Kwiha, Likwiltoh, Septs; also map showing family
domain).
> Kwā´kiūṯḻ, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (general
account of family with list of tribes).
Derivation: Waukash, waukash, is the Nootka word “good” “good.” When
heard by Cook at Friendly Cove, Nootka Sound, it was supposed to be the
name of the tribe.
Until recently the languages spoken by the Aht of the west coast of
Vancouver Island and the Makah of Cape Flattery, congeneric tribes, and
the Haeltzuk and Kwakiutl peoples of the east coast of Vancouver Island
and the opposite mainland of British Columbia, have been regarded as
representing two distinct families. Recently Dr. Boas has made an
extended study of these languages, has collected excellent vocabularies
of the supposed families, and as a result of his study it is now
possible to unite them on the basis of radical affinity. The main body
of the vocabularies of the two languages is remarkably distinct, though
a considerable number of important words are shown to be common to the
two.
Dr. Boas, however, points out that in both languages suffixes only are
used in forming words, and a long list of these shows remarkable
similarity.
The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians,
who, according to Gallatin, “inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound is
situated.” The short vocabulary given was collected by Jewitt. Gallatin
states[103] that this language is the one “in that quarter, which, by
various vocabularies, is best known to us.” In 1848[104] Gallatin
repeats his Wakash family, and again gives the vocabulary of Jewitt.
There would thus seem to be no doubt of his intention to give it formal
rank as a family.
[Footnote 103: Archæologia Americana, II, p. 15.]
[Footnote 104: Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, p. 77.]
The term “Wakash” for this group of languages has since been generally
ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted.
“Nootka-Columbian” was employed by Scouler in 1841 for a group of
languages, extending from the mouth of Salmon River to the south of the
Columbia River, now known to belong to several distinct families.
“Nootka family” was also employed by Hale[105] in 1846, who proposed the
name for the tribes of Vancouver Island and those along the south side
of the Straits of Fuca.
[Footnote 105: U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.]
The term “Nootka-Columbian” is strongly condemned by Sproat.[106] For
the group of related tribes on the west side of Vancouver Island this
author suggests Aht, “house, tribe, people,” as a much more appropriate
family appellation.
[Footnote 106: Savage Life, 312.]
Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, it
seems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other allied
languages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of
1836 has priority and must be retained.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The tribes of the Aht division of this family are confined chiefly to
the west coast of Vancouver Island. They range to the north as far as
Cape Cook, the northern side of that cape being occupied by Haeltzuk
tribes, as was ascertained by Dr. Boas in 1886. On the south they
reached to a little above Sooke Inlet, that inlet being in possession of
the Soke, a Salishan tribe.
The neighborhood of Cape Flattery, Washington, is occupied by the Makah,
one of the Wakashan tribes, who probably wrested this outpost of the
family from the Salish (Clallam) who next adjoin them on Puget Sound.
The boundaries of the Haeltzuk division of this family are laid down
nearly as they appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s linguistic map of 1884. The
west side of King Island and Cascade Inlet are said by Dr. Boas to be
inhabited by Haeltzuk tribes, and are colored accordingly.
PRINCIPAL AHT TRIBES.
Ahowsaht. Mowachat.
Ayhuttisaht. Muclaht.
Chicklesaht. Nitinaht.
Clahoquaht. Nuchalaht.
Hishquayquaht. Ohiaht.
Howchuklisaht. Opechisaht.
Kitsmaht. Pachenaht.
Kyoquaht. Seshaht.
Macaw. Toquaht.
Manosaht. Yuclulaht.
_Population._--There are 457 Makah at the Neah Bay Agency,
Washington.[107] The total population of the tribes of this family under
the West Coast Agency, British Columbia, is 3,160.[108] The grand total
for this division of the family is thus 3,617.
[Footnote 107: U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.]
[Footnote 108: Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.]
PRINCIPAL HAELTZUK TRIBES.
Aquamish. Likwiltoh.
Belbellah. Mamaleilakitish.
Clowetsus. Matelpa.
Hailtzuk. Nakwahtoh.
Haishilla. Nawiti.
Kakamatsis. Nimkish.
Keimanoeitoh. Quatsino.
Kwakiutl. Tsawadinoh.
Kwashilla.
_Population._--There are 1,898 of the Haeltzuk division of the family
under the Kwawkewlth Agency, British Columbia. Of the Bellacoola
(Salishan family) and Haeltzuk, of the present family, there are 2,500
who are not under agents. No separate census of the latter exists at
present.
WASHOAN FAMILY.
= Washo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882.
< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477,
1878 (contains Washoes).
< Snake, Keane, ibid. (Same as Shoshone, above.)
This family is represented by a single well known tribe, whose range
extended from Reno, on the line of the Central Pacific Railroad, to the
lower end of the Carson Valley.
On the basis of vocabularies obtained by Stephen Powers and other
investigators, Mr. Gatschet was the first to formally separate the
language. The neighborhood of Carson is now the chief seat of the tribe,
and here and in the neighboring valleys there are about 200 living a
parasitic life about the ranches and towns.
WEITSPEKAN FAMILY.
= Weits-pek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (a band
and language on Klamath at junction of Trinity). Latham, El. Comp.
Phil., 410, 1862 (junction of Klamath and Trinity Rivers). Gatschet in
Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (affirmed to be distinct from any
neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
< Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (junction
of Klamath and Trinity Rivers; Weyot and Wishosk dialects). Latham,
Opuscula, 343, 1860.
= Eurocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, VII, 530, June, 1872 (of the
Lower Klamath and coastwise; Weitspek, a village of).
= Eurok, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877. Gatschet in Beach,
Ind. Misc., 437, 1877.
= Yu´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 45, 1877 (from junction of
Trinity to mouth and coastwise). Powell, ibid., 460 (vocabs. of
Al-i-kwa, Klamath, Yu´-rok.)
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878
(Eurocs belong here).
Derivation: Weitspek is the name of a tribe or village of the family
situated on Klamath River. The etymology is unknown.
Gibbs was the first to employ this name, which he did in 1853, as above
cited. He states that it is “the name of the principal band on the
Klamath, at the junction of the Trinity,” adding that “this language
prevails from a few miles above that point to the coast, but does not
extend far from the river on either side.” It would thus seem clear that
in this case, as in several others, he selected the name of a band to
apply to the language spoken by it. The language thus defined has been
accepted as distinct by later authorities except Latham, who included as
dialects under the Weitspek language, the locality of which he gives as
the junction of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, the Weyot and Wishosk,
both of which are now classed under the Wishoskan family.
By the Karok these tribes are called Yurok, “down” or “below,” by which
name the family has recently been known.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
For our knowledge of the range of the tribes of this family we are
chiefly indebted to Stephen Powers.[109] The tribes occupy the lower
Klamath River, Oregon, from the mouth of the Trinity down. Upon the
coast, Weitspekan territory extends from Gold Bluff to about 6 miles
above the mouth of the Klamath. The Chillúla are an offshoot of the
Weitspek, living to the south of them, along Redwood Creek to a point
about 20 miles inland, and from Gold Bluff to a point about midway
between Little and Mad Rivers.
[Footnote 109: Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.]
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Chillúla, Redwood Creek.
Mita, Klamath River.
Pekwan, Klamath River.
Rikwa, Regua, fishing village at outlet of Klamath River.
Sugon, Shragoin, Klamath River.
Weitspek, Klamath River (above Big Bend).
WISHOSKAN FAMILY.
> Wish-osk, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given
as the name of a dialect on Mad River and Humboldt Bay).
= Wish-osk, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 478, 1877 (vocabularies of
Wish-osk, Wi-yot, and Ko-wilth). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 162, 1877
(indicates area occupied by family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc.,
437, 1877.
> Wee-yot, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given as
the name of a dialect on Eel River and Humboldt Bay).
X Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (includes
Weyot and Wishosk). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860.
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878
(cited as including Patawats, Weeyots, Wishosks).
Derivation: Wish-osk is the name given to the Bay and Mad River Indians
by those of Eel River.
This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is known
concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes which speak it.
Gibbs[110] mentions Wee-yot and Wish-osk as dialects of a general
language extending “from Cape Mendocino to Mad River and as far back
into the interior as the foot of the first range of mountains,” but does
not distinguish the language by a family name.
[Footnote 110: Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.]
Latham considered Weyot and Wishosk to be mere dialects of the same
language, i.e., the Weitspek, from which, however, they appeared to him
to differ much more than they do from each other. Both Powell and
Gatschet have treated the language represented by these dialects as
quite distinct from any other, and both have employed the same name.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language was
the coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little north
of Mad River, including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay.
They also extended up the above-named rivers into the mountain passes.
TRIBES.
Patawat, Lower Mad River and Humboldt Bay as far south as Arcata.
Weeyot, mouth of Eel River.
Wishosk, near mouth of Mad River and north part of Humboldt Bay.
YAKONAN FAMILY.
> Yakones, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 218, 1846 (or Iakon,
coast of Oregon). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.
> Iakon, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or Lower
Killamuks). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.
> Jacon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848.
> Jakon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 17, 1848.
Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft,
Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (language of Lower Killamuks). Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 78, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.
> Yakon, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850. Gatschet, in Mag. Am.
Hist., 166, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 441, 1877. Bancroft,
Nat. Races, III, 565, 640, 1882.
> Yákona, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 256, 1882.
> Southern Killamuks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or
Yakones). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, 17, 1848 (after Hale).
> Süd Killamuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
> Sainstskla, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“south of the Yakon,
between the Umkwa and the sea”).
> Sayúskla, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1882 (on Lower Umpqua,
Sayúskla, and Smith Rivers).
> Killiwashat, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“mouth of the
Umkwa”).
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878
(cited as including Yacons).
Derivation: From yakwina, signifying “spirit” (Everette).
The Yakwina was the leading tribe of this family. It must have been of
importance in early days, as it occupied fifty-six villages along
Yaquina River, from the site of Elk City down to the ocean. Only a few
survive, and they are with the Alsea on the Siletz Reservation,
Tillamook County, Oregon. They were classed by mistake with the
Tillamook or “Killamucks” by Lewis and Clarke. They are called by Lewis
and Clarke[111] Youikcones and Youkone.[112]
[Footnote 111: Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.]
[Footnote 112: Ibid., p. 118.]
The Alsea formerly dwelt in villages along both sides of Alsea River,
Oregon, and on the adjacent coast. They are now on the Siletz
Reservation, Oregon. Perhaps a few are on the Grande Ronde Reservation,
Oregon.
The Siuslaw used to inhabit villages on the Siuslaw River, Oregon. There
may be a few pure Siuslaw on the Siletz Reservation, but Mr. Dorsey did
not see any of them. They are mentioned by Drew,[113] who includes them
among the “Kat-la-wot-sett” bands. At that time, they were still on the
Siuslaw River. The Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua villages were on both sides of
the lower part of Umpqua River, Oregon, from its mouth upward for about
30 miles. Above them were the Upper Umpqua villages, of the Athapascan
stock. A few members of the Ku-itc still reside on the Siletz
Reservation, Oregon.
[Footnote 113: U.S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.]
This is a family based by Hale upon a single tribe, numbering six or
seven hundred, who live on the coast, north of the Nsietshawus, from
whom they differ merely in language. Hale calls the tribe Iakon or
Yakones or Southern Killamuks.
The Sayúsklan language has usually been assumed to be distinct from all
others, and the comments of Latham and others all tend in this
direction. Mr. Gatschet, as above quoted, finally classed it as a
distinct stock, at the same time finding certain strong coincidences
with the Yakonan family. Recently Mr. Dorsey has collected extensive
vocabularies of the Yakonan, Sayúskla, and Lower Umpqua languages and
finds unquestioned evidence of relationship.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The family consists of four primary divisions or tribes: Yakwina, Alsea,
Siuslaw, and Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua. Each one of these comprised many
villages, which were stretched along the western part of Oregon on the
rivers flowing into the Pacific, from the Yaquina on the north down to
and including the Umpqua River.
TRIBES.
Alsea (on Alseya River).
Yakwĭ´na.
Kuitc.
Siuslaw.
_Population._--The U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890 mentions thirty-one
tribes as resident on the Siletz Reservation with a combined population
of 571. How many Yakwina are among this number is not known. The
breaking down of tribal distinctions by reason of the extensive
intermarriage of the several tribes is given as the reason for the
failure to give a census by tribes.
YANAN FAMILY.
= Nó-zi, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 275, 1877 (or No-si; mention
of tribe; gives numerals and states they are different from any he has
found in California).
= Noces, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, March, 1877 (or Nozes;
merely mentioned under Meidoo family).
Derivation: Yana means “people” in the Yanan language.
In 1880 Powell collected a short vocabulary from this tribe, which is
chiefly known to the settlers by the name Noje or Nozi. Judged by this
vocabulary the language seemed to be distinct from any other. More
recently, in 1884, Mr. Curtin visited the remnants of the tribe,
consisting of thirty-five individuals, and obtained an extensive
collection of words, the study of which seems to confirm the impression
of the isolated position of the language as regards other American
tongues.
The Nozi seem to have been a small tribe ever since known to Europeans.
They have a tradition to the effect that they came to California from
the far East. Powers states that they differ markedly in physical traits
from all California tribes met by him. At present the Nozi are reduced
to two little groups, one at Redding, the other in their original
country at Round Mountain, California.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range of
mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and terminating near Pit River;
the northern boundary by a line running from northeast to southwest,
passing near the northern side of Round Mountain, 3 miles from Pit
River. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10
miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages double
that distance or about 20 miles.
YUKIAN FAMILY.
= Yuki, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 125-138, 1877 (general
description of tribe).
= Yú-ki, Powell in ibid., 483 (vocabs. of Yú-ki, Hūchnpōm, and a
fourth unnamed vocabulary).
= Yuka, Powers in Overland Monthly, IX, 305, Oct., 1872 (same as
above). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877 (defines habitat of
family; gives Yuka, Ashochemies or Wappos, Shumeias, Tahtoos).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 435, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III,
566, 1882 (includes Yuka, Tahtoo, Wapo or Ashochemic).
= Uka, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind.
Misc., 435, 1877 (same as his Yuka).
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878
(Yukas of his Klamath belong here).
Derivation: From the Wintun word yuki, meaning “stranger;” secondarily,
“bad” or “thieving.”
A vocabulary of the Yuki tribe is given by Gibbs in vol. III of
Schoolcraft’s Indian Tribes, 1853, but no indication is afforded that
the language is of a distinct stock.
Powell, as above cited, appears to have been the first to separate the
language.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the
Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the
family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Ashochimi (near Healdsburgh).
Chumaya (Middle Eel River).
Napa (upper Napa Valley).
Tatu (Potter Valley).
Yuki (Round Valley, California).
YUMAN FAMILY.
> Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101, 1856
(includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeño). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 86, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860 (as
above). Latham in addenda to Opuscula, 392, 1860 (adds Cuchan to the
group). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 420, 1862 (includes Cuchan,
Cocomaricopa, Mojave, Dieguno). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877
(mentions only U.S. members of family). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 479, 1878 (includes Yumas, Maricopas,
Cuchans, Mojaves, Yampais, Yavipais, Hualpais). Bancroft, Nat. Races,
III, 569, 1882.
= Yuma, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (habitat and dialects
of family). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 413, 414,
1879.
> Dieguno, Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 75, 1854
(includes mission of San Diego, Dieguno, Cocomaricopas, Cuchañ, Yumas,
Amaquaquas.)
> Cochimi, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 87, 1856 (northern
part peninsula California). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 471,
1859 (center of California peninsula). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las
Lenguas de México, map, 1864. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and
So. Am.), 476, 1878 (head of Gulf to near Loreto).
> Layamon, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (a dialect
of Waikur?). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil.,
423, 1862.
> Waikur, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 90, 1856 (several
dialects of). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil.,
423, 1862.
> Guaycura, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map,
1864.
> Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).
> Ushiti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps a
dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
> Utshiti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Ushiti).
> Pericú, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de
México, map, 1864.
> Pericui, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878
(from 23° N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).
> Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883, and
XVIII, 115, 1886.
Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying “sons of the river” (Whipple).
In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it
Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.
Three years previously (1853) Latham[114] speaks of the Dieguno
language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego,
Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems to
consider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that he
believes them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formal
family division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear to
render his position with respect to their exact status as precise as is
to be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to make
Diegueño a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856
he includes both the Diegueño and the other above mentioned tribes in
the Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusion
to having previously established a family name for the same group of
languages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that the
term Diegueño as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. It
thus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the above
authors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of Pacific
Railroad Reports, in which Turner’s article is published, is dated 1855,
it appears from a foot-note (p. 84) that his paper was not handed to Mr.
Whipple till January, 1856, the date of title page of volume, and that
his proof was going through the press during the month of May, which is
the month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before the Philological
Society. The fact that Latham’s article was not read until May 9 enables
us to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with a
reasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable period
elapsed between the presentation of Latham’s paper to the society and
its final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yuma
of Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubted
application. Pimentel makes Yuma a part of Piman stock.
[Footnote 114: Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is generally
considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least this is
the region where they attained their highest physical and mental
development. With the exception of certain small areas possessed by
Shoshonean tribes, Indians of Yuman stock occupied the Colorado River
from its mouth as far up as Cataract Creek where dwell the Havasupai.
Upon the Gila and its tributaries they extended as far east as the Tonto
Basin. From this center they extended west to the Pacific and on the
south throughout the peninsula of Lower California. The mission of San
Luis Rey in California was, when established, in Yuman territory, and
marks the northern limit of the family. More recently and at the present
time this locality is in possession of Shoshonean tribes.
The island of Angel de la Guardia and Tiburon Island were occupied by
tribes of the Yuman family, as also was a small section of Mexico lying
on the gulf to the north of Guaymas.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
Cochimi.
Cocopa.
Cuchan or Yuma proper.
Diegueño.
Havasupai.
Maricopa.
Mohave.
Seri.
Waicuru.
Walapai.
_Population._--The present population of these tribes, as given in
Indian Affairs Report for 1889, and the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890,
is as follows:
Of the Yuma proper there are 997 in California attached to the Mission
Agency and 291 at the San Carlos Agency in Arizona.
Mohave, 640 at the Colorado River Agency in Arizona; 791 under the San
Carlos Agency; 400 in Arizona not under an agency.
Havasupai, 214 in Cosnino Cañon, Arizona.
Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.
Diegueño, 555 under the Mission Agency, California.
Maricopa, 315 at the Pima Agency, Arizona.
The population of the Yuman tribes in Mexico and Lower California is
unknown.
ZUÑIAN FAMILY.
= Zuñi, Turner in Pac. R.R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 91-93, 1856 (finds
no radical affinity between Zuñi and Keres). Buschmann, Neu-Mexico,
254, 266, 276-278, 280-296, 302, 1858 (vocabs. and general
references). Keane, App. Stanford’s Com. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479,
1878 (“a stock language”). Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian,
Nov., 1878 (includes Zuñi, Las Nutrias, Ojo de Pescado). Gatschet in
Mag. Am. Hist., 260, 1882.
= Zuñian, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, August, 1880.
Derivation: From the Cochití term Suinyi, said to mean “the people of
the long nails,” referring to the surgeons of Zuñi who always wear some
of their nails very long (Cushing).
Turner was able to compare the Zuñi language with the Keran, and his
conclusion that they were entirely distinct has been fully
substantiated. Turner had vocabularies collected by Lieut. Simpson and
by Capt. Eaton, and also one collected by Lieut. Whipple.
The small amount of linguistic material accessible to the earlier
writers accounts for the little done in the way of classifying the
Pueblo languages. Latham possessed vocabularies of the Moqui, Zuñi,
A´coma or Laguna, Jemez, Tesuque, and Taos or Picuri. The affinity of
the Tusayan (Moqui) tongue with the Comanche and other Shoshonean
languages early attracted attention, and Latham pointed it out with some
particularity. With the other Pueblo languages he does little, and
attempts no classification into stocks.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The Zuñi occupy but a single permanent pueblo, on the Zuñi River,
western New Mexico. Recently, however, the summer villages of Tâiakwin,
Heshotatsína, and K’iapkwainakwin have been occupied by a few families
during the entire year.
_Population._--The present population is 1,613.
* * * * *
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
The task involved in the foregoing classification has been accomplished
by intermittent labors extending through more than twenty years of time.
Many thousand printed vocabularies, embracing numerous larger lexic and
grammatic works, have been studied and compared. In addition to the
printed material, a very large body of manuscript matter has been used,
which is now in the archives of the Bureau of Ethnology, and which, it
is hoped, will ultimately be published. The author does not desire that
his work shall be considered final, but rather as initiatory and
tentative. The task of studying many hundreds of languages and deriving
therefrom ultimate conclusions as contributions to the science of
philology is one of great magnitude, and in its accomplishment an army
of scholars must be employed. The wealth of this promised harvest
appeals strongly to the scholars of America for systematic and patient
labor. The languages are many and greatly diverse in their
characteristics, in grammatic as well as in lexic elements. The author
believes it is safe to affirm that the philosophy of language is some
time to be greatly enriched from this source. From the materials which
have been and may be gathered in this field the evolution of language
can be studied from an early form, wherein words are usually not parts
of speech, to a form where the parts of speech are somewhat
differentiated; and where the growth of gender, number, and case
systems, together with the development of tense and mode systems can be
observed. The evolution of mind in the endeavor to express thought, by
coining, combining, and contracting words and by organizing logical
sentences through the development of parts of speech and their syntactic
arrangement, is abundantly illustrated. The languages are very unequally
developed in their several parts. Low gender systems appear with high
tense systems, highly evolved case systems with slightly developed mode
systems; and there is scarcely any one of these languages, so far as
they have been studied, which does not exhibit archaic devices in its
grammar.
The author has delayed the present publication somewhat, expecting to
supplement it with another paper on the characteristics of those
languages which have been most fully recorded, but such supplementary
paper has already grown too large for this place and is yet unfinished,
while the necessity for speedy publication of the present results seems
to be imperative. The needs of the Bureau of Ethnology, in directing the
work of the linguists employed in it, and especially in securing and
organizing the labor of a large body of collaborators throughout the
country, call for this publication at the present time.
In arranging the scheme of linguistic families the author has proceeded
very conservatively. Again and again languages have been thrown together
as constituting one family and afterwards have been separated, while
other languages at first deemed unrelated have ultimately been combined
in one stock. Notwithstanding all this care, there remain a number of
doubtful cases. For example, Buschmann has thrown the Shoshonean and
Nahuatlan families into one. Now the Shoshonean languages are those best
known to the author, and with some of them he has a tolerable speaking
acquaintance. The evidence brought forward by Buschmann and others seems
to be doubtful. A part is derived from jargon words, another part from
adventitious similarities, while some facts seem to give warrant to the
conclusion that they should be considered as one stock, but the author
prefers, under the present state of knowledge, to hold them apart and
await further evidence, being inclined to the opinion that the peoples
speaking these languages have borrowed some part of their vocabularies
from one another.
After considering the subject with such materials as are on hand, this
general conclusion has been reached: That borrowed materials exist in
all the languages; and that some of these borrowed materials can be
traced to original sources, while the larger part of such acquisitions
can not be thus relegated to known families. In fact, it is believed
that the existing languages, great in number though they are, give
evidence of a more primitive condition, when a far greater number were
spoken. When there are two or more languages of the same stock, it
appears that this differentiation into diverse tongues is due mainly to
the absorption of other material, and that thus the multiplication of
dialects and languages of the same group furnishes evidence that at some
prior time there existed other languages which are now lost except as
they are partially preserved in the divergent elements of the group. The
conclusion which has been reached, therefore, does not accord with the
hypothesis upon which the investigation began, namely, that common
elements would be discovered in all these languages, for the longer the
study has proceeded the more clear it has been made to appear that the
grand process of linguistic development among the tribes of North
America has been toward unification rather than toward multiplication,
that is, that the multiplied languages of the same stock owe their
origin very largely to absorbed languages that are lost. The data upon
which this conclusion has been reached can not here be set forth, but
the hope is entertained that the facts already collected may ultimately
be marshaled in such a manner that philologists will be able to weigh
the evidence and estimate it for what it may be worth.
The opinion that the differentiation of languages within a single stock
is mainly due to the absorption of materials from other stocks, often to
the extinguishment of the latter, has grown from year to year as the
investigation has proceeded. Wherever the material has been sufficient
to warrant a conclusion on this subject, no language has been found to
be simple in its origin, but every language has been found to be
composed of diverse elements. The processes of borrowing known in
historic times are those which have been at work in prehistoric times,
and it is not probable that any simple language derived from some single
pristine group of roots can be discovered.
There is an opinion current that the lower languages change with great
rapidity, and that, by reason of this, dialects and languages of the
same stock are speedily differentiated. This widely spread opinion does
not find warrant in the facts discovered in the course of this research.
The author has everywhere been impressed with the fact that savage
tongues are singularly persistent, and that a language which is
dependent for its existence upon oral tradition is not easily modified.
The same words in the same form are repeated from generation to
generation, so that lexic and grammatic elements have a life that
changes very slowly. This is especially true where the habitat of the
tribe is unchanged. Migration introduces a potent agency of mutation,
but a new environment impresses its characteristics upon a language more
by a change in the semantic content or meaning of words than by change
in their forms. There is another agency of change of profound influence,
namely, association with other tongues. When peoples are absorbed by
peaceful or militant agencies new materials are brought into their
language, and the affiliation of such matter seems to be the chief
factor in the differentiation of languages within the same stock. In
the presence of opinions that have slowly grown in this direction, the
author is inclined to think that some of the groups herein recognized as
families will ultimately be divided, as the common materials of such
languages, when they are more thoroughly studied, will be seen to have
been borrowed.
In the studies which have been made as preliminary to this paper, I have
had great assistance from Mr. James C. Pilling and Mr. Henry W. Henshaw.
Mr. Pilling began by preparing a list of papers used by me, but his work
has developed until it assumes the proportions of a great bibliographic
research, and already he has published five bibliographies, amounting in
all to about 1,200 pages. He is publishing this bibliographic material
by linguistic families, as classified by myself in this paper. Scholars
in this field of research will find their labors greatly abridged by the
work of Mr. Pilling. Mr. Henshaw began the preparation of the list of
tribes, but his work also has developed into an elaborate system of
research into the synonymy of the North American tribes, and when his
work is published it will constitute a great and valuable contribution
to the subject. The present paper is but a preface to the works of Mr.
Pilling and Mr. Henshaw, and would have been published in form as such
had not their publications assumed such proportions as to preclude it.
And finally, it is needful to say that I could not have found the time
to make this classification, imperfect as it is, except with the aid of
the great labors of the gentlemen mentioned, for they have gathered the
literature and brought it ready to my hand. For the classification
itself, however, I am wholly responsible.
I am also indebted to Mr. Albert S. Gatschet and Mr. J. Owen Dorsey for
the preparation of many comparative lists necessary to my work.
The task of preparing the map accompanying this paper was greatly
facilitated by the previously published map of Gallatin. I am especially
indebted to Col. Garrick Mallery for work done in the early part of its
preparation in this form. I have also received assistance from Messrs.
Gatschet, Dorsey, Mooney and Curtin. The final form which it has taken
is largely due to the labors of Mr. Henshaw, who has gathered many
important facts relating to the habitat of North American tribes while
preparing a synonymy of tribal names.
* * * * *
INDEX
A.
Abnaki, population 48
Achastlians, Lamanon’s vocabulary of the 75
Acoma, a Keresan dialect 83
population 83
Adair, James, quoted on Choctaw villages 40
Adaizan family 45-48
Adaizan and Caddoan languages compared 46
Adam, Lucien, on the Taensa language 96
Agriculture, effect of, on Indian population 38
region to which limited 41
extent of practice of, by Indian tribes 42
Aht division of Wakashan family 129, 130
Ahtena tribe of Copper River 53
population 55
Ai-yan, population 55
Akansa, or Quapaw tribe 113
Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai 85
Aleutian Islanders belong to Eskimauan family 73
population 75
Algonquian family 47-51
list of tribes 48
population 48
habitat of certain western tribes of 113
Alibamu, habitat and population 95
Alsea, habitat 134
Al-ta-tin, population 55
Angel de la Guardia Island, occupied by Yuman tribes 138
Apache, habitat 54
population 56
Apalaches, supposed by Gallatin to be the Yuchi 126
Apalachi tribe 95
Arapaho, habitat 48, 109
population 48
Arikara, habitat 60
population 62
Assinaboin, habitat 115
population 117
Atfalati, population 82
Athapascan family 51-56
Atnah tribe, considered distinct from Salish by Gallatin 103
Attacapan family 56-57
Attakapa language reputed to be spoken by the Karankawa 82
Auk, population 87
B.
Baffin Land, Eskimo population 75
Bancroft, George, linguistic literature 13
cited on Cherokee habitat 78, 79
Bancroft, Hubert H., linguistic literature 24
Bandelier, A. F., on the Keres 83
Bannock, former habitat 108
population 110
Bartlett, John R., cited on Lipan and Apache habitat 54
the Pima described by 98
Barton, B. S., comparison of Iroquois and Cheroki 77
Batts on Tutelo habitat in 1671 114
Bellacoola, population 105, 131
Bellomont, Earl of, cited on the Tutelo 114
Beothukan family 57-58
Berghaus, Heinrich, linguistic literature 16
Bessels, Emil, acknowledgments 73
Biloxi, a Siouan tribe 112
early habitat 114
present habitat 116
population 118
Blount, on Cherokee and Chickasaw habitat 79
Boas, Franz, cited on Chimakum habitat 62
on population of Chimmesyan tribes 64
on the middle group of Eskimo 73
on population of Baffin Land Eskimo 75
Salishan researches 104
Haida researches 120
Wakashan researches 129
on the habitat of the Haeltzuk 130
Boundaries of Indian tribal lands, difficulty of fixing 43-44
Bourgemont on the habitat of the Comanche 109
Brinton, D. G., cited on Haumonté’s Taensa grammar 96
cited on relations of the Pima language 99
Buschmann, Johann C. E., linguistic literature 18, 19
on the Kiowa language 84
on the Pima language 99
on Shoshonean families 109
regards Shoshonean and Nahuatlan families as one 140
C.
Cabeça de Vaca, mention of Atayos by 46
Caddoan and Adaizan languages compared 46
Caddoan family 58-62
Caddoan. See Southern Caddoan.
Calapooya, population 82
California, aboriginal game laws in 42
Calispel population 105
“Carankouas,” a part of Attacapan family 57
Carib, affinities of Timuquana with 123
Carmel language of Mofras 102
Cartier, Jacques, aborigines met by 58, 77-78
Catawba, habitat 112, 114, 116
population 118
Cathlascon tribes, Scouler on 81
Caughnawaga, population 80
Cayuga, population 80
Cayuse, habitat and population 127, 128
Central Eskimo, population 75
Champlain, S. de, cited 78
Charlevoix on the derivation of “Iroquois” 77
Chehalis, population 105
Chemehuevi, habitat and population 110
Cherokees, habitat and population 78-80
Cheyenne tribe, habitat 48, 109
population 49
treaty cited 114
Chicasa, population 95
join the Na’htchi 96
Chilcat, population 87
Chillúla tribe 132
Chimakuan family 62, 63
Chimakum, habitat and population 62
Chimarikan family 63
Chimmesyan family 63-65
Chinookan family 65-86
Chippewyan, population 55
Chitimacuan family, possibly allied to the Attacapan 57
Chitimachan family 66-67
Choctaw Muskhogee family of Gallatin 94
Choctaw, population 95
Choctaw towns described by Adair 40
Chocuyem, a Moquelumnan dialect 92
Cholovone division of the Mariposan 90
Chopunnish, population 107
Chowanoc, perhaps a Tuscarora tribe 79
Chukchi of Asia 74
Chumashan family 67, 68
Chumashan languages, Salinan languages held to be
dialects of 101
Clackama, population 66
Clallam language distinct from Chimakum 62
Clallam, population 105
Classification of linguistic families, rules for 8, 12
Classification of Indian languages, literature relating to 12-25
Clavering, Captain, Greenland Eskimo, researches of 72
Coahuiltecan family 68, 69
Cochitemi, a Keresan dialect 83
Cochiti, population of 83
Coconoon tribe 90
Coeur d’Alene tribe, population of 105
Cofitachiqui, a supposed Yuchi town 126
Cognation of languages 11, 12
Columbia River, improvidence of tribes on 37, 38
Colville tribe, population 105
Comanche, association of the Kiowa with 84
habitat 109
population 110
Comecrudo, vocabulary of, collected by Gatschet 68
Communism among North American Indians 34, 35
Conestoga, former habitat of the 78
Cook, Capt. James, names Waukash tribe 129
Cookkoo-oose tribe of Lewis and Clarke 89
Cootenai tribe 85
Copehan family 69-70
Corbusier, Wm. H., on Crow occupancy of Black Hills 114
Corn, large quantities of, raised by certain tribes 41
Cortez, José, cited 54
Costano dialects, Latham’s opinion concerning 92
Costanoan family 70, 71
Cotoname vocabulary, collected by Gatschet 68
Coulter, Dr., Pima vocabulary of 98
Coyotero Apache, population 56
Cree, population 49
Creeks, habitat and population 95
Crows, habitat 114, 116
population 118
Curtin, Jeremiah, Chimarikan researches of 63
Costanoan researches of 70
Moquelumnan researches of 93
Yanan researches of 135
acknowledgments to 142
Cushing, Frank H., on the derivation of “Zuñi” 138
Cushna tribe 99
D.
Dahcota. See Dakota.
Dahcotas, habitat of the divisions of 111
Dakota, tribal and family sense of name 112
divisions of the 114
population and divisions of the 116
Dall, W. H., linguistic litera 21, 22, 24
cited on Eskimo habitat 53
Eskimo researches of 73
on Asiatic Eskimo 74
on population of Alaskan Eskimo 75
Dana on the divisions of the Sacramento tribes 99
Dawson, George M., cited on Indian land tenure 40
assigns the Tagisch to the Koluschan family 87
Salishan researches 104
De Bry, Timuquanan names on map of 124
Delaware, population 49
habitat 79
De L’Isle cited 60
De Soto, Ferdinand, on early habitat of the Kaskaskias 113
supposed to have visited the Yuchi 126
Timuquanan towns encountered by 124
D’Iberville, names of Taensa towns given by 96
Diegueño, population 138
Differentiation of languages within single stock,
to what due 141
Digger Indian tongue compared by Powers
with the Pit River dialects 98
Disease, Indian belief concerning 39
Dobbs, Arthur, cited on Eskimo habitat 73
Dog Rib, population of 55
Dorsey, J. O., cited on Pacific coast tribes 54
cited on Omaha-Arikara alliance 60
Catawba studies 112
on Crow habitat 114
Takilman researches 121
Yakonan researches 134
acknowledgments to 142
Drew, E. P., on Siuslaw habitat 134
Duflot de Mofras, E. de, cited 92
Duflot de Mofras E. de, Soledad, language of 102
Dunbar, John B., quoted on Pawnee habitat 60
Duncan, William, settlement of Chimmesyan tribes by 65
Duponceau collection, Salishan vocabulary of the 103
Du Pratz, Le Page, cited on Caddoan habitat 61
on certain southern tribes 66
on the Na’htchi language 96
E.
Eaton, Captain, Zuñi vocabulary of 139
Ecclemachs. See Esselenian family.
Eells, Myron, linguistic literature 24
on the Chimakuan language and habitat 62, 63
E-nagh-magh language of Lane 122
Emory, W. H., visit of, to the Pima 98
Environment as affecting language 141
Eskimauan family 71-75
Eslen nation of Galiano 75
Esselenian family 75, 76
Etah Eskimo, habitat of 72, 73
É-ukshikni or Klamath 90
Everette on the derivation of “Yakona” 134
F.
“Family,” linguistic, defined 11
Filson, John, on Yuchi habitat 127
Flatbow. See Kitunahan family.
Flathead Cootenai 85
Flathead family, Salish or 102
Fontanedo, Timuquanan, local names of 124
Food distribution among North American Indians 34
Friendly Village, dialect of 104
G.
Galiano, D. A., on the Eslen and Runsien 75, 76
Gallatin, Albert, founder of
systematic American philology 9, 10
linguistic literature 12, 15, 16, 17
Attacapan researches 57
on the Caddo and Pawnee 59
Chimmesyan researches 64
on the Chitimachan family 66
on the Muskhogean family 94
on Eskimauan boundaries 72
comparison of Iroquois and Cheroki 77
on the Kiowa language 84
on the Koluschan family 86
on Na’htchi habitat 96
Salishan researches 102, 103
reference to “Sahaptin” family 107
on the Shoshonean family 108
on the Siouan family 111
Skittagetan researches 119, 120
on Tonika language 135
on the habitat of the Yuchi 126
linguistic map 142
Game laws of California tribes 42
Garcia, Bartolomé, cited 68
Gatschet, A. S., work of 7, XXXIV
linguistic literature 23, 24
comparison of Caddoan and Adaizan languages by 46
on Pacific Coast tribes 54
Attacapan researches 57
Beothukan researches 57
Chimakuan researches 62
on the derivation of “Chitimacha” 66
Chitimachan researches 67
Coahuiltecan researches 68
Mutson investigations 70
Tonkawe vocabulary collected by 82
on the Kitunahan family 85
distinguishes the Kusan as a distinct stock 89
on the habitat of the Yamasi 95
on the Taensa language 96
on the derivation of “Palaihnih” 97
on the Pima language 99
discovered radical affinity between
Wakashan and Salishan families 104
Catawba studies 112
surviving Biloxi found by 114
Takilman researches 121
on the derivation of “Taño” 122
classes Tonkawan as a distinct stock 125
Tonikan researches 125
on early Yuchi habitat 127
on the derivation of Waiilatpu 127
Washoan language separated by 131
Wishoskan researches 133
on the Sayúsklan language 134
Gens du Lac, habitat 111
Gibbs, George, linguistic literature 17, 22
on the Chimakum language 62
on the Kulanapan family 87
the Eh-nek family of 100
on the Weitspekan language 131
Wishoskan researches 133
Yuki vocabulary cited 136
Gioloco language 108
Gosiute, population 110
Grammatic elements of language 141
Grammatic structure in classification of Indian languages 11
Gravier, Father, on the Na’htchi and Taensa 97
Greely, A. W., on Eskimo of Grinnell Land 73
Greenland, Eskimo of 73, 75
Grinnell Land, Eskimo of 73
Gros Ventres, habitat 116
Guiloco language 92
H.
Haeltzuk, habitat 129, 130
principal tribes 131
population 131
Haida, divisions of 120
population 121
language, related to Koluschan 120
method of land tenure 40
Hailtzuk, population 105
Hale, Horatio, linguistic literature 14, 25
discovery of branches of Athapascan family in Oregon by 52
on the affinity of Cheroki to Iroquois 77
on the derivation of “Iroquois” 77
on the “Kaus or Kwokwoos” 89
on the Talatui 92
on the Palaihnihan 97
on certain Pujunan tribes 99, 100
Salishan researches 104
on the Sastean family 106
Tutelo researches 114
classification and habitat of Waiilatpuan tribes 127
on the Yakonan family 134
Hamilton manuscript cited 54
Hanega, population 87
Hano pueblo, Tusayan 123
population 123
Hare tribe, population 55
Harrison, on early Tutelo habitat 114
Haumonté, J. D., on the Taensa 96
Havasupai habitat and population 138
Hayden, Ferdinand V., linguistic literature 20
Haynarger vocabulary cited 54
Henshaw, H. W., Chumashan researches of 68
Costanoan researches of 70
Esselenian investigations of 76
Moquelumnan researches of 93
Salinan researches of 101
on Salinan population 102
on population of Cayuse 128
acknowledgments to 142
synonomy of tribes by 142
Heshotatsína, a Zuñi village 139
Hewitt, J. N.B., on the derivation of “Iroquois” 77
Hidatsa population 118
Hoh, population and habitat 63
Holm, G., Greenland Eskimo 72
on East Greenland Eskimo population 75
Hoodsunu, population 87
Hoquiam, population 105
Hospitality of American Indians, source of 34
Howe, George, on early habitat of the Cherokee 78
Hudson Bay, Eskimo of 73
Humptulip, population 105
Hunah, population 87
Hunting claims 42, 43
Hupa, population of 56
I.
Iakon, see Yakwina 134
Improvidence of Indians 34, 37
Indian languages, principles of classification of 8-12
literature relating to classification of 12-25
at time of European discovery 44
Indian linguistic families, paper by J. W. Powell on 1-142
work on classification of 25, 26
Industry of Indians 36
Innuit population 75
Iowa, habitat and population 116, 118
Iroquoian family 76-81
Isleta, New Mexico, population 123
Isleta, Texas, population 123
Ives, J. C., on the habitat of the Chemehuevi 110
J.
Jargon, establishment of, between tribes 7
Jemez, population of 123
Jewett’s Wakash vocabulary referred to 129
Jicarilla Apache, population 56
Johnson, Sir William, treaty with Cherokees 78
Johnston, A. R., visit of, to the Pima 98
Joutel on the location of certain Quapaw villages 113
K.
Kaigani, divisions of the 121
Kaiowe, habitat 109
Kaiowe. See Kiowan family.
Kai Pomo, habitat 88
Kai-yuh-kho-tána, etc., population 56
Kalapooian family 81-82
Kane, Paul, linguistic literature 19
Kansa or Kaw tribe 113
population 118
Karankawan family 82-83
Kaskaskias, early habitat 113
Kastel Pomo, habitat 88
Kat-la-wot-sett bands 134
Kato Pomo, habitat 88
Kaus or Kwokwoos tribe of Hale 89
Kaw, habitat 116
Kaw. See Kansa.
Keane, Augustus H., linguistic literature 23
on the “Tegua or Taywaugh” 122
Kek, population 87
Kenesti, habitat 54
Keresan family 83
K’iapkwainakwin, a Zuñi village 139
Kichai habitat and population 61, 62
Kickapoo, population 49
Kinai language asserted to bear analogies to the Mexican 86
Kiowan family 84
Kitunahan family 85
Kiwomi, a Keresan dialect 83
Klamath, habitat and population 90
Klanoh-Klatklam tribe 85
Klikitat, population 107
K’nai-khotana tribe of Cook’s Inlet 53
K’naia-khotána, population 56
Koasáti, population 95
Koluschan family 85-87
Ku-itc villages, location of 134
Kulanapan and Chimarikan verbal correspondences 63
Kulanapan family 87-89
Kusan family 89
Kutchin, population 56
Kutenay. See Kitunahan family.
Kwaiantikwoket, habitat 110
Kwakiutl tribe 129
L.
Labrador, Eskimo of 73
Labrador, Eskimo population 75
Laguna, population 83
La Harpe cited 61
Lake tribe, Washington, population 105
Lákmiut population 82
Lamanon on the Eeclemachs 75, 76
Land, Indian ownership of 40
amount devoted to Indian agriculture 42
Lane, William C., linguistic literature 17
on Pueblo languages 122
Languages, cognate 11, 12
Latham, R. G., linguistic literature 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20
cited on Beothukan language 57
Chumashan researches 67
proposes name for Copehan family 69
Costanoan researches 70
Salinas family of 75
mention of the Kaus tribe 89
on the Tonika language 125
on the Weitspekan language 132
Wishoskan researches 133
on the Sayúsklan language 134
Yuman researches 137
Pueblo researches 139
classification of the Mariposan family 90
on the Moquelumnan family 92
on the Piman family 98
on the Pujunan family 99
on the Ehnik family of 100
on the Salinan family 102
Lawson, John, on Tutelo migration in 1671 114
Lewis and Clarke cited on improvidence of
Indians of the Northwest 37
on Pacific coast tribes 53
on Arikari habitat 60
authorities on Chinookan habitat 65
on the habitat of Kalapooian tribes 82
on the Kusan tribe 89
Salishan tribes met by 104
on habit of Shoshonean tribes 109
on Crow habitat 114
on the Yakwina 134
Lexical elements considered in classification of
Indian languages 11, 141
Linguistic classification, rules for 8-12
Linguistic families of North America,
paper by J. W. Powell on 1-142
nomenclature of 7-12
work on classification of 25, 26
number of 45
Linguistic “family” defined 11
Linguistic map, preparation of 142
notes concerning 25, 45
Lipan, habitat 54
population 56
Literature relating to classification of Indian languages 12-25
Loucheux classed as Athapascan 52
Lower California, native population of, unknown 138
Lower Spokane, population 105
Lower Umpqua villages, location of 134
Lummi, population 105
Lutuamian family 89-90
M.
Madison tribe, population 105
Mahican, population 51
Makah tribe 129
habitat 130
population 130
Mallery, Garrick, cited on early Indian population 33
acknowledgments to 142
Malthusian law, not applicable to American Indians 33-34
Mandan habitat 116
population 118
Map showing Indian linguistic families, explanation of 26, 45
Marchand on the Tshinkitani 86
Margry on early habitat of the Biloxi 114
Maricopa population 138
Mariposan family 90-91
Marquette’s map, location of the Quapaw on 113
Marriage among Indians 35
Marys River tribe, population 82
Maskegon, population 49
Mdewakantonwan, population 116
Medicine Creek treaty 84
Medicine practice of the Indians, evils of 39
Meherrin, joined by the Tutelo 114
Mendewahkantoan, habitat 111
Menominee, population 49
Mescalero Apache, population 56
Mexican language, Kinai bears analogies to the 86
Miami, population 49
Micmac, population 49
western Newfoundland colonized by 58
Migration of Siouan tribes westward 112
Migration, effect of, upon language 141
Milhau on the derivation of “Coos” 89
Misisauga, population 49
Missouri tribe, habitat 116
Miwok division of Moqueluman family, tribes of 93
“Mobilian trade Jargon” 96
Modoc, habitat and population 90
Módokni, or Modoc 90
Mohave, population 138
Mohawk, population 80
Moki. See Tusayan.
Molále, habitat and population 127, 128
Monsoni, population 49
Montagnais, population 49
Monterey, Cal., natives of 71
Montesano, population 105
Montigny, M. de, on the Na’htchi and Taensa 96, 97
Mooney, James, acknowledgments to 142
Moquelumnan family 92-93
Muekleshoot, population 105
Murdoch, John, Eskimo researches of 73
Muskhogean family 94-95
N.
Nahanie, population 56
Na’htchi, Taensa and Chitimacha,
supposed by Du Pratz to be kindred tribes 65-66
Na’htchi, habitat and population 96-97
Nahuatl, Pima a branch of the 99
Shoshonean regarded by Buschmann as a branch of 109
Na-isha Apache, population 56
Nambé, population 123
Names, population 56
Nascapee, population 49
Nascapi joined by the Beothuk 58
Natchesan family 95
Navajo, habitat 54
Nelson, E. W., cited on Athapascan habitat 53
Eskimo researches of 73
Nespilem, population 105
Nestucca, habitat 104
Newfoundland, aborigines of 57
New Metlakahtla, a Chimmesyan settlement 65
Nisqually language distinct from Chimakum 62
Nisqually, population 105
Noje. See Nozi. 135
Nomenclature of linguistic families,
paper by J. W. Powell on 1-142
Nootka-Columbian family of Scouler 129, 130
Northwestern Innuit population 75
Notaway tribe 79
Notaway joined by the Tutelo 114
Nozi tribe 135
O.
Ojibwa, population 50
Okinagan, population 105
Olamentke dialect of Kostromitonov 92
Olamentke division of Moquelumnan family, tribes of 93
Omaha, habitat 115
population 117
Oneida, population 80
Onondaga, population 80
Orozco y Berra, Manuel, linguistic literature 20
cited 54
on the Coahuiltecan family 68
Osage, early occupancy ot Arkansas by the 113
Osage, habitat and population 116, 118
Oto and Missouri, population 118
Otoe, habitat 116
Ottawa, population 50
Oyhut, population 105
P.
Packard, A. S., on Labrador Eskimo population 75
Pai Ute, population 110
Pakawá tribe, habitat 68
Palaihnihan family 97, 98
Paloos, population 107
Papago, a division of the Piman family 98
population 99
Pareja, Padre, Timuquana vocabulary of 123
Parisot, J., et al., on the Taensa language 96
Parry, C. C., Pima vocabulary of 98
Patriotism of the Indian 36
Paviotso, population 110
Pawnee, divisions of, and habitat 60, 61, 113
population 62
Peoria, population of the 50
Petroff, Ivan, Eskimo researches of 73
on population of the Koluschan tribes 87
Picuris, population 123
Pike, Z., on the Kiowa language 84
on the habitat of the Comanche 106
Pilling, James C., work of XXX, XXXI, XXXVI, 142
acknowledgments to 142
Pit River dialects 97
Pima alta, a division of the Piman family 98
Piman family 98
Pima, population 99
Pimentel, Francisco, linguistic literature 21
on the Yuman language 137
Pinto tribe, habitat 68
Point Barrow Eskimo, habitat 73
Pojoaque, population 123
Ponca, habitat 113, 115
population 117
Pope on the Kiowa habitat 84
Population of Indian tribes discussed 33-40
Pottawatomie, population of the 50
Powell, J. W., paper of, on Indian linguistic families 1-142
linguistic literature 22, 23, 24
Mutsun researches 70
Wishoskan researches 133
Noje vocabulary of 135
separates the Yuki language 136
Powers, Stephen, linguistic literature 22
cited on artificial boundaries
of Indian hunting and fishing claims 42
cited on Pacific coast tribes 54
on the Chimarikan family 63
on the Meewok name of the Moquelumne River 92
on the Pit River dialects 97
Cahroc, tribe of 100
Pujunan researches 100
on Shoshonean of California 110
Washoan vocabularies of 131
on habitat of Weitspekan tribes 132
on the Nozi tribe 135
Pownall map, location of Totteroy River on 114
Prairie du Chien, treaty of 112
Prichard, James C., linguistic literature 14
Priestly, Thomas, on Chinook population 66
Pueblo languages, see Keresan, Tañoan, Zuñian.
Pujunan family 99, 100
Pujuni tribe 99
Purísima, inhabitants of 67
Puyallup, population 105
Q.
Quaitso, population 105
Quapaw, a southern Siouan tribe 113
early habitat 113
present habitat 116
population 118
Quarrelers classed as Athapascan 52
“Queen Charlotte’s Islands,” language of, Gallatin 119
Queniut, population 105
Quile-ute, population and habitat 63
Quinaielt, population 105
Quoratean family 100, 101
R.
Ramsey, J. G. M., on Cherokee habitat 78
Rechahecrian. See Rickohockan.
Rickohockan Indians of Virginia 79
Riggs, A. L., on Crow habitat 114
Riggs, S. R., Salishan researches 104
Rink, H. J., on population of Labrador Eskimo 75
Rogue River Indians 121
population 56
Ross, Alexander, cited on improvidence of Indians of Northwest 38
Ross, Sir John, acknowledgments to 73
Royce, Charles C., map of, cited on Cherokee lands 78
Runsien nation of Galiano 75
Ruslen language of Mofras 102
S.
Sac and Fox, population of the 50
Sacramento tribes, Sutter and Dana on the division of 99
Saiaz, habitat 54
Saidyuka, population 110
Saint Regis, population 81
Salinan family 101
Salishan family 102-105
Salish, population 105
Salish of Puget Sound 130
San Antonio language 75
San Antonio Mission, Cal. 101, 102
San Buenaventura Indians 67, 68
San Carlos Apache population 56
Sandia, population 123
San Felipe, population 83
San Ildefonso, population 123
San Juan, population 123
San Luis Obispo, natives of 67
San Luis Rey Mission, Cal. 138
San Miguel language 75
San Miguel Mission, Cal. 101, 102
Sans Puell, population 105
Santa Ana, population 83
Santa Barbara applied as family name 67
Santa Barbara language, Cal. 101
Santa Clara, Cal., language 92
Santa Clara, population 123
Santa Cruz Islands, natives of 67
Santa Cruz, Cal., natives of 71
Santa Inez Indians 67
Santa Rosa Islanders 67
Santee population 116
Santiam, population 83
Santo Domingo, population 83
Sastean family 105
Satsup, population 105
Say, Dr., vocabularies of Kiowa by 84
Say’s vocabulary of Shoshoni referred to 109
Sayúsklan language 134
Schermerhorn, cited on Kädo hadatco 61
on the Kiowa habitat 84
Schoolcraft, H. R., on the Cherokee bounds in Virginia 79
on the Tuolumne dialect 92
on the Cushna tribe 99
Scouler, John, linguistic literature 13-14
on the Kalapooian family 81
Skittagetan researches 119
Shahaptan family of 107
“Nootka-Columbian,” family of 139
Secumne tribe 99
Sedentary tribes 30-33
Seminole, population 95
Seneca, population 80
Senecú, population 123
Shahaptian family 106
Shasta, habitat 106
Shateras, supposed to be Tutelos 114
Shawnee, population 50
habitat 79
Shea, J. G., on early habitat of the Kaskaskias 113
Sheepeaters. See Tukuarika.
Shiwokugmiut Eskimo, population 75
Shoshonean family 108-110
regarded by Buschmann as identical with Nahuatlan 140
Shoshoni, population 110
Sia, population 83
Sibley, John, cited on language of Adaizan family of Indians 46-47
Attacapan researches 57
cited on Caddo habitat 61
on the habitat of the Karankawa 82
states distinctness of Tonika language 125
Siksika, population 50
Simpson, James H., Zuñi vocabulary 139
Siouan family 111-118
Sioux, use of the term 112
Sisitoans, habitat 111
Sisseton, population 116
Sitka tribe, population 87
Siuslaw tribe 134
Six Nations joined by the Tutelo 114
Skittagetan family 118
Skokomish, population 105
Slave, and other tribes, population 56
Smith, Buckingham, on the Timuquana language 123
Snohomish, population 105
Sobaipuri, a division of the Piman family 98
Soke tribe occupying Sooke Inlet 130
Soledad language of Mofras 102
Sorcery, a common cause of death among Indians 39
Southern Caddoan group 113
Southern Killamuks. See Yakwina 134
Sproat, G. M., suggests Aht as name of Wakashan family 130
Squaxon, population 105
Stahkin, population 87
Stevens, I. I., on the habitat of the Bannock 109
“Stock,” linguistic, defined 11
Stockbridge, population 51
Stoney, Lieut., investigations of Athapascan habitat 53
Superstition the most common source of death among Indians 39
Sutter, Capt., on the divisions of the Sacramento tribes 99
Swinomish, population 105
T.
Taensa, regarded by Du Pratz as kindred to the Na’htchi 66
tribe and language 96
habitat 97
Tâiakwin, a Zuñi village 139
Takilman family 121
Takilma, habitat and population 121
Taku, population 87
Tañoan stock, one Tusayan pueblo belonging to 110
Tañoan family 121-123
Taos language shows Shoshonean affinities 122
population 123
Taylor, Alexander S., on the Esselen vocabulary 75, 76
Taywaugh language of Lane 122
Teaching among Indians 35
Tegua or Taywaugh language 122
Tenaino, population 107
Tenán Kutchin, population 56
Tesuque, population 123
Teton, habitat 111
population 117
Tiburon Island occupied by Yuman tribes 138
Tillamook, habitat 104
population 105
Timuquanan tribes, probable early habitat of 95
family 123-125
Tobacco Plains Cootenai 85
Tobikhar, population 110
Tolmie, W. F., Chimmesyan vocabulary cited 64
Salishan researches 104
Shahaptian vocabularies of 107
Tolmie and Dawson, linguistic literature 25
map cited 53, 64
on boundaries of the Haeltzuk 130
Tongas, population 87
Tonikan family 125
Tonkawan family 125-126
Tonkawe vocabulary collected by Gatschet 82
Tonti, cited 61
Toteros. See Tutelo 114
Totteroy River, location of, by Pownall 114
Towakarehu, population 62
Treaties, difficulties, and defects in,
regarding definition of tribal boundaries 43-44
Treaty of Prairie du Chien 112
Tribal land classified 40
Trumbull, J. H., on the derivation of Caddo 59
on the derivation of “Sioux” 111
Tsamak tribe 99
Tshinkitani or Koluschan tribe 86
Tukuarika, habitat 109
population 110
Turner, William W., linguistic literature 18
discovery of branches of Athapascan family in Oregon by 52
Eskimo researches of 73
on the Keresan language 83
on the Kiowan family 84
on the Piman family 98
Yuman researches 137
Zuñian researches 138
Tusayan, habitat and population 110
Tewan pueblo of 122
a Shoshonean tongue 139
Tuscarora, an Iroquoian tribe 79
population 81
Tuski of Asia 74
Tutelo, a Siouan tribe 112
habitat in 1671 114
present habitat 116
population 118
Tyigh, population 107
U.
Uchean family 126-127
Umatilla, population 107
Umpqua, population 56
Scouler on the 81
Unungun, population 75
Upper Creek join the Na’htchi 96
Upper Spokane, population 105
Upper Umpqua villages, location of 134
Uta, population 110
Ute, habitat of the 109
V.
Valle de los Tulares language 92
Villages of Indians 40
W.
Waco, population 62
Wahkpakotoan, habitat 111
Waiilatpuan family 127-128
Wailakki, habitat 54
relationship of to Kulanapan tribes 88
Wakashan family 128-131
Wakash, habitat 129
Walapai, population 138
Walla Walla, population 107
Wars, effect of, in reducing Indian population 38
Wasco, population 66
Washaki, habitat 109
Washoan family 131
Wateree, habitat and probable linguistic connection 114
Watlala, population 66
Wayne, Maumee valley settlements described by 41
Weitspekan family 131
Western Innuit population 75
Whipple, A. W., Kiowan researches 84
Pima vocabulary of 98
on the derivation of “Yuma” 137
Zuñi vocabulary 139
White Mountain Apache population 56
Wichita, population 62
Winnebago, former habitat 111, 112
Winnebago, present habitat 116
Winnebago, population 118
Wishoskan family 132-133
Witchcraft beliefs among Indians 39
Woccon, an extinct Siouan tribe 112, 116
Woccon, former habitat 114
Wyandot, former habitat 78
population 81
Y.
Yaketahnoklatakmakanay tribe 85
Yakonan family 133
Yakutat population 87
Yakut or Mariposan family 90
Yakwina tribe 134
Yamasi, believed to be extinct 95
habitat 95
Yámil, population 82
Yamkallie, Scouler on 81
Yanan family 135
Yanktoanans, habitat 111
Yankton, habitat 111
population 116
Yanktonnais, population 117
Yonkalla, population 82
Youikcones or Youkone of Lewis and Clarke 134
Youkiousme, a Moquelumnan dialect 92
Ysleta, Texas, population 123
Yuchi, habitat and population 126, 127
Yuchi. See Uchean family.
Yuit Eskimo of Asia 74
Yukian family 135-136
Yuman family 136-138
Yurok, Karok name for the Weitspekan tribes 132
Z.
Zuñian family 138-139
* * * * *
* * * *
Errors and Anomalies:
“Lewis and Clarke”
“Zuñi” (with tilde)
[_these spellings are standard throughout the text_]
(“obvious typographical error”) (“evident misprint”)
[_this and similar notations are from original text_]
Table of Contents:
Chimmesyan family / Principal tribes or villages
[_main text has “Principal Tribes” only_]
Tonkawan family / Geographic distribution 126 [125]
Waiilatpuan family [unchanged]
[_main text has “Waiilatpuan” only_]
Weitspekan family / Tribes
[_main text has “Principal Tribes”_]
slight differences have been [heen]
... kinship system, with mother-right as its chief factor
[mother-rite]
that passes by Bayau Pierre [_spelling unchanged_]
“more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.”
[_‘w’ invisible_]
(includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)). [_one ) missing_]
There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on the Klamath Reservation
[Klamaht Reservation]
Hawhaw’s band of Aplaches [_spelling unchanged: may be right_]
Vallee de los Tulares [_spelling unchanged_]
Tshokoyem vocabulary [vobabulary]
especially in that of the Ruslen.” [_close quote invisible_]
= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs.
[_open parenthesis missing_]
A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,”
[_close quote missing_]
Waukash, waukash, is the Nootka word “good” “good.”
[_both repetitions in original_]
Humboldt Bay as far south as Arcata
[_text unchanged: Arcata is at the extreme north end of
Humboldt Bay_]
a change in the semantic content or meaning of words [sematic]
* * * * *
* * * *
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Indian Linguistic Families Of America, North Of Mexico - Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the - Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, - Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891, pages 1-142" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.