[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 adiacritic does not appear directly above or below its letter--or if theapostrophes and quotation marks in this section display as garbage, makesure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set toUnicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a lastresort, use the Latin-1 or ASCII-7 version of this file instead. 

In the printed text it was not clear whether the author intendedhacek (Unicode “caron”) ˇ or breve ˘. Breve was chosen as it isphonetically 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 7Literature relating to the classification of Indian languages 12Linguistic map 25 Indian tribes sedentary 30 Population 33 Tribal land 40 Village sites 40 Agricultural land 41 Hunting claims 42 Summary of deductions 44Linguistic 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 139Concluding 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 htmlversion 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 weremany 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 rapidrate. Under these conditions the languages of the various tribes havereceived much study. Many extensive works have been published, embracing grammars and dictionaries; but a far greater number of minorvocabularies have been collected and very many have been published. Inaddition to these, the Bible, in whole or in part, and various religiousbooks and school books, have been translated into Indian tongues to beused for purposes of instruction; and newspapers have been published inthe Indian languages. Altogether the literature of these languages andthat relating to them are of vast extent. 

While the materials seem thus to be abundant, the student of Indianlanguages finds the subject to be one requiring most thoughtfulconsideration, 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 notimmediately apparent, from the fact that many tribes of diverse stockshave had more or less association, and to some extent linguisticmaterials have been borrowed, and thus have passed out of the exclusivepossession of cognate peoples. 

(3) Where many peoples, each few in number, are thrown together, anintertribal language is developed. To a large extent this is gesturespeech; but to a limited extent useful and important words are adoptedby various tribes, and out of this material an intertribal “jargon” isestablished. Travelers and all others who do not thoroughly study alanguage are far more likely to acquire this jargon speech than the realspeech of the people; and the tendency to base relationship upon suchjargons has led to confusion. 

(4) This tendency to the establishment of intertribal jargons wasgreatly accelerated on the advent of the white man, for thereby manytribes were pushed from their ancestral homes and tribes were mixed withtribes. As a result, new relations and new industries, especially oftrade, were established, and the new associations of tribe with tribeand of the Indians with Europeans led very often to the development ofquite elaborate jargon languages. All of these have a tendency tocomplicate the study of the Indian tongues by comparative methods. 

The difficulties inherent in the study of languages, together with theimperfect material and the complicating conditions that have arisen bythe spread of civilization over the country, combine to make the problemone not readily solved. 

In view of the amount of material on hand, the comparative study of thelanguages of North America has been strangely neglected, though perhapsthis is explained by reason of the difficulties which have been pointedout. And the attempts which have been made to classify them has givenrise to much confusion, for the following reasons: First, later authorshave not properly recognized the work of earlier laborers in the field. Second, the attempt has more frequently been made to establish an ethnicclassification than a linguistic classification, and linguisticcharacteristics have been confused with biotic peculiarities, arts, habits, customs, and other human activities, so that radical differencesof language have often been ignored and slight differences have beenheld to be of primary value. 

The attempts at a classification of these languages and a correspondingclassification of races have led to the development of a complex, mixed, and inconsistent synonymy, which must first be unraveled and a selectionof standard names made therefrom according to fixed principles. 

It is manifest that until proper rules are recognized by scholars theestablishment of a determinate nomenclature is impossible. It willtherefore be well to set forth the rules that have here been adopted, together with brief reasons for the same, with the hope that they willcommend themselves to the judgment of other persons engaged inresearches relating to the languages of North America. 

A fixed nomenclature in biology has been found not only to beadvantageous, but to be a prerequisite to progress in research, as thevast multiplicity of facts, still ever accumulating, would otherwiseoverwhelm the scholar. In philological classification fixity ofnomenclature is of corresponding importance; and while the analogiesbetween linguistic and biotic classification are quite limited, many ofthe principles of nomenclature which biologists have adopted having noapplication in philology, still in some important particulars therequirements of all scientific classifications are alike, and thoughmany of the nomenclatural points met with in biology will not occur inphilology, 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; andpossibly such an ideal system may eventually be established inphilology. Be that as it may, the time has not yet come even for itssuggestion. What is now needed is a rule of some kind leading scholarsto use the same terms for the same things, and it would seem to matterlittle 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 thatthe names adopted should be the names by which the people recognizethemselves, but this is a rule of impossible application, for where thebranches of a stock diverge very greatly no common name for the peoplecan be found. Again, it has been suggested that names which are to gopermanently into science should be simple and euphonic. This also isimpossible of application, for simplicity and euphony are largelyquestions of personal taste, and he who has studied many languages losesspeedily his idiosyncrasies of likes and dislikes and learns that wordsforeign to his vocabulary are not necessarily barbaric. 

Biologists have decided that he who first distinctly characterizes andnames a species or other group shall thereby cause the name thus used tobecome permanently affixed, but under certain conditions adapted to agrowing science which is continually revising its classifications. Thislaw of priority may well be adopted by philologists. 

By the application of the law of priority it will occasionally happenthat a name must be taken which is not wholly unobjectionable or whichcould be much improved. But if names may be modified for any reason, theextent of change that may be wrought in this manner is unlimited, andsuch modifications would ultimately become equivalent to theintroduction of new names, and a fixed nomenclature would thereby beoverthrown. The rule of priority has therefore been adopted. 

Permanent biologic nomenclature dates from the time of Linnæus simplybecause this great naturalist established the binominal system andplaced scientific classification upon a sound and enduring basis. AsLinnæus is to be regarded as the founder of biologic classification, soGallatin may be considered the founder of systematic philology relatingto the North American Indians. Before his time much linguistic work hadbeen accomplished, and scholars owe a lasting debt of gratitude toBarton, Adelung, Pickering, and others. But Gallatin’s work marks an erain American linguistic science from the fact that he so thoroughlyintroduced comparative methods, and because he circumscribed theboundaries of many families, so that a large part of his work remainsand is still to be considered sound. There is no safe resting placeanterior to Gallatin, because no scholar prior to his time had properlyadopted comparative methods of research, and because no scholar wasprivileged to work with so large a body of material. It must further besaid of Gallatin that he had a very clear conception of the task he wasperforming, and brought to it both learning and wisdom. Gallatin’s workhas therefore been taken as the starting point, back of which we may notgo in the historic consideration of the systematic philology of NorthAmerica. The point of departure therefore is the year 1836, whenGallatin’s “Synopsis of Indian Tribes” appeared in vol. 2 of theTransactions of the American Antiquarian Society. 

It is believed that a name should be simply a denotive word, and that noadvantage can accrue from a descriptive or connotive title. It istherefore desirable to have the names as simple as possible, consistentwith other and more important considerations. For this reason it hasbeen found impracticable to recognize as family names designations basedon several distinct terms, such as descriptive phrases, and wordscompounded from two or more geographic names. Such phrases and compoundwords have been rejected. 

There are many linguistic families in North America, and in a number ofthem there are many tribes speaking diverse languages. It is important, therefore, that some form should be given to the family name by which itmay be distinguished from the name of a single tribe or language. Inmany cases some one language within a stock has been taken as the typeand its name given to the entire family; so that the name of a languageand that of the stock to which it belongs are identical. This isinconvenient and leads to confusion. For such reasons it has beendecided to give each family name the termination “an” or “ian. ”

Conforming to the principles thus enunciated, the following rules havebeen 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 agroup of languages that are supposed to be cognate. 

A single language is called a stock or family when it is not found to becognate with any other language. Languages are said to be cognate whensuch relations between them are found that they are supposed to havedescended from a common ancestral speech. The evidence of cognation isderived exclusively from the vocabulary. Grammatic similarities are notsupposed to furnish evidence of cognation, but to be phenomena, in partrelating to stage of culture and in part adventitious. It must beremembered that extreme peculiarities of grammar, like the vocalmutations of the Hebrew or the monosyllabic separation of the Chinese, have not been discovered among Indian tongues. It therefore becomesnecessary in the classification of Indian languages into families toneglect grammatic structure, and to consider lexical elements only. Butthis statement must be clearly understood. It is postulated that in thegrowth of languages new words are formed by combination, and that thesenew words change by attrition to secure economy of utterance, and alsoby assimilation (analogy) for economy of thought. In the comparison oflanguages for the purposes of systematic philology it often becomesnecessary to dismember compounded words for the purpose of comparing themore primitive forms thus obtained. The paradigmatic words considered ingrammatic treatises may often be the very words which should bedissected to discover in their elements primary affinities. But thecomparison is still lexic, not grammatic. 

A lexic comparison is between vocal elements; a grammatic comparison isbetween grammatic methods, such, for example, as gender systems. Theclasses into which things are relegated by distinction of gender may beanimate and inanimate, and the animate may subsequently be divided intomale and female, and these two classes may ultimately absorb, in part atleast, inanimate things. The growth of a system of genders may takeanother course. The animate and inanimate may be subdivided into thestanding, the sitting, and the lying, or into the moving, the erect andthe reclined; or, still further, the superposed classification may bebased upon the supposed constitution of things, as the fleshy, thewoody, the rocky, the earthy, the watery. Thus the number of genders mayincrease, while further on in the history of a language the genders maydecrease so as almost to disappear. All of these characteristics are inpart adventitious, but to a large extent the gender is a phenomenon ofgrowth, indicating the stage to which the language has attained. Aproper case system may not have been established in a language by thefixing of case particles, or, having been established, it may change bythe increase or diminution of the number of cases. A tense system alsohas a beginning, a growth, and a decadence. A mode system is variable inthe various stages of the history of a language. In like manner apronominal system undergoes changes. Particles may be prefixed, infixed, or affixed in compounded words, and which one of these methods willfinally prevail can be determined only in the later stage of growth. Allof these things are held to belong to the grammar of a language and tobe grammatic methods, distinct from lexical elements. 

With terms thus defined, languages are supposed to be cognate whenfundamental similarities are discovered in their lexical elements. Whenthe members of a family of languages are to be classed in subdivisionsand the history of such languages investigated, grammaticcharacteristics become of primary importance. The words of a languagechange by the methods described, but the fundamental elements or rootsare more enduring. Grammatic methods also change, perhaps even morerapidly than words, and the changes may go on to such an extent thatprimitive methods are entirely lost, there being no radical grammaticelements to be preserved. Grammatic structure is but a phase or accidentof growth, and not a primordial element of language. The roots of alanguage are its most permanent characteristics, and while the wordswhich are formed from them may change so as to obscure their elements orin some cases even to lose them, it seems that they are never lost fromall, but can be recovered in large part. The grammatic structure or planof a language is forever changing, and in this respect the language maybecome entirely transformed. 

 * * * * *

 LITERATURE RELATING TO THE CLASSIFICATION

 OF INDIAN LANGUAGES. 

While the literature relating to the languages of North America is veryextensive, that which relates to their classification is much lessextensive. For the benefit of future students in this line it is thoughtbest to present a concise account of such literature, or at least somuch 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 shortchapter is devoted to general observations, including certain historicaldata, and the remainder to the discussion of linguistic material and theaffinities of the various tribes mentioned. Vocabularies of many of thefamilies are appended. Twenty-eight linguistic divisions are recognizedin the general table of the tribes. Some of these divisions are purelygeographic, such as the tribes of Salmon River, Queen Charlotte’sIsland, etc. Vocabularies from these localities were at hand, but oftheir linguistic relations the author was not sufficiently assured. Mostof the linguistic families recognized by Gallatin were defined with muchprecision. Not all of his conclusions are to be accepted in the presenceof the data now at hand, but usually they were sound, as is attested bythe fact that they have constituted the basis for much classificatorywork since his time. 

The primary, or at least the ostensible, purpose of the colored mapwhich accompanies Gallatin’s paper was, as indicated by its title, toshow the distribution of the tribes, and accordingly their names appearupon it, and not the names of the linguistic families. Nevertheless, itis practically a map of the linguistic families as determined by theauthor, and it is believed to be the first attempted for the arearepresented. Only eleven of the twenty-eight families named in thistable appear, and these represent the families with which he was bestacquainted. As was to be expected from the early period at which the mapwas constructed, much of the western part of the United States was leftuncolored. Altogether the map illustrates well the state of knowledge ofthe 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 theIndian tribes east of the Mississippi, under a linguisticclassification, and adds a brief account of the character and methods ofIndian languages. A linguistic map of the region is incorporated, whichin general corresponds with the one published by Gallatin in 1836. Anotable addition to the Gallatin map is the inclusion of the Uchees intheir proper locality. Though considered a distinct family by Gallatin, this tribe does not appear upon his map. Moreover, the Choctaws andMuskogees, which appear as separate families upon Gallatin’s map (thoughbelieved by that author to belong to the same family), are united uponBancroft’s map under the term Mobilian. 

The linguistic families treated of are, I. Algonquin, II. Sioux orDahcota, 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 toconstruct a very curious classification of the tribes of which hetreats. In his account Scouler is guided chiefly, to use his own words, “by considerations founded on their physical character, manners andcustoms, and on the affinities of their languages. ” As the linguisticconsiderations are mentioned last, so they appear to be the leastweighty 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 includessuch distinct linguistic stocks as “all the Indian tribes in the Russianterritory, ” the Queen Charlotte Islanders, Koloshes, Ugalentzes, Atnas, Kolchans, Kenáïes, Tun Ghaase, Haidahs, and Chimmesyans. HisNootka-Columbian family is scarcely less incongruous, and it is evidentthat the classification indicated is only to a comparatively slightextent 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 thePolynesian Islands, Micronesian Islands, Australia, etc. , more thanone-half of this important volume is devoted to philology, a large sharerelating to the tribes of northwestern America. 

The vocabularies collected by Hale, and the conclusions derived by himfrom study of them, added much to the previous knowledge of thelanguages of these tribes. His conclusions and classification were inthe 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, January24, 1845, a large number of North American languages are examined andtheir affinities discussed in support of the two following postulatesmade at the beginning of the paper: First, “No American language has anisolated position when compared with the other tongues en masse ratherthan with the language of any particular class;” second, “The affinitiesbetween the language of the New World, as determined by their_vocabularies_, is not less real than that inferred from the analogiesof their _grammatical structure_. ” The author’s conclusions are thatboth statements are substantiated by the evidence presented. The papercontains 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 determinewhether the races of men are the cooffspring of a single stock or havedescended respectively from several original families. Like otherauthors on this subject, his theory of what should constitute a race wasnot clearly defined. The scope of the inquiry required the considerationof a great number of subjects and led to the accumulation of a vast bodyof facts. In volume 5 the author treats of the American Indians, and inconnection with the different tribes has something to say of theirlanguages. No attempt at an original classification is made, and in themain the author follows Gallatin’s classification and adopts hisconclusions. 

 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, Ancientsemi-civilization of New Mexico, Rio Gila and its vicinity; third, Philology; fourth, Addenda and miscellaneous. In these are broughttogether much valuable information, and many important deductions aremade which illustrate Mr. Gallatin’s great acumen. The classificationgiven is an amplification of that adopted in 1836, and contains changesand additions. The latter mainly result from a consideration of thematerial supplied by Mr. Hale, or are simply taken from his work. 

The groups additional to those contained in the Archæologia Americanaare:

 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 ofDecember. The languages noticed are those that lie between “RussianAmerica and New California, ” of which the author aims to give anexhaustive list. He discusses the value of the groups to which theselanguages have been assigned, viz, Athabascan and Nootka-Columbian, andfinds that they have been given too high value, and that they are onlyequivalent to the primary subdivisions of _stocks_, like the Gothic, Celtic, and Classical, rather than to the stocks themselves. He furtherfinds that the Athabascan, the Kolooch, the Nootka-Columbian, and theCadiak groups are subordinate members of one large and importantclass--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 languagesare classed in two groups, the Eskimaux and the Kolooch. Each of thesegroups is found to have affinities--

(1) With the Athabascan tongues, and perhaps equal affinities. 

(2) Each has affinities with the Oregon languages, and each perhapsequally. 

(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 ofNorth 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 othermaps, 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 UnitedStates is concerned it is largely a duplication of Gallatin’s map of1836, while in the western region a certain amount of new material isincorporated. 

1852. In the edition of 1852 the ethnographic map bears date of 1851. Its eastern portion is substantially a copy of the earlier edition, butits western half is materially changed, chiefly in accordance with theknowledge supplied by Hall in 1848. 

Map number 72 of the last edition of Berghaus by no means marks anadvance upon the edition of 1852. Apparently the number of families ismuch reduced, but it is very difficult to interpret the meaning of theauthor, who has attempted on the same map to indicate linguisticdivisions and tribal habitats with the result that confusion is madeworse 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 anendeavor to obtain vocabularies to assist in a more complete study ofthe grammar and structure of the languages of the Indians of NorthAmerica. It is accompanied by a “Synopsis of Indian Tribes, ” giving thefamilies and tribes so far as known. In the main the classification is arepetition of that of 1848, but it differs from that in a number ofparticulars. Two of the families of 1848 do not appear in this paper, viz, Arapaho and Kinai. Queen Charlotte Island, employed as a familyname in 1848, is placed under the Wakash family, while the Skittagetelanguage, 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 notcontained 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 vocabulariescollected in northern California, and treat of the method employed incollecting them and of the difficulties encountered. They also containnotes on the tribes speaking the several languages as well as on thearea covered. There is comparatively little of a classificatory nature, though in one instance the name Quoratem is proposed as a proper one forthe 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 oflanguages are examined in this paper for the purpose of determining thestocks 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 thecommunication is in effect that the author has heard it said that theIndians of certain pueblos speak three different languages, which he hasheard 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 atlength 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 isstated to be “a supplement to two well known contributions to Americanphilology by the late A. Gallatin. ”

So far as classification of North American languages goes, this isperhaps the most important paper of Latham’s, as in it a number of newnames are proposed for linguistic groups, such as Copeh for theSacramento River tribes, Ehnik for the Karok tribes, Mariposa Group andMendocino Group for the Yokut and Pomo tribes respectively, Moquelumnefor 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 AmericanLanguages, ” and is by Turner, as is stated in a foot-note. Though thetitle page of Part III is dated 1855, the chapter by Turner was notissued till 1856, the date of the full volume, as is stated by Turneron page 84. The following are the vocabularies given, with theirarrangement 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, havebeen 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 Mexicoand of the tribes living therein, with such vocabularies as wereavailable at the time. On pages 315-414 the tribes of British America, from about latitude 54° to 60°, are similarly treated, the variousdiscoveries being reviewed; also those on the North Pacific coast. Muchof the material should have been inserted in the volume of 1859 (whichwas prepared in 1854), to which cross reference is frequently made, andto 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 for1854, is an extensive compilation of much previous literature treatingof the Indian tribes from the Arctic Ocean southward to Guadalajara, andbears specially upon the Aztec language and its traces in the languagesof the numerous tribes scattered along the Pacific Ocean and inlandto the high plains. A large number of vocabularies and a vast amountof linguistic material are here brought together and arranged ina comprehensive manner to aid in the study attempted. In hisclassification of the tribes east of the Rocky Mountains, Buschmannlargely followed Gallatin. His treatment of those not included inGallatin’s paper is in the main original. Many of the results obtainedmay have been considered bold at the time of publication, but recentphilological investigations give evidence of the value of many of theauthor’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 fourpage supplement, giving the names, locations, and census of the tribesof the Northwest coast. They are classified by language into Chymseyan, including the Nass, Chymseyans, Skeena and Sabassas Indians, of whomtwenty-one tribes are given; Ha-eelb-zuk or Ballabola, including theMilbank Sound Indians, with nine tribes; Klen-ekate, including twentytribes; Hai-dai, including the Kygargey and Queen Charlotte’s IslandIndians, nineteen tribes being enumerated; and Qua-colth, withtwenty-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 thistable relating to the Haida, with the statement that he received it fromDr. W. F. Tolmie. The census was made in 1836-’41 by the late Mr. JohnWork, who doubtless was the author of the more complete tables publishedby 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, “tolay before the reader the chief facts and the chief trains of reasoningin Comparative Philology. ” Among the great mass of material accumulatedfor the purpose a share is devoted to the languages of North America. The remarks under these are often taken verbatim from the author’searlier papers, to which reference has been made above, and the familynames 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 Rivertribes, made at a time when the information concerning them was none tooprecise. 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 ofthe languages of Mexico; (2) notes on the immigration of the tribes ofMexico; (3) geography of the languages of Mexico. 

The author states that he has no knowledge whatever of the languages hetreats 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 professesto have used his own judgment only when these authorities left him freeto do so. 

His stated method in compiling the ethnographic map was to place beforehim the map of a certain department, examine all his authorities bearingon that department, and to mark with a distinctive color all localitiessaid to belong to a particular language. When this was done he drew aboundary line around the area of that language. Examination of the mapshows that he has partly expressed on it the classification of languagesas given in the first part of his text, and partly limited himself toindicating 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) itsmechanism; (2) its dictionary; (3) its grammar. By “mechanism” he meanspronunciation and composition; by “dictionary” he means the commonest ormost notable words. 

In the case of each language he states the localities where it isspoken, giving a short sketch of its history, the explanation of itsetymology, and a list of such writers on that language as he has becomeacquainted with. Then follows: “mechanism, dictionary, and grammar. ”Next he enumerates its dialects if there are any, and compares specimensof 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 Opatalanguage, and an appendix treating of the Comanche, the Coahuilteco, andvarious 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 thelanguages spoken in Mexico. 

In the “critical part” (apparently dispersed through the other twoparts) the author intends to pass judgment on the merits of thelanguages of Mexico, to point out their good qualities and theirdefects. 

 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 informationconcerning the inhabitants of Alaska and adjacent territories. Thenatives are divided into two groups, the Indians of the interior, andthe inhabitants of the coast, or Esquimaux. The latter are designated bythe term Orarians, which are composed of three lesser groups, Eskimo, Aleutians, and Tuski. The Orarians are distinguished, first, by theirlanguage; 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 theauthor’s article in the Proceedings of the American Association for theAdvancement 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 ofthe American Association, as above cited. The author states that“numerous additions and corrections, as well as personal observations ofmuch before taken at second hand, have placed it in my power to enlargeand 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 theAleuts. 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, andothers. 

 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 ofthe tribes of which it treats. References are here and there made to thelanguages of the several tribes, with, however, no attempt at theirclassification. A table follows the report, in which is given by Dall, after Gibbs, a classification of the tribes mentioned by Gibbs. Fivefamilies are mentioned, viz: Nūtka, Sahaptin, Tinneh, Selish, andT’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 ofthis volume is the most important contribution to the subject ever made. The author’s unusual opportunities for personal observation among thesetribes were improved to the utmost and the result is a comparativelyfull and comprehensive account of their habits and character. 

Here and there are allusions to the languages spoken, with reference tothe families to which the tribes belong. No formal classification ispresented. 

 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 collectedby Powers, Gibbs and others, classified into linguistic families, asfollows:

 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 specialcharacteristics of Indian languages, the author gives a synopsis of thelanguages 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 similarin nature to that employed in zoology in the case of generic andspecific names, adding after the name of the tribe the family to whichit 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 theseveral Pueblos to their proper stocks. A paragraph is devoted tocontradicting the popular belief that the Pueblos are in some wayrelated to the Aztecs. No vocabularies are given or cited, though theclassification 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 generalcharacteristics and peculiarities of Indian languages, followed by aclassification of all the tribes of North America, after which is givenan alphabetical list of American tribes and languages, with theirhabitats and the stock to which they belong. 

The classification is compiled from many sources, and although itcontains many errors and inconsistencies, it affords on the whole a goodgeneral 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 thePueblo Indians from linguistic considerations. The Pueblos are dividedinto 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 collectedvocabularies 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 ofvocabularies, that the Chemakum language has little in common withits 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 todate, briefly summarizing the several recent additions to knowledge. Itends with a geographical classification of the Innuit and Indian tribesof 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 divisionswhich appear to correspond to groups, families, tribes, and dialects. 

The classification does not, however, follow any consistent plan, and isin 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 thesame magazine above referred to. It enlarges further on several of thestocks there considered, and, as the title indicates, treats also of thePueblo 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 Indianmigrations--several linguistic stocks are mentioned, and the linguisticaffinities 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 tolinguistic science. They represent “one or more dialects of every Indianlanguage spoken on the Pacific slope from the Columbia River north tothe Tshilkat River, and beyond, in Alaska; and from the outermostsea-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 byclassifying all the existing material relating to this subject. Even inthe light of the knowledge of the present day his work is found to restupon a sound basis. The material of Gallatin’s time, however, was tooscanty to permit of more than an outline of the subject. Later writershave contributed to the work, and the names of Latham, Turner, Prichard, Buschmann, Hale, Gatschet, and others are connected with importantclassificatory results. 

The writer’s interest in linguistic work and the inception of a plan fora linguistic classification of Indian languages date back about 20years, to a time when he was engaged in explorations in the West. Beingbrought into contact with many tribes, it was possible to collect alarge amount of original material. Subsequently, when the Bureau ofEthnology was organized, this store was largely increased through thelabors of others. Since then a very large body of literature publishedin Indian languages has been accumulated, and a great number ofvocabularies have been gathered by the Bureau assistants and bycollaborators in various parts of the country. The results of a study ofall this material, and of much historical data, which necessarily enterslargely into work of this character, appear in the accompanying map. 

The contributions to the subject during the last fifty years have beenso important, and the additions to the material accessible to thestudent of Gallatin’s time have been so large, that much of the reproachwhich deservedly attached to American scholars because of the neglect ofAmerican linguistics has been removed. The field is a vast one, however, and the workers are comparatively few. Moreover, opportunities forcollecting linguistic material are growing fewer day by day, as tribesare consolidated upon reservations, as they become civilized, and as theolder Indians, who alone are skilled in their language, die, leaving, itmay be, only a few imperfect vocabularies as a basis for future study. History has bequeathed to us the names of many tribes, which becameextinct in early colonial times, of whose language not a hint is leftand whose linguistic relations must ever remain unknown. 

It is vain to grieve over neglected opportunities unless theircontemplation stimulates us to utilize those at hand. There are yet manygaps to be filled, even in so elementary a part of the study as theclassification of the tribes by language. As to the detailed study ofthe different linguistic families, the mastery and analysis of thelanguages composing them, and their comparison with one another and withthe languages of other families, only a beginning has been made. 

After the above statement it is hardly necessary to add that theaccompanying map does not purport to represent final results. On thecontrary, it is to be regarded as tentative, setting forth in visibleform the results of investigation up to the present time, as a guide andaid to future effort. 

Each of the colors or patterns upon the map represents a distinctlinguistic family, the total number of families contained in the wholearea being fifty-eight. It is believed that the families of languagesrepresented upon the map can not have sprung from a common source; theyare as distinct from one another in their vocabularies and apparently intheir origin as from the Aryan or the Scythian families. Unquestionably, future and more critical study will result in the fusion of some ofthese families. As the means for analysis and comparison accumulate, resemblances now hidden will be brought to light, and relationshipshitherto unsuspected will be shown to exist. Such a result may beanticipated with the more certainty inasmuch as the presentclassification has been made upon a conservative plan. Whererelationships between families are suspected, but can not bedemonstrated by convincing evidence, it has been deemed wiser not tounite them, but to keep them apart until more material shall haveaccumulated and proof of a more convincing character shall have beenbrought forward. While some of the families indicated on the map may infuture be united to other families, and the number thus be reduced, there seems to be no ground for the belief that the total of thelinguistic families of this country will be materially diminished, atleast under the present methods of linguistic analysis, for there islittle reason to doubt that, as the result of investigation in thefield, there will be discovered tribes speaking languages notclassifiable under any of the present families; thus the decrease in thetotal by reason of consolidation may be compensated by a correspondingincrease through discovery. It may even be possible that some of thesimilarities used in combining languages into families may, on furtherstudy, prove to be adventitious, and the number may be increasedthereby. To which side the numerical balance will fall remains for thefuture to decide. 

As stated above, all the families occupy the same basis of dissimilarityfrom one another--i. E. , none of them are related--and consequently notwo of them are either more or less alike than any other two, exceptin so far as mere coincidences and borrowed material may be said toconstitute likeness and relationship. Coincidences in the nature ofsuperficial word resemblances are common in all languages of the world. No matter how widely separated geographically two families of languagesmay be, no matter how unlike their vocabularies, how distinct theirorigin, some words may always be found which appear upon superficialexamination to indicate relationship. There is not a single Indianlinguistic family, for instance, which does not contain words similarin sound, and more rarely similar in both sound and meaning, to wordsin English, Chinese, Hebrew, and other languages. Not only do suchresemblances exist, but they have been discovered and pointed out, notas mere adventitious similarities, but as proof of genetic relationship. Borrowed linguistic material also appears in every family, tempting theunwary investigator into making false analogies and drawing erroneousconclusions. Neither coincidences nor borrowed material, however, can beproperly regarded as evidence of cognation. 

While occupying the same plane of genetic dissimilarity, the familiesare by no means alike as regards either the extent of territoryoccupied, the number of tribes grouped under them respectively, or thenumber of languages and dialects of which they are composed. Some ofthem cover wide areas, whose dimensions are stated in terms of latitudeand longitude rather than by miles. Others occupy so little space thatthe colors representing them are hardly discernible upon the map. Someof them contain but a single tribe; others are represented by scores oftribes. In the case of a few, the term “family” is commensurate withlanguage, since there is but one language and no dialects. In the caseof others, their tribes spoke several languages, so distinct from oneanother as to be for the most part mutually unintelligible, and thelanguages shade into many dialects more or less diverse. 

The map, designed primarily for the use of students who are engaged ininvestigating the Indians of the United States, was at first limited tothis area; subsequently its scope was extended to include the whole ofNorth America north of Mexico. Such an extension of its plan was, indeed, almost necessary, since a number of important families, largelyrepresented in the United States, are yet more largely represented inthe territory to the north, and no adequate conception of the size andrelative importance of such families as the Algonquian, Siouan, Salishan, Athapascan, and others can be had without includingextralimital territory. 

To the south, also, it happens that several linguistic stocks extendbeyond the boundaries of the United States. Three families are, indeed, mainly extralimital in their position, viz: Yuman, the great body of thetribes of which family inhabited the peninsula of Lower California;Piman, which has only a small representation in southern Arizona; andthe Coahuiltecan, which intrudes into southwestern Texas. The Athapascanfamily is represented in Arizona and New Mexico by the well known Apacheand Navajo, the former of whom have gained a strong foothold in northernMexico, while the Tañoan, a Pueblo family of the upper Rio Grande, hasestablished a few pueblos lower down the river in Mexico. For thepurpose of necessary comparison, therefore, the map is made to includeall of North America north of Mexico, the entire peninsula of LowerCalifornia, and so much of Mexico as is necessary to show the range offamilies common to that country and to the United States. It is left toa future occasion to attempt to indicate the linguistic relations ofMexico 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 locationsof the several linguistic families at different epochs; nor can a singlemap be made to represent the migrations of the tribes composing thelinguistic families. In order to make a clear presentation of the lattersubject, it would be necessary to prepare a series of maps showing theareas successively occupied by the several tribes as they were disruptedand driven from section to section under the pressure of other tribes orthe vastly more potent force of European encroachment. Although the datanecessary for a complete representation of tribal migration, even forthe 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 presenteddid not the amount of time and labor and the large expense attendantupon 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 timewhen the tribes composing them first became known to the European, orwhen they first appear on recorded history. As the dates when thedifferent tribes became known vary, it follows as a matter of coursethat the periods represented by the colors in one portion of the map arenot synchronous with those in other portions. Thus the data for theColumbia River tribes is derived chiefly from the account of the journeyof Lewis and Clarke in 1803-’05, long before which period radicalchanges of location had taken place among the tribes of the easternUnited States. Again, not only are the periods represented by thedifferent sections of the map not synchronous, but only in the case of afew of the linguistic families, and these usually the smaller ones, isit possible to make the coloring synchronous for different sections ofthe same family. Thus our data for the location of some of the northernmembers of the Shoshonean family goes back to 1804, a date at whichabsolutely no knowledge had been gained of most of the southern membersof the group, our first accounts of whom began about 1850. Again, ourknowledge 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 twocenturies later. 

Notwithstanding these facts, an attempt to fix upon the areas formerlyoccupied by the several linguistic families, and of the pristine homesof many of the tribes composing them, is by no means hopeless. Forinstance, concerning the position of the western tribes during theperiod of early contact of our colonies and its agreement with theirposition later when they appear in history, it may be inferred that as arule it was stationary, though positive evidence is lacking. Whenchanges of tribal habitat actually took place they were rarely in thenature of extensive migration, by which a portion of a linguistic familywas severed from the main body, but usually in the form of encroachmentby a tribe or tribes upon neighboring territory, which resulted simplyin the extension of the limits of one linguistic family at the expenseof another, the defeated tribes being incorporated or confined withinnarrower limits. If the above inference be correct, the fact thatdifferent chronologic periods are represented upon the map is ofcomparatively little importance, since, if the Indian tribes were in themain sedentary, and not nomadic, the changes resulting in the course ofone or two centuries would not make material differences. Exactly theopposite opinion, however, has been expressed by many writers, viz, thatthe North American Indian tribes were nomadic. The picture presented bythese writers is of a medley of ever-shifting tribes, to-day here, to-morrow there, occupying new territory and founding new homes--ifnomads can be said to have homes--only to abandon them. Such a picture, however, is believed to convey an erroneous idea of the former conditionof our Indian tribes. As the question has significance in the presentconnection it must be considered somewhat at length. 

 INDIAN TRIBES SEDENTARY. 

In the first place, the linguistic map, based as it is upon the earliestevidence obtainable, itself offers conclusive proof, not only that theIndian tribes were in the main sedentary at the time history firstrecords their position, but that they had been sedentary for a very longperiod. In order that this may be made plain, it should be clearlyunderstood, as stated above, that each of the colors or patterns uponthe map indicates a distinct linguistic family. It will be noticed thatthe colors representing the several families are usually in singlebodies, i. E. , that they represent continuous areas, and that with someexceptions the same color is not scattered here and there over the mapin small spots. Yet precisely this last state of things is what would beexpected had the tribes representing the families been nomadic to amarked degree. If nomadic tribes occupied North America, instead ofspreading out each from a common center, as the colors show that thetribes composing the several families actually did, they would have beendispersed here and there over the whole face of the country. That theyare not so dispersed is considered proof that in the main they weresedentary. It has been stated above that more or less extensivemigrations of some tribes over the country had taken place prior toEuropean occupancy. This fact is disclosed by a glance at the presentmap. The great Athapascan family, for instance, occupying the largerpart of British America, is known from linguistic evidence to have sentoff colonies into Oregon (Wilopah, Tlatskanai, Coquille), California(Smith River tribes, Kenesti or Wailakki tribes, Hupa), and Arizona andNew Mexico (Apache, Navajo). How long before European occupancy of thiscountry these migrations took place can not be told, but in the case ofmost of them it was undoubtedly many years. By the test of language itis seen that the great Siouan family, which we have come to look upon asalmost exclusively western, had one offshoot in Virginia (Tutelo), another in North and South Carolina (Catawba), and a third inMississippi (Biloxi); and the Algonquian family, so important in theearly history of this country, while occupying a nearly continuous areain the north and east, had yet secured a foothold, doubtless in veryrecent times, in Wyoming and Colorado. These and other similar factssufficiently prove the power of individual tribes or gentes to sunderrelations with the great body of their kindred and to remove to distanthomes. Tested by linguistic evidence, such instances appear to beexceptional, and the fact remains that in the great majority of casesthe tribes composing linguistic families occupy continuous areas, andhence are and have been practically sedentary. Nor is the bond of acommon language, strong and enduring as that bond is usually thought tobe, entirely sufficient to explain the phenomenon here pointed out. Whensmall in number the linguistic tie would undoubtedly aid in bindingtogether the members of a tribe; but as the people speaking a commonlanguage increase in number and come to have conflicting interests, thelinguistic tie has often proved to be an insufficient bond of union. Inthe case of our Indian tribes feuds and internecine conflicts werecommon between members of the same linguistic family. In fact, it isprobable that a very large number of the dialects into which Indianlanguages 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 distinctdialects or languages. 

But linguistic evidence alone need not be relied upon to prove that theNorth American Indian was not nomadic. 

Corroborative proof of the sedentary character of our Indian tribes isto be found in the curious form of kinship system, with mother-right asits chief factor, which prevails. This, as has been pointed out inanother place, is not adapted to the necessities of nomadic tribes, which need to be governed by a patriarchal system, and, as well, to bepossessed of flocks and herds. 

There is also an abundance of historical evidence to show that, whenfirst discovered by Europeans, the Indians of the eastern United Stateswere found living in fixed habitations. This does not necessarily implythat the entire year was spent in one place. Agriculture not beingpracticed to an extent sufficient to supply the Indian with fullsubsistence, he was compelled to make occasional changes from hispermanent home to the more or less distant waters and forests to procuresupplies of food. When furnished with food and skins for clothing, thehunting parties returned to the village which constituted their truehome. At longer periods, for several reasons--among which probably thechief were the hostility of stronger tribes, the failure of the fuelsupply near the village, and the compulsion exercised by the ever livelysuperstitious fancies of the Indians--the villages were abandoned andnew ones formed to constitute new homes, new focal points from which toset out on their annual hunts and to which to return when these werecompleted. The tribes of the eastern United States had fixed anddefinitely bounded habitats, and their wanderings were in the nature oftemporary excursions to established points resorted to from timeimmemorial. As, however, they had not yet entered completely into theagricultural condition, to which they were fast progressing from thehunter state, they may be said to have been nomadic to a very limitedextent. The method of life thus sketched was substantially the one whichthe Indians were found practicing throughout the eastern part of theUnited States, as also, though to a less degree, in the Pacific States. Upon the Pacific coast proper the tribes were even more sedentary thanupon the Atlantic, as the mild climate and the great abundance andpermanent supply of fish and shellfish left no cause for a seasonalchange of abode. 

When, however, the interior portions of the country were first visitedby Europeans, a different state of affairs was found to prevail. Therethe acquisition of the horse and the possession of firearms had wroughtvery great changes in aboriginal habits. The acquisition of the formerenabled the Indian of the treeless plains to travel distances with easeand celerity which before were practically impossible, and thepossession of firearms stimulated tribal aggressiveness to the utmostpitch. Firearms were everywhere doubly effective in producing changes intribal habitats, since the somewhat gradual introduction of trade placedthese deadly weapons in the hands of some tribes, and of whole congeriesof tribes, long before others could obtain them. Thus the general stateof tribal equilibrium which had before prevailed was rudely disturbed. Tribal warfare, which hitherto had been attended with inconsiderableloss of life and slight territorial changes, was now made terriblydestructive, and the territorial possessions of whole groups of tribeswere augmented at the expense of those less fortunate. The horse madewanderers of many tribes which there is sufficient evidence to show wereformerly nearly sedentary. Firearms enforced migration and causedwholesale changes in the habitats of tribes, which, in the natural orderof events, it would have taken many centuries to produce. The changesresulting from these combined agencies, great as they were, are, however, slight in comparison with the tremendous effects of thewholesale occupancy of Indian territory by Europeans. As the acquisitionof territory by the settlers went on, a wave of migration from east towest was inaugurated which affected tribes far remote from the point ofdisturbance, ever forcing them within narrower and narrower bounds, and, as time went on, producing greater and greater changes throughout theentire country. 

So much of the radical change in tribal habitats as took place in thearea remote from European settlements, mainly west of the Mississippi, is chiefly unrecorded, save imperfectly in Indian tradition, and ischiefly to be inferred from linguistic evidence and from the few factsin our possession. As, however, the most important of these changesoccurred after, and as a result of, European occupancy, they are notedin history, and thus the map really gives a better idea of the pristineor prehistoric habitat of the tribes than at first might be thoughtpossible. 

Before speaking of the method of establishing the boundary lines betweenthe linguistic families, as they appear upon the map, the nature of theIndian claim to land and the manner and extent of its occupation shouldbe clearly set forth. 

 POPULATION. 

As the question of the Indian population of the country has a directbearing upon the extent to which the land was actually occupied, a fewwords on the subject will be introduced here, particularly as the areaincluded in the linguistic map is so covered with color that it mayconvey a false impression of the density of the Indian population. As a result of an investigation of the subject of the early Indianpopulation, Col. Mallery long ago arrived at the conclusion that theirsettlements were not numerous, and that the population, as compared withthe 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 tocorroborate 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 fishand shell-fish were to be obtained in large quantities, were naturallythe Indians’ chief resort, and at or near such places were to be foundtheir permanent settlements. As the settlements and lines of travel ofthe early colonists were along the shore, the lakes and the rivers, early estimates of the Indian population were chiefly based upon thenumbers congregated along these highways, it being generally assumedthat away from the routes of travel a like population existed. Again, over-estimates of population resulted from the fact that the same bodyof Indians visited different points during the year, and notinfrequently were counted two or three times; change of permanentvillage sites also tended to augment estimates of population. 

For these and other reasons a greatly exaggerated idea of the Indianpopulation was obtained, and the impressions so derived have beendissipated only in comparatively recent times. 

As will be stated more fully later, the Indian was dependent to no smalldegree upon natural products for his food supply. Could it be affirmedthat the North American Indians had increased to a point where theypressed upon the food supply, it would imply a very much largerpopulation than we are justified in assuming from other considerations. But for various reasons the Malthusian law, whether applicable elsewhereor not, can not be applied to the Indians of this country. Everywherebountiful nature had provided an unfailing and practically inexhaustiblefood supply. The rivers teemed with fish and mollusks, and the forestswith game, while upon all sides was an abundance of nutritious roots andseeds. All of these sources were known, and to a large extent they weredrawn upon by the Indian, but the practical lesson of providing in theseason of plenty for the season of scarcity had been but imperfectlylearned, or, when learned, was but partially applied. Even when taughtby dire experience the necessity of laying up adequate stores, it wasthe almost universal practice to waste great quantities of food by aconstant succession of feasts, in the superstitious observances of whichthe stores were rapidly wasted and plenty soon gave way to scarcity andeven to famine. 

Curiously enough, the hospitality which is so marked a trait among ourNorth American Indians had its source in a law, the invariable practiceof which has had a marked effect in retarding the acquisition by theIndian of the virtue of providence. As is well known, the basis of theIndian social organization was the kinship system. By its provisionsalmost all property was possessed in common by the gens or clan. Food, the most important of all, was by no means left to be exclusivelyenjoyed by the individual or the family obtaining it. 

For instance, the distribution of game among the families of a party wasvariously provided for in different tribes, but the practical effect ofthe several customs relating thereto was the sharing of the supply. Thehungry Indian had but to ask to receive and this no matter how small thesupply, or how dark the future prospect. It was not only his privilegeto ask, it was his right to demand. Undoubtedly what was originally aright, conferred by kinship connections, ultimately assumed broaderproportions, and finally passed into the exercise of an almostindiscriminate hospitality. By reason of this custom, the poor hunterwas virtually placed upon equality with the expert one, the lazy withthe industrious, the improvident with the more provident. Stories ofIndian life abound with instances of individual families or partiesbeing called upon by those less fortunate or provident to share theirsupplies. 

The effect of such a system, admirable as it was in many particulars, practically placed a premium upon idleness. Under such communal rightsand privileges a potent spur to industry and thrift is wanting. 

There is an obverse side to this problem, which a long and intimateacquaintance with the Indians in their villages has forced upon thewriter. The communal ownership of food and the great hospitalitypracticed by the Indian have had a very much greater influence upon hischaracter than that indicated in the foregoing remarks. The peculiarinstitutions prevailing in this respect gave to each tribe or clan aprofound interest in the skill, ability and industry of each member. Hewas the most valuable person in the community who supplied it with themost of its necessities. For this reason the successful hunter orfisherman was always held in high honor, and the woman, who gatheredgreat store of seeds, fruits, or roots, or who cultivated a goodcorn-field, was one who commanded the respect and received the highestapprobation of the people. The simple and rude ethics of a tribal peopleare very important to them, the more so because of their communalinstitutions; and everywhere throughout the tribes of the United Statesit is discovered that their rules of conduct were deeply implanted inthe minds of the people. An organized system of teaching is alwaysfound, as it is the duty of certain officers of the clan to instruct theyoung in all the industries necessary to their rude life, and simplemaxims of industry abound among the tribes and are enforced in diverseand interesting ways. The power of the elder men in the clan over itsyoung members is always very great, and the training of the youth isconstant and rigid. Besides this, a moral sentiment exists in favor ofprimitive virtues which is very effective in molding character. This maybe illustrated in two ways. 

Marriage among all Indian tribes is primarily by legal appointment, asthe young woman receives a husband from some other prescribed clan orclans, and the elders of the clan, with certain exceptions, controlthese 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 andto supply the clan or tribe with a due amount of subsistence, arediscussed long and earnestly, and the young man or maiden who fails inthis respect may fail in securing an eligible and desirable match. Andthese motives are constantly presented to the savage youth. 

A simple democracy exists among these people, and they have a variety oftribal offices to fill. In this way the men of the tribe are graded, andthey pass from grade to grade by a selection practically made by thepeople. And this leads to a constant discussion of the virtues andabilities 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 mostuseful to the clan and the tribe. In this manner all of the ambitiousare stimulated, and this incentive to industry is very great. 

When brought into close contact with the Indian, and into intimateacquaintance with his language, customs, and religious ideas, there is acurious tendency observable in students to overlook aboriginal vices andto exaggerate aboriginal virtues. It seems to be forgotten that afterall the Indian is a savage, with the characteristics of a savage, and heis exalted even above the civilized man. The tendency is exactly thereverse of what it is in the case of those who view the Indian at adistance and with no precise knowledge of any of his characteristics. Inthe estimation of such persons the Indian’s vices greatly outweigh hisvirtues; his language is a gibberish, his methods of war cowardly, hisideas of religion utterly puerile. 

The above tendencies are accentuated in the attempt to estimate thecomparative worth and position of individual tribes. No being is morepatriotic than the Indian. He believes himself to be the result of aspecial creation by a partial deity and holds that his is the onefavored race. The name by which the tribes distinguish themselves fromother tribes indicates the further conviction that, as the Indian isabove all created things, so in like manner each particular tribe isexalted above all others. “Men of men” is the literal translation of onename; “the only men” of another, and so on through the whole category. Along residence with any one tribe frequently inoculates the student withthe same patriotic spirit. Bringing to his study of a particular tribean inadequate conception of Indian attainments and a low impression oftheir moral and intellectual plane, the constant recital of its virtues, the bravery and prowess of its men in war, their generosity, the chasteconduct and obedience of its women as contrasted with the oppositequalities of all other tribes, speedily tends to partisanship. Hediscovers many virtues and finds that the moral and intellectualattainments are higher than he supposed; but these advantages heimagines to be possessed solely, or at least to an unusual degree, bythe tribe in question. Other tribes are assigned much lower rank in thescale. 

The above is peculiarly true of the student of language. He who studiesonly one Indian language and learns its manifold curious grammaticdevices, its wealth of words, its capacity of expression, is speedilyconvinced of its superiority to all other Indian tongues, and notinfrequently to all languages by whomsoever spoken. 

If like admirable characteristics are asserted for other tongues he isapt to view them but as derivatives from one original. Thus he is led tooverlook the great truth that the mind of man is everywhere practicallythe same, and that the innumerable differences of its products areindices merely of different stages of growth or are the results ofdifferent conditions of environment. In its development the human mindis limited by no boundaries of tribe or race. 

Again, a long acquaintance with many tribes in their homes leads to thebelief that savage people do not lack industry so much as wisdom. Theyare capable of performing, and often do perform, great and continuouslabor. The men and women alike toil from day to day and from year toyear, engaged in those tasks that are presented with the recurringseasons. In civilization, hunting and fishing are often consideredsports, but in savagery they are labors, and call for endurance, patience, and sagacity. And these are exercised to a reasonable degreeamong all savage peoples. 

It is probable that the real difficulty of purchasing quantities of foodfrom Indians has, in most cases, not been properly understood. Unlessthe alien is present at a time of great abundance, when there is more onhand or easily obtainable than sufficient to supply the wants of thepeople, food can not be bought of the Indians. This arises from the factthat the tribal tenure is communal, and to get food by purchase requiresa treaty at which all the leading members of the tribe are present andgive consent. 

As an illustration of the improvidence of the Indians generally, thehabits of the tribes along the Columbia River may be cited. The ColumbiaRiver has often been pointed to as the probable source of a great partof the Indian population of this country, because of the enormous supplyof salmon furnished by it and its tributaries. If an abundant andreadily obtained supply of food was all that was necessary to insure alarge population, and if population always increased up to the limit offood supply, unquestionably the theory of repeated migratory waves ofsurplus population from the Columbia Valley would be plausible enough. It is only necessary, however, to turn to the accounts of the earlierexplorers of this region, Lewis and Clarke, for example, to refute theidea, so far at least as the Columbia Valley is concerned, although astudy of the many diverse languages spread over the United States wouldseem sufficiently to prove that the tribes speaking them could not haveoriginated at a common center, unless, indeed, at a period anterior tothe formation of organized language. 

The Indians inhabiting the Columbia Valley were divided into manytribes, belonging to several distinct linguistic families. They all werein the same culture status, however, and differed in habits and artsonly in minor particulars. All of them had recourse to the salmon of theColumbia for the main part of their subsistence, and all practicedsimilar crude methods of curing fish and storing it away for the winter. Without exception, judging from the accounts of the above mentioned andof more recent authors, all the tribes suffered periodically more orless from insufficient food supply, although, with the exercise of dueforethought and economy, even with their rude methods of catching andcuring salmon, enough might here have been cured annually to suffice forthe wants of the Indian population of the entire Northwest for severalyears. 

In their ascent of the river in spring, before the salmon run, it wasonly with great difficulty that Lewis and Clarke were able to providethemselves by purchase with enough food to keep themselves fromstarving. Several parties of Indians from the vicinity of the Dalles, the best fishing station on the river, were met on their way down inquest of food, their supply of dried salmon having been entirelyexhausted. 

Nor is there anything in the accounts of any of the early visitors tothe Columbia Valley to authorize the belief that the population therewas a very large one. As was the case with all fish-stocked streams, theColumbia was resorted to in the fishing season by many tribes living atconsiderable distance from it; but there is no evidence tending to showthat the settled population of its banks or of any part of its drainagebasin 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 ofother 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 wasit elsewhere in the United States. 

Even the practice of agriculture, with its result of providing a morecertain and bountiful food supply, seems not to have had the effect ofmaterially augmenting the Indian population. At all events, it is inCalifornia and Oregon, a region where agriculture was scarcely practicedat all, that the most dense aboriginal population lived. There is noreason to believe that there ever existed within the limits of theregion included in the map, with the possible exception of certain areasin California, a population equal to the natural food supply. On thecontrary, there is every reason for believing that the population at thetime of the discovery might have been many times more than what itactually was had a wise economy been practised. 

The effect of wars in decimating the people has often been greatlyexaggerated. Since the advent of the white man on the continent, warshave prevailed to a degree far beyond that existing at an earlier time. From the contest which necessarily arose between the native tribes andinvading nations many wars resulted, and their history is well known. Again, tribes driven from their ancestral homes often retreated to landspreviously occupied by other tribes, and intertribal wars resultedtherefrom. The acquisition of firearms and horses, through the agency ofwhite men, also had its influence, and when a commercial value was givento furs and skins, the Indian abandoned agriculture to pursue huntingand traffic, and sought new fields for such enterprises, and many newcontests arose from this cause. Altogether the character of the Indiansince the discovery of Columbus has been greatly changed, and he hasbecome far more warlike and predatory. Prior to that time, and far awayin the wilderness beyond such influence since that time, Indian tribesseem to have lived together in comparative peace and to have settledtheir difficulties by treaty methods. A few of the tribes had distinctorganizations for purposes of war; all recognized it to a greater orless extent in their tribal organization; but from such study as hasbeen given the subject, and from the many facts collected from time totime relating to the intercourse existing between tribes, it appearsthat the Indians lived in comparative peace. Their accumulations werenot so great as to be tempting, and their modes of warfare were notexcessively destructive. Armed with clubs and spears and bows andarrows, war could be prosecuted only by hand-to-hand conflict, anddepended largely upon individual prowess, while battle for plunder, tribute, and conquest was almost unknown. Such intertribal wars asoccurred originated from other causes, such as infraction of rightsrelating to hunting grounds and fisheries, and still oftener prejudicesgrowing 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 orefficacious system of medicine. They believed that diseases were causedby unseen evil beings and by witchcraft, and every cough, everytoothache, every headache, every chill, every fever, every boil, andevery wound, in fact, all their ailments, were attributed to such cause. Their so-called medicine practice was a horrible system of sorcery, andto such superstition human life was sacrificed on an enormous scale. Thesufferers were given over to priest doctors to be tormented, bedeviled, and destroyed; and a universal and profound belief in witchcraft madethem suspicious, and led to the killing of all suspected and obnoxiouspeople, and engendered blood feuds on a gigantic scale. It may be safelysaid that while famine, pestilence, disease, and war may have killedmany, superstition killed more; in fact, a natural death in a savagetent is a comparatively rare phenomenon; but death by sorcery, medicine, and blood feud arising from a belief in witchcraft is exceedinglycommon. 

Scanty as was the population compared with the vast area teeming withnatural products capable of supporting human life, it may be safely saidthat at the time of the discovery, and long prior thereto, practicallythe whole of the area included in the present map was claimed and tosome extent occupied by Indian tribes; but the possession of land by theIndian by no means implies occupancy in the modern or civilized sense ofthe term. In the latter sense occupation means to a great extentindividual control and ownership. Very different was it with theIndians. Individual ownership of land was, as a rule, a thing entirelyforeign to the Indian mind, and quite unknown in the culture stage towhich 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 thecase of the Haida of the northwest coast, who have been studied byDawson. According to him[3] the land is divided among the differentfamilies and is held as strictly personal property, with hereditaryrights or possessions descending from one generation to another. “Thelands may be bartered or given away. The larger salmon streams are, however, often the property jointly of a number of families. ” Thetendency 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 intothree classes: First, the land occupied by the villages; second, theland actually employed in agriculture; third, the land claimed by thetribe but not occupied, except as a hunting ground. 

_Village sites_. --The amount of land taken up as village sites variedconsiderably in different parts of the country. It varied also in thesame tribe at different times. As a rule, the North American Indianslived in communal houses of sufficient size to accommodate severalfamilies. In such cases the village consisted of a few large structuresclosely grouped together, so that it covered very little ground. Whenterritory was occupied by warlike tribes, the construction of rudepalisades around the villages and the necessities of defense generallytended to compel the grouping of houses, and the permanent village sitesof even the more populous tribes covered only a very small area. In thecase of confederated tribes and in the time of peace the tendency wasfor one or more families to establish more or less permanent settlementsaway from the main village, where a livelihood was more readilyobtainable. Hence, in territory which had enjoyed a considerableinterval of peace the settlements were in the nature of smallagricultural communities, established at short distances from each otherand extending in the aggregate over a considerable extent of country. Inthe case of populous tribes the villages were probably of the characterof the Choctaw towns described by Adair. [4] “The barrier towns, whichare next to the Muskohge and Chikkasah countries, are compactly settledfor social defense, according to the general method of other savagenations; but the rest, both in the center and toward the Mississippi, are only scattered plantations, as best suits a separate easy way ofliving. A stranger might be in the middle of one of their populous, extensive towns without seeing half a dozen houses in the direct courseof his path. ” More closely grouped settlements are described by Wayne inAmerican State Papers, 1793, in his account of an expedition down theMaumee Valley, where he states that “The margins of the Miamis of theLake and the Au Glaize appear like one continuous village for a numberof miles, nor have I ever beheld such immense fields of corn in any partof America from Canada to Florida. ” Such a chain of villages as this wasprobably highly exceptional; but even under such circumstances thevillage sites proper formed but a very small part of the total areaoccupied. 

 [Footnote 4: Hist. Of Am. Ind. , 1775, p. 282. ]

From the foregoing considerations it will be seen that the amount ofland occupied as village sites under any circumstances wasinconsiderable. 

_Agricultural land_. --It is practically impossible to make an accurateestimate of the relative amount of land devoted to agricultural purposesby any one tribe or by any family of tribes. None of the factors whichenter into the problem are known to us with sufficient accuracy toenable reliable estimates to be made of the amount of land tilled or ofthe products derived from the tillage; and only in few cases have wetrustworthy estimates of the population of the tribe or tribespracticing agriculture. Only a rough approximation of the truth can bereached from the scanty data available and from a general knowledge ofIndian methods of subsistence. 

The practice of agriculture was chiefly limited to the region south ofthe St. Lawrence and east of the Mississippi. In this region it was farmore general and its results were far more important than is commonlysupposed. To the west of the Mississippi only comparatively small areaswere occupied by agricultural tribes and these lay chiefly in New Mexicoand Arizona and along the Arkansas, Platte, and Missouri Rivers. Therest of that region was tenanted by non-agricultural tribes--unlessindeed the slight attention paid to the cultivation of tobacco by a fewof the west coast tribes, notably the Haida, may be consideredagriculture. Within the first mentioned area most of the tribes, perhapsall, practiced agriculture to a greater or less extent, thoughunquestionably the degree of reliance placed upon it as a means ofsupport differed much with different tribes and localities. 

Among many tribes agriculture was relied upon to supply animportant--and perhaps in the case of a few tribes, the mostimportant--part of the food supply. The accounts of some of the earlyexplorers in the southern United States, where probably agriculture wasmore systematized than elsewhere, mention corn fields of great extent, and later knowledge of some northern tribes, as the Iroquois and some ofthe Ohio Valley tribes, shows that they also raised corn in greatquantities. The practice of agriculture to a point where it shall provethe main and constant supply of a people, however, implies a degree ofsedentariness to which our Indians as a rule had not attained and anamount of steady labor without immediate return which was peculiarlyirksome to them. Moreover, the imperfect methods pursued in clearing, planting, and cultivating sufficiently prove that the Indians, thoughagriculturists, were in the early stages of development as such--a factalso attested by the imperfect and one-sided division of labor betweenthe sexes, the men as a rule taking but small share of the burdensometasks of clearing land, planting, and harvesting. 

It is certain that by no tribe of the United States was agriculturepursued to such an extent as to free its members from the practice ofthe hunter’s or fisher’s art. Admitting the most that can be claimed forthe Indian as an agriculturist, it may be stated that, whether becauseof the small population or because of the crude manner in which hisoperations were carried on, the amount of land devoted to agriculturewithin the area in question was infinitesimally small as compared withthe total. Upon a map colored to show only the village sites andagricultural land, the colors would appear in small spots, while by farthe greater part of the map would remain uncolored. 

_Hunting claims_. --The great body of the land within the area mappedwhich 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 tolittle else than hunting claims. The community of possession in thetribe to the hunting ground was established and practically enforced byhunting laws, which dealt with the divisions of game among the village, or among the families of the hunters actually taking part in anyparticular hunt. As a rule, such natural landmarks as rivers, lakes, hills, and mountain chains served to mark with sufficient accuracy theterritorial tribal limits. In California, and among the Haida andperhaps other tribes of the northwest coast, the value of certainhunting and fishing claims led to their definition by artificialboundaries, 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 asCalifornia the killing of game upon the land of adjoining tribes wasrigidly prohibited and sternly punished. 

As stated above, every part of the vast area included in the present mapis to be regarded as belonging, according to Indian ideas of land title, to one or another of the Indian tribes. To determine the several tribalpossessions and to indicate the proper boundary lines between individualtribes and linguistic families is a work of great difficulty. This isdue more to the imperfection and scantiness of available data concerningtribal claims than to the absence of claimants or to any ambiguity inthe minds of the Indians as to the boundaries of their severalpossessions. 

Not only is precise data wanting respecting the limits of land actuallyheld or claimed by many tribes, but there are other tribes, whichdisappeared early in the history of our country, the boundaries to whosehabitat is to be determined only in the most general way. Concerningsome of these, our information is so vague that the very linguisticfamily they belonged to is in doubt. In the case of probably no onefamily are the data sufficient in amount and accuracy to determinepositively the exact areas definitely claimed or actually held by thetribes. Even in respect of the territory of many of the tribes of theeastern United States, much of whose land was ceded by actual treatywith the Government, doubt exists. The fixation of the boundary points, when these are specifically mentioned in the treaty, as was the rule, isoften extremely difficult, owing to the frequent changes of geographicnames and the consequent disagreement of present with ancient maps. Moreover, when the Indian’s claim to his land had been admitted byGovernment, and the latter sought to acquire a title through voluntarycession by actual purchase, land assumed a value to the Indian neverattaching to it before. 

Under these circumstances, either under plea of immemorial occupancy orof possession by right of conquest, the land was often claimed, and theclaims urged with more or less plausibility by several tribes, sometimesof the same linguistic family, sometimes of different families. 

It was often found by the Government to be utterly impracticable todecide between conflicting claims, and not infrequently the only way outof the difficulty lay in admitting the claim of both parties, and inpaying for the land twice or thrice. It was customary for a number ofdifferent tribes to take part in such treaties, and not infrequentlyseveral linguistic families were represented. It was the rule for eachtribe, through its representatives, to cede its share of a certainterritory, the natural boundaries of which as a whole are usuallyrecorded with sufficient accuracy. The main purpose of the Government intreaty-making being to obtain possession of the land, comparativelylittle attention was bestowed to defining the exact areas occupied bythe several tribes taking part in a treaty, except in so far as thematter was pressed upon attention by disputing claimants. Hence theterritory claimed by each tribe taking part in the treaty is rarelydescribed, and occasionally not all the tribes interested in theproposed cession are even mentioned categorically. The latter statementapplies more particularly to the territory west of the Mississippi, thedata for determining ownership to which is much less precise, and thedoubt and confusion respecting tribal boundary lines correspondinglygreater than in the country east of that river. Under the abovecircumstances, it will be readily understood that to determine tribalboundaries within accurately drawn lines is in the vast majority ofcases quite impossible. 

Imperfect and defective as the terms of the treaties frequently are asregards the definition of tribal boundaries, they are by far the mostaccurate and important of the means at our command for fixing boundarylines upon the present map. By their aid the territorial possessions ofa considerable number of tribes have been determined with desirableprecision, and such areas definitely established have served as checksupon the boundaries of other tribes, concerning the location and extentof whose possessions little is known. 

For establishing the boundaries of such tribes as are not mentioned intreaties, and of those whose territorial possessions are not given withsufficient minuteness, early historical accounts are all important. Suchaccounts, of course, rarely indicate the territorial possessions of thetribes with great precision. In many cases, however, the sites ofvillages are accurately given. In others the source of informationconcerning a tribe is contained in a general statement of the occupancyof certain valleys or mountain ranges or areas at the heads of certainrivers, no limiting lines whatever being assigned. In others, still, thenotice of a tribe is limited to a brief mention of the presence in acertain locality of hunting or war parties. 

Data of this loose character would of course be worthless in an attemptto fix boundary lines in accordance with the ideas of the modernsurveyor. The relative positions of the families and the relative sizeof the areas occupied by them, however, and not their exact boundaries, are the chief concern in a linguistic map, and for the purpose ofestablishing these, and, in a rough way, the boundaries of the territoryheld by the tribes composing them, these data are very important, andwhen compared with one another and corrected by more definite data, whensuch are at hand, they have usually been found to be sufficient for thepurpose. 

 SUMMARY OF DEDUCTIONS. 

In conclusion, the more important deductions derivable from the dataupon which the linguistic map is based, or that are suggested by it, maybe summarized as follows:

First, the North American Indian tribes, instead of speaking relateddialects, originating in a single parent language, in reality speak manylanguages belonging to distinct families, which have no apparent unityof origin. 

Second, the Indian population of North America was greatly exaggeratedby early writers, and instead of being large was in reality small ascompared 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 hadoverspread North America and had possessed themselves of all theterritory, which, in the case of a great majority of tribes, was ownedin common by the tribe. 

Fourth, prior to the advent of the European, the tribes were probablynearly in a state of equilibrium, and were in the main sedentary, andthose tribes which can be said with propriety to have been nomadicbecame so only after the advent of the European, and largely as thedirect result of the acquisition of the horse and the introduction offirearms. 

Fifth, while agriculture was general among the tribes of the easternUnited States, and while it was spreading among western tribes, itsproducts were nowhere sufficient wholly to emancipate the Indian fromthe hunter state. 

 * * * * *

 LINGUISTIC FAMILIES. 

Within the area covered by the map there are recognized fifty-eightdistinct linguistic families. 

These are enumerated in alphabetical order and each is accompanied bya table of the synonyms of the family name, together with a briefstatement of the geographical area occupied by each family, so far as itis 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 Spanishfort or mission of Adaize, “about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below theYattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with thedivision of Red River that passes by Bayau Pierre. ”[6] A vocabulary ofabout two hundred and fifty words is all that remains to us of theirlanguage, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, “differs fromall others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nationcan 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 reachedthe conclusion of the distinctness of this language from any otherknown, an opinion accepted by most later authorities. A recentcomparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoandialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of theAdái words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and heregards it as a Caddoan dialect. The amount of material, however, necessary to establish its relationship to Caddoan is not at presentforthcoming, and it may be doubted if it ever will be, as recent inquiryhas failed to reveal the existence of a single member of the tribe, orof any individual of the tribes once surrounding the Adái who remembersa word of the language. 

Mr. Gatschet found that some of the older Caddo in the Indian Territoryremembered the Adái as one of the tribes formerly belonging to the CaddoConfederacy. More than this he was unable to learn from them. 

Owing to their small numbers, their remoteness from lines of travel, andtheir unwarlike character the Adái have cut but a small figure inhistory, 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 earlyFrench explorers of the Mississippi, as d’Iberville and Joutel. 

The Mission of Adayes, so called from its proximity to the home of thetribe, was established in 1715. In 1792 there was a partial emigrationof the Adái to the number of fourteen families to a site south of SanAntonio de Bejar, southwest Texas, where apparently they amalgamatedwith the surrounding Indian population and were lost sight of. (Fromdocuments preserved at the City Hall, San Antonio, and examined by Mr. Gatschet in December, 1886. ) The Adái who were left in their old homesnumbered one hundred in 1802, according to Baudry de Lozieres. Accordingto Sibley, in 1809 there were only “twenty men of them remaining, butmore 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 extensivethan that of any other linguistic stock in North America, theirterritory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and fromChurchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound ofNorth Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an areaoccupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by theirAlgonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were borderedby those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest andwest by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by theKitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast ofLabrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact withthe Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. InNewfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but asingle tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period hadseparated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee andpushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with thesurrounding tribes until about the beginning of the eighteenth centurythey were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soonafterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee andChicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north tothe Ohio River. 

The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had becomeseparated from their kindred on the north and had forced their waythrough hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country ofSouth Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus formingthe advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having theSiouan 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 about95, 600, of whom about 60, 000 are in Canada and the remainder in theUnited States. Below is given the population of the tribes officiallyrecognized, compiled chiefly from the United States IndianCommissioner’s report for 1889 and the Canadian Indian report for 1888. It is impossible to give exact figures, owing to the fact that in manyinstances two or more tribes are enumerated together, while manyindividuals 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 toLacombe, “place of hay and reeds. ”

As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family isincluded in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or MissinippiRiver to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the northbranch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the RockyMountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of thePacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30′. 

The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probablya different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth ofMackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to beAthapascan. 

The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbiaand of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom theywere cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northernfamily in North America. 

Since Gallatin’s time the history of this family has been furtherelucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolatedbranches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, andalong the southern border of the United States. 

The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are bestgiven under three primary groups--Northern, Pacific, and Southern. 

_Northern group_. --This includes all the Athapascan tribes of BritishNorth America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupymost of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the ArcticEskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimoof Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which riverthe country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south theAthapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca andSaskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this areathey were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whoseterritory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie andDawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascantribes 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 theYukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon tosomewhat below Shageluk Island, [7] and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quiteto Kolmakoff Redoubt. [8] Upon the two latter they reach quite to theirheads. [9] A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupineand Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that theyextended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations ofLieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to thenorth of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the mapis colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascantribes reach the coast--the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and theAhtena, 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 thoseof the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since theadvent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following:Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the LowerChinook;[10] Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads ofthe Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes beingpractically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on thenorthwest side of Wapatoo Island. [11] Gibbs was informed by an oldIndian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis atthe mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left thecountry, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to thesouth”--a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; theAthapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon, [12] whose villages on and near the coast extended from CoquilleRiver southward to the California line, including, among others, theUpper 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 formerlyon Smith River and tributaries, California;[14] those villages extendingsouthward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth ofKlamath River;[15] the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on LowerTrinity River, California;[16] the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located asfollows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and MadRivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins andLarrabie Creeks;”[17] and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue ofland 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 JoséCortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending northand 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 inArizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupiedthe eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from theComanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande. [19] Morerecently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward intoMexico 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 onand south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona andextending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides bythe cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshoneantribes. 

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 about32, 899, of whom about 8, 595, constituting the Northern group, are inAlaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and theCanadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacificgroup, 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 refugeeApache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the aboveenumeration, 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 ofthe present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derivedfrom a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. JohnSibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin statesthat the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley theAttacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas, ”who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own languagebesides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited bythe Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women atLake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered inwestern Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable bodyof text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished byDr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language ofthe western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that oftheir brethren farther to the east. 

The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinctfrom 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 Newfoundlandmust be considered to be doubtful. 

In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to thesomewhat ambiguous statement that the language “was akin to those of theordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; furtherinvestigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it wasAlgonkin rather than aught else. ”

Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and moresatisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount norquality is the material sufficient to permit final and satisfactorydeductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quitedistinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any otherAmerican tongue. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time ofits discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians. 

In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of theisland, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description istoo vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southernportion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only thenorthern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. Aboutthe beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland wascolonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of thepersistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which wasalso waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soonconfined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe wasfinally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly thefew survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined theNascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms. 

Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to theBeothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz. , the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, itseems 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, andaccordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as familydesignations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo haspriority by a few pages preference is given to it. 

Gallatin states “that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red Riverbut have now moved to a branch of Red River. ” He refers to theNandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialectsof the Caddo language. 

Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees properand the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the PlatteRiver adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upperMissouri in latitude 46° 30′. The boundaries of the Caddoan family, asat 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 asmall village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, ) which theyshare with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. TheArikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas, ” who hadbeen driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near thePonka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were inthree 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 thesetwo tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River. [22]Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwestcorner 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 originalhunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara, ” in Nebraska, “south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed. ” Inmodern times their villages have been on the Platte River west ofColumbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of themnear the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them onthe upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork. [23] The Pawneewere removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapagedid not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The RepublicanPawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a villageon a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they havegiven their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in differentparts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 theyrejoined the Grand Pawnee. ” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition, [24] formerly dwelt east of the MississippiRiver, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the GrandPawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained tothis day. De L’Isle[25] gives twelve Panimaha villages on the MissouriRiver 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 othertribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indian Territory. 

The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscanhabitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names(Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and thestatement 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 mainbranch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and theyformerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell’s Atlas (1870) places CaddoLake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It alsogives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red Riverof Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichitamigrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to theIndian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (asabove) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, Ioni, Nabadache, andEyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kädo hadatco, [28] of LePage Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti[29] and LaHarpe[30] about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita, and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon thefollowing as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southerngroup of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that partof Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowaand Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of theChoctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to theheadwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thencethrough Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river toits mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine Rivernear Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to TawakonayCreek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following thatstream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the NorthFork 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 whom447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest inthe Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation, the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below isgiven the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiledchiefly 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 theClallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of theirneighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. Towhat family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided. ”

Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of itsneighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language familyrank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison ofvocabularies 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 mostpowerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended todiminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they countedonly about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteensmall lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs “their territoryseems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow. ”[31]In 1884 there were, according to Mr. Myron Eells, about twentyindividuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend, Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at thesouthern 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 Pacificsouth of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe ofthe 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, bytwo tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon theTrinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly asthe Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon thearrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left. In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundredwords from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of thattribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko manseventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two livingsurvivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and muchvaluable information relative to the former habitat and history of thetribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of wordshaving correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet thegreater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latterfamily, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed asdistinct. 

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 themain (Skeena) river. ”

This name appears in a paper of Latham’s published in 1848. To it isreferred a vocabulary of Tolmie’s. The area where it is spoken is saidby Latham to be 50° 30′ and 55° 30′. The name has become established bylong usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been givenpreference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter namewas given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be notrelated, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billecholabelongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin’s of 1836. 

Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply toChimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of ChimsianIndians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk, which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from theChimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favorof Chimmesyan of the same date. 

For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmieand 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 forall the tribes of this family of 5, 000. In the fall of 1887 about 1, 000of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removed to AnnetteIsland, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, nearPort Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called NewMetlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schoolsestablished, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkableprogress 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 wasbased, was derived from the mouth of the Columbia. As now understood thefamily embraces a number of tribes, speaking allied languages, whoseformer homes extended from the mouth of the river for some 200 miles, orto The Dalles. According to Lewis and Clarke, our best authorities onthe pristine home of this family, most of their villages were on thebanks of the river, chiefly upon the northern bank, though they probablyclaimed the land upon either bank for several miles back. Their villagesalso extended on the Pacific coast north nearly to the northern extremeof Shoalwater Bay, and to the south to about Tillamook Head, some 20miles 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 WarmSprings Reservation, Oregon, and one hundred and fifty on the YakamaReservation, Washington. On the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon, thereare fifty-nine Clackama. From information derived from Indians by Mr. Thomas Priestly, United States Indian Agent at Yakama, it is learnedthat there still remain three or four families of “regular ChinookIndians, ” probably belonging to one of the down-river tribes, about 6miles above the mouth of the Columbia. Two of these speak the Chinookproper, and three have an imperfect command of Clatsop. There are eightor ten families, probably also of one of the lower river tribes, livingnear Freeport, Washington. 

Some of the Watlala, or Upper Chinook, live near the Cascades, about 55miles below The Dalles. There thus remain probably between five and sixhundred 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, “theypossess, ” (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 ofthe Na’htchi. A vocabulary of the Shetimasha, however, revealed toGallatin no traces of such affinity. He considered both to representdistinct families, a conclusion subsequent investigations havesustained. 

In 1881 Mr. Gatschet visited the remnants of this tribe in Louisiana. Hefound about fifty individuals, a portion of whom lived on Grand River, but the larger part in Charenton, St. Mary’s Parish. The tribalorganization 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 groupor family name, “Santa Barbara, ” which seems first to have been used ina comprehensive sense by Latham in 1856, who included under it threelanguages, viz: Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The termhas no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the factthat the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the dialects of thefamily was spoken, is perhaps more widely known than any of the others. Nevertheless, as it is the family name first applied to the group andhas, moreover, passed into current use its claim to recognition wouldnot be questioned were it not a compound name. Under the rule adoptedthe latter fact necessitates its rejection. As a suitable substitute theterm Chumashan is here adopted. Chumash is the name of the Santa RosaIslanders, who spoke a dialect of this stock, and is a term widely knownamong the Indians of this family. 

The Indians of this family lived in villages, the villages as a wholeapparently having no political connection, and hence there appears tohave been no appellation in use among them to designate themselves as awhole people. 

Dialects of this language were spoken at the Missions of SanBuenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Iñez, Purísima, and San Luis Obispo. Kindred dialects were spoken also upon the Islands of Santa Rosa andSanta Cruz, and also, probably, upon such other of the Santa BarbaraIslands as formerly were permanently inhabited. 

These dialects collectively form a remarkably homogeneous family, all ofthem, with the exception of the San Luis Obispo, being closely relatedand containing very many words in common. Vocabularies representing sixdialects of the language are in possession of the Bureau of Ethnology. 

The inland limits of this family can not be exactly defined, although alist of more than one hundred villages with their sites, obtained by Mr. Henshaw in 1884, shows that the tribes were essentially maritime andwere closely confined to the coast. 

_Population. _--In 1884 Mr. Henshaw visited the several counties formerlyinhabited by the populous tribes of this family and discovered thatabout forty men, women, and children survived. The adults still speaktheir old language when conversing with each other, though on otheroccasions they use Spanish. The largest settlement is at SanBuenaventura, where perhaps 20 individuals live near the outskirts ofthe 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 southwesternTexas and in Mexico. They are chiefly known through the record of theRev. Father Bartolomé Garcia (Manual para administrar, etc. ), publishedin 1760. In the preface to the “Manual” he enumerates the tribes andsets forth some phonetic and grammatic differences between the dialects. 

On page 63 of his Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 1864, Orozco yBerra 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 thusseem that he intended the name as a general designation for the languageof all the cognate tribes. 

Upon his colored ethnographic map, also, Orozco y Berra designates theMexican portion of the area formerly occupied by the tribes of thisfamily Coahuilteco. [33] In his statement that the language and tribesare extinct this author was mistaken, as a few Indians still survive whospeak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschetcollected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, wholive on the Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas. Of theComecrudo some twenty-five still remain, of whom seven speak thelanguage. 

 [Footnote 33: Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864. ]

The Cotoname are practically extinct, although Mr. Gatschet obtained onehundred and twenty-five words from a man said to be of this blood. Besides the above, Mr. Gatschet obtained information of the existence oftwo women of the Pinto or Pakawá tribe who live at La Volsa, nearReynosa, Tamaulipas, on the Rio Grande, and who are said to speak theirown 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 thegroup (or how far the group itself will be real), is uncertain. ” Underit he places two vocabularies, one from the Upper Sacramento and theother from Mag Redings in Shasta County. The head of Putos Creek isgiven as headquarters for the language. Recent investigations haveserved to fully confirm the validity of the family. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north by MountShasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian families, on theeast by the territory of the Palaihnihan, Yanan, and Pujunan families, and on the south by the bays of San Pablo and Suisun and the lowerwaters of the Sacramento. 

The eastern boundary of the territory begins about 5 miles east of MountShasta, crosses Pit River a little east of Squaw Creek, and reaches towithin 10 miles of the eastern bank of the Sacramento at Redding. FromRedding to Chico Creek the boundary is about 10 miles east of theSacramento. From Chico downward the Pujunan family encroaches till atthe mouth of Feather River it occupies the eastern bank of theSacramento. The western boundary of the Copehan family begins at thenorthernmost point of San Pablo Bay, trends to the northwest in asomewhat irregular line till it reaches John’s Peak, from which point itfollows the Coast Range to the tipper waters of Cottonwood Creek, whenceit deflects to the west, crossing the headwaters of the Trinity andending 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, whichwere under the supervision of the Mission Dolores. He gives a few wordsof the Romonan language, comparing it with Tshokoyem which he finds todiffer markedly. He finally expresses the opinion that, notwithstandingthe resemblance of a few words, notably personal pronouns, to Tshokoyemof the Moquelumnan group, the affinities of the dialects of the Costanoare with the Salinas group, with which, however, he does not unite itbut prefers to keep it by itself. Later, in 1877, Mr. Gatschet, [34]under the family name Mutsun, united the Costano dialects with the onesclassified by Latham under Moquelumnan. This arrangement was followed byPowell in his classification of vocabularies. [35] More recent comparisonof all the published material by Mr. Curtin, of the Bureau, revealedvery decided and apparently radical differences between the two groupsof dialects. In 1888 Mr. H. W. Henshaw visited the coast to the northand south of San Francisco, and obtained a considerable body oflinguistic material for further comparison. The result seems fullyto 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 apoint near the southern end of Monterey Bay. On the south it is boundedfrom Monterey Bay to the mountains by the Esselenian territory. On theeast side of the mountains it extends to the southern end of SalinasValley. On the east it is bounded by a somewhat irregular line runningfrom the southern end of Salinas Valley to Gilroy Hot Springs and theupper waters of Conestimba Creek, and, northward from the latter pointsby the San Joaquin River to its mouth. The northern boundary is formedby Suisun Bay, Carquinez Straits, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays, andthe Golden Gate. 

_Population. _--The surviving Indians of the once populous tribes of thisfamily are now scattered over several counties and probably do notnumber, all told, over thirty individuals, as was ascertained by Mr. Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the towns of SantaCruz and Monterey. Only the older individuals speak thelanguage. 

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 Gallatinin 1836 with considerable precision, and require comparatively littlerevision and correction. 

In the linear extent of country occupied, the Eskimauan is the mostremarkable of the North American linguistic families. It extendscoastwise from eastern Greenland to western Alaska and to the extremityof the Aleutian Islands, a distance of considerably more than 5, 000miles. The winter or permanent villages are usually situated on thecoast and are frequently at considerable distances from one another, the intervening areas being usually visited in summer for hunting andfishing purposes. The interior is also visited by the Eskimo for thepurpose of hunting reindeer and other animals, though they rarelypenetrate farther than 50 miles. A narrow strip along the coast, perhaps 30 miles wide, will probably, on the average, representEskimo occupancy. 

Except upon the Aleutian Islands, the dialects spoken over this vastarea are very similar, the unity of dialect thus observable being inmarked contrast to the tendency to change exhibited in other linguisticfamilies of North America. 

How far north the east coast of Greenland is inhabited by Eskimo isnot at present known. In 1823 Capt. Clavering met with two families ofEskimo north of 74° 30′. Recent explorations (1884-’85) by Capt. Holm, of the Danish Navy, along the southeast coast reveal the presence ofEskimo between 65° and 66° north latitude. These Eskimo profess entireignorance of any inhabitants north of themselves, which may be taken asproof that if there are fiords farther up the coast which are inhabitedthere has been no intercommunication in recent times at least betweenthese tribes and those to the south. It seems probable that more or lessisolated colonies of Eskimo do actually exist along the east coast ofGreenland far to the north. 

Along the west coast of Greenland, Eskimo occupancy extends toabout 74°. This division is separated by a considerable interval ofuninhabited coast from the Etah Eskimo who occupy the coast from SmithSound to Cape York, their most northerly village being in 78° 18′. Forour knowledge of these interesting people we are chiefly indebted toRoss and Bessels. 

In Grinnell Land, Gen. Greely found indications of permanent Eskimohabitations near Fort Conger, lat. 81° 44′. 

On the coast of Labrador the Eskimo reach as far south as HamiltonInlet, about 55° 30′. Not long since they extended to the Straits ofBelle Isle, 50° 30′. 

On the east coast of Hudson Bay the Eskimo reach at present nearly toJames Bay. According to Dobbs[36] in 1744 they extended as far south aseast Maine River, or about 52°. The name Notaway (Eskimo) River at thesouthern end of the bay indicates a former Eskimo extension to thatpoint. 

 [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 middlegroup north of Hudson Bay reside on the southern extremity of EllesmereLand around Jones Sound. Evidences of former occupation of PrincePatrick, Melville, and other of the northern Arctic islands are notlacking, 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 beuninhabited from the Coppermine River to Cape Bathurst. To the west ofthe Mackenzie, Herschel Island marks the limit of permanent occupancy bythe Mackenzie Eskimo, there being no permanent villages between thatisland and the settlements at Point Barrow. 

The intervening strip of coast is, however, undoubtedly hunted over moreor less in summer. The Point Barrow Eskimo do not penetrate far into theinterior, but farther to the south the Eskimo reach to the headwaters ofthe Nunatog and Koyuk Rivers. Only visiting the coast for tradingpurposes, they occupy an anomalous position among Eskimo. 

Eskimo occupancy of the rest of the Alaska coast is practicallycontinuous throughout its whole extent as far to the south and east asthe Atna or Copper River, where begin the domains of the Koluschanfamily. Only in two places do the Indians of the Athapascan familyintrude upon Eskimo territory, about Cook’s Inlet, and at the mouth ofCopper River. 

Owing to the labors of Dall, Petroff, Nelson, Turner, Murdoch, andothers we are now pretty well informed as to the distribution of theEskimo in Alaska. 

Nothing is said by Gallatin of the Aleutian Islanders and they wereprobably not considered by him to be Eskimauan. They are now known tobelong to this family, though the Aleutian dialects are unintelligibleto the Eskimo proper. Their distribution has been entirely changed sincethe advent of the Russians and the introduction of the fur trade, and atpresent they occupy only a very small portion of the islands. Formerlythey were much more numerous than at present and extended throughout thechain. 

The Eskimauan family is represented in northeast Asia by the Yuit of theChukchi peninsula, who are to be distinguished from the sedentaryChukchi or the Tuski of authors, the latter being of Asiatic origin. According to Dall the former are comparatively recent arrivals from theAmerican continent, and, like their brethren of America, are confinedexclusively 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 theEskimo can be given, since of some of the divisions next to nothing isknown. Dall compiles the following estimates of the Alaskan Eskimo fromthe 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 (?), Shiwokugmiutof St. Lawrence Island 150 (?), the Western Innuit 14, 500 (?), theAleutian Islanders (Unungun) 2, 200 (?); total of the Alaskan Innuit, about 20, 000. 

The Central or Baffin Land Eskimo are estimated by Boas to number about1, 100. [37]

 [Footnote 37: Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth. , 426, 1888. ]

From figures given by Rink, Packard, and others, the total number ofLabrador Eskimo is believed to be about 2, 000. 

According to Holm (1884-’85) there are about 550 Eskimo on the eastcoast of Greenland. On the west coast the mission Eskimo numbered 10, 122in 1886, while the northern Greenland Eskimo, the Arctic Highlanders ofRoss, number about 200. 

Thus throughout the Arctic regions generally there is a total of about34, 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 wasincluded by Latham in the heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. Forreasons there given the term Salinan was restricted to the San Antonioand San Miguel languages, leaving the present family without a name. Itis called Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, ofwhich it is composed. 

Its history is a curious and interesting one. Apparently the firstmention of the tribe and language is to be found in the Voyage de laPérouse, Paris, 1797, page 288, where Lamanon (1786) states that thelanguage of the Ecclemachs (Esselen) differs “absolutely from all thoseof their neighbors. ” He gives a vocabulary of twenty-two words and byway 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, thatfirst led to the supposition of the distinctness of this language. 

A few years later the Esselen people came under the observation ofGaliano, [38] who mentions the Eslen and Runsien as two distinct nations, and notes a variety of differences in usages and customs which are of nogreat weight. It is of interest to note, however, that this author alsoappears to have observed essential differences in the languages of thetwo peoples, concerning which he says: “The same difference as in usageand custom is observed in the languages of the two nations, as will beperceived from the following comparison with which we will conclude thischapter. ”

 [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 werepublished 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 Montereywith the hope of discovering survivors of these Indians. Two women werefound in the Salinas Valley to the south who claimed to be of Esselenblood, but neither of them was able to recall any of the language, bothhaving learned in early life to speak the Runsien language in place oftheir own. An old woman was found in the Carmelo Valley near Montereyand an old man living near the town of Cayucos, who, though of Runsienbirth, remembered considerable of the language of their neighbors withwhom they were connected by marriage. From them a vocabulary of onehundred and ten words and sixty-eight phrases and short sentences wereobtained. These serve to establish the general correctness of the shortlists of words collected so long ago by Lamanon and Galiano, and theyalso prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Esselen language forms afamily by itself and has no connection with any other known. 

The tribe or tribes composing this family occupied a narrow strip of theCalifornia coast from Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the SantaLucia 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 toconclude a speech, and koué, an exclamation (Charlevoix). Hale gives aspossible derivations ierokwa, the indeterminate form of the verb tosmoke, signifying “they who smoke;” also the Cayuga form of bear, iakwai. [39] Mr. Hewitt[39] suggests the Algonkin words īrīn, true, orreal; ako, snake; with the French termination ois, the word becomesIrinakois. 

 [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 as1798 Barton[41] compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquoisand stated his belief that there was a connection between them. Gallatin, in the Archæologia Americana, refers to the opinion expressedby Barton, and although he states that he is inclined to agree with thatauthor, yet he does not formally refer Cheroki to that family, concluding that “We have not a sufficient knowledge of the grammar, andgenerally of the language of the Five Nations, or of the Wyandots, todecide 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 theaffinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois. [43] Recently extensive Cherokivocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and acareful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made byMr. Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of thetwo 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 acontinuous area, but when first known to Europeans were settled in threedistinct regions, separated from each other by tribes of other lineage. The northern group was surrounded by tribes of Algonquian stock, whilethe more southern groups bordered upon the Catawba and Maskoki. 

A tradition of the Iroquois points to the St. Lawrence region as theearly home of the Iroquoian tribes, whence they gradually moved down tothe southwest along the shores of the Great Lakes. 

When Cartier, in 1534, first explored the bays and inlets of the Gulf ofSt. Lawrence he met a Huron-Iroquoian people on the shores of the Bay ofGaspé, who also visited the northern coast of the gulf. In the followingyear when he sailed up the St. Lawrence River he found the banks of theriver from Quebec to Montreal occupied by an Iroquoian people. Fromstatements of Champlain and other early explorers it seems probable thatthe Wyandot once occupied the country along the northern shore of LakeOntario. 

The Conestoga, and perhaps some allied tribes, occupied the countryabout the Lower Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and havecommonly been regarded as an isolated body, but it seems probable thattheir territory was contiguous to that of the Five Nations on the northbefore the Delaware began their westward movement. 

As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southerncolonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations, they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to whichthey had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract inSouth Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of theEdisto, [44] but about one-half of this tract, forming the presentLexington County, belonging to the Congaree. [45] In 1755 they sold asecond tract above the first and extending across South Carolina fromthe Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree), [46] but all of this tract eastof Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between theCongaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in theupper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawbaboundary. [48] In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia andWest Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha, [47] but the Iroquoisclaimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of theAlleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to theKentucky River, [49] and two years previously they had made a treatywith Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners ofall between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee. [50]The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which theCherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, theShawnee, about 1721. [51] The Cherokee had no villages north of theTennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and ata conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquoisthe skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as theanimal had been killed north of the Tennessee. [52] In 1805, 1806, and1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in middle Tennessee, north of theTennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, butthis territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, andat one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim. [53] The adjacenttract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa, was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to movewestward, 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 Riverregion of Tennessee was claimed by the Iroquois and Cherokee, but theIroquois never occupied any of it and the Cherokee could not be said tooccupy any beyond the Cumberland Mountains. The Cumberland River wasoriginally held by the Shawnee, and the rest was occupied, so far as itwas occupied at all, by the Shawnee, Delaware, and occasionally by theWyandot and Mingo (Iroquoian), who made regular excursions southwardacross the Ohio every year to hunt and to make salt at the licks. Mostof the temporary camps or villages in Kentucky and West Virginia werebuilt by the Shawnee and Delaware. The Shawnee and Delaware were theprincipal barrier to the settlement of Kentucky and West Virginia for aperiod of 20 years, while in all that time neither the Cherokee nor theIroquois offered any resistance or checked the opposition of the Ohiotribes. 

The Cherokee bounds in Virginia should be extended along the mountainregion as far at least as the James River, as they claim to have livedat the Peaks of Otter, [54] and seem to be identical with the Rickohockanor Rechahecrian of the early Virginia writers, who lived in themountains beyond the Monacan, and in 1656 ravaged the lowland country asfar as the site of Richmond and defeated the English and the PowhatanIndians 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 andNottoway and other cognate tribes adjoining the Tuscarora may have beenoffshoots 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 about43, 000, of whom over 34, 000 (including the Cherokees) are in the UnitedStates while nearly 9, 000 are in Canada. Below is given the populationof the different tribes, compiled chiefly from the Canadian IndianReport 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), andGibson speak a dialect mainly Mohawk and Oneida, but are a mixture ofall 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, althoughtheir language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than theYamkallie is. ” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascanfamily. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascontribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan. 

The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of WillametteRiver, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to the headwatersof that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River, being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently werenot met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat werederived 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 areall 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 be500 men. [56] In several places in the paper cited it is explicitlystated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa wasa coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found aTonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived amongthe 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 isextant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct notonly from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as thelinguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the languageprovisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than toaccept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially aswe know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed hisstatement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language. 

A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivorsof this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe hasbeen 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 initialsound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris. 

Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies ofKiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma. 

The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They aresituated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its smallwestern affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also aretributaries 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 ofthe 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 “Káyoweman. ” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat. ”

The author who first formally separated this family appears to have beenTurner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the lossof Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas andKaskaias 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 effectthat the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, whileadmitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any otherfamily, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of longintercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from anyother language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. Thefamily 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 sinceknown to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comancheswere assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, bothresigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims andrights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of theeastern boundary of New Mexico. 

The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership ofterritory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined theComanche on the northwest. In fact Pope[61] definitely locates the Kiowain the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory(Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements ofother writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places theKiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appearupon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned themupon the map. [62] This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne andArapaho 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 are1, 140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, IndianTerritory. 

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 theColumbia in Oregon. 

Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of thelanguage spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southernportions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are notsufficient to definitely settle the question. 

The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between thenorthern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along theCootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied bythese 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 (theTshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacentcoast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude. ”

In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies tothe Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as theKinai, are more marked than in any other. 

The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially inaccordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southernboundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by thecensus agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farthernorth than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Princeof Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal, indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouthof Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have beensupposed to be exclusively an insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawsonhas made the interesting discovery[63] that the Tagish, a tribe livinginland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto beensupposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family. This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, whichfor the most part limits the extension of this people inland andconfines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanentfoothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboringAthapascan 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 theTagish, 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, asabove cited. He states that it is the “name of one of the Clear Lakebands, ” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupyingthe large valley. ” The distinctness of the language is now generallyadmitted. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by thePacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on thenorth by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a linedrawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of thisfamily, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located inthe valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, andon the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow stripto the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the mainbody by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north bythe warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language andmany of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to haveextensively 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 ofEthnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to meanlake, lagoon or inland bay. ”

The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on ariver of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet. [65] Lewis andClarke[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] whodid not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for thepurpose. 

 [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 distinctstock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River andBay, 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 uponthe Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated asthe 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 occupiedLittle 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 hasmade a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions ofthe family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language. 

The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people. ” The Modocare termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people. ”

TRIBES. 

 Klamath. Modoc. 

_Population. _--There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on the KlamathReservation 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 inCalifornia 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 areclassed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speakinglanguages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the familyname Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a soundbasis, his name is here restored. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. Onthe north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of itsjunction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeastcorner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on thewest by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middleof the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on thesouth, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along thefoothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shoreof Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from thesoutheast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of theSierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On theeast the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposanboundary. 

In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the easternbank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of theMariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the SanJoaquin 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 attachedto 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 isWakalumitoh. 

The Talatui mentioned by Hale[68] as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) Riverbelong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished thelanguage from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhereexpressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it afamily name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained anincomplete 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 wasfully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this authorgathers several vocabularies representing different languages anddialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumnefrom Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyemvocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentkeof Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionallythe paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de losTulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de SanFrancisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission ofDolores, viz. , the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnanlanguage. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, theaffinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the nextgroup, especially in that of the Ruslen. ” He adds: “Nevertheless, forthe present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form ofspeech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of SanFrancisco. ” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw haveconfirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head ofthe Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to bedistinct. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north bythe Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by theSierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with theexception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A partof this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by SanFrancisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by thePacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by aline running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of SantaRosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to thenorthernmost 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 routesof travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accuratecensus has not been taken. 

In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in MarinCounty, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost noneremain. There are said to be none living about the mission of SanRafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six atTomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from awoman. 

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 CreekConfederacy. 

In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, wholived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on theChattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula ofFlorida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies, that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under thisfamily. In fact, he called[69] the family Choctaw Muskhogee. Indeference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were keptseparate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to befully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in1836, 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 describedin a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlanticwest to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to theTennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribesexcept the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some smallsettlements of Shawni. 

Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creekclaimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasiare believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to theeighteenth century. [70] The territorial line between the Muskhogeanfamily 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 timeheld by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when theApalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also wereforced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasiwere 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 inhabitantsare 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, andthey lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United StatesCensus bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at9, 996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of theChicasa 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, nearthe town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none areknown 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 nationof that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined theCreek less than one hundred years ago. [71] The seashore from Mobile tothe Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which theNa’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 ofthe remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. Theyare now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. 

The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe havelong been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. Asno vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the“Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits etcommentés par J. -D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam, ” published in Paris in1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiarinterest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in theabove Mr. Gatschet (loc. Cit. ) was led to affirm the complete linguisticisolation of the language. 

Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward. [72] The text containsinternal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, atleast of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are thesethat until the character of the whole can better be understood by theinspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by acompetent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary andgrammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidencewhatever 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 Taensatowns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but mostof these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa tradejargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon, ” whichis at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances wecan, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several ofthe old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language ofthe Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to thateffect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes theShetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to betotally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. Tosupplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statementsof M. De Montigny, the missionary who affirmed the affinity of theTaensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited thelatter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For thepresent, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch ofthe Na’htchi. 

The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to theNa’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion ofthe Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by theFrench upon Mobile Bay. 

PRINCIPAL TRIBES. 

 Na’htchi. Taensa. 

_Population. _--There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in IndianTerritory 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 Palaiksinterchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table oflinguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, thisis 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 Riverdialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks ofthe 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 Indiantongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, tobelieve that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically relatedto 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 inextreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to RoundValley Reservation, California. 

PRINCIPAL TRIBES. 

Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes thefollowing 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 orlanguages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of thefive divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora andSinaloa. 

The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinctlanguage, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and alsodescribed by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in theMithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological SocietyJournal, vol. XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, IndianTribes, vol. III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published wascollected by Lieut. Whipple. 

Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family isincluded within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexicowhere it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented inthe United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. Theformer have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on theGila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied theSanta Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are nolonger known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends tothe south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have beenseparated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerlycontinuous to the Gila River. 

According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima languageis a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to bedemonstrated. [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 withinour boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona, [76] arePima, 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 adoptedfor the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale. [77] This was one ofthe two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter asderived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to bedivided. “These races resembled one another in every respect butlanguage. ”

 [Footnote 77: U. S. Expl. Exp. , VI, p. 631. ]

Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Haledid not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for afamily, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settledlater. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whomwe are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. Theyoccupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginningsome 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within ashort distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of thePalaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border ofthe State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemmingthem 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 andlater authorities. 

In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading ofhis paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remark that itis “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 togive to the family, should it be held one. ” He defines the territoryoccupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluffcreek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty orforty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point topoint. ”

The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficientlyformal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated byGibbs. 

In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band, locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti andLutuami areas. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, thoughthe main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupyboth banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little aboveHappy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from itsmouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to theAthapascan territory near the Oregon line. 

TRIBES. 

 Ehnek. Karok. Pehtsik. 

_Population. _--According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in theregion 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 SanMiguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtfulposition. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from eachother, but from all other languages. Others have held that theyrepresent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group oflanguages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearlythat the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wiserelated to any other family. 

The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is aheterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than fourdistinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to thisgroup, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco, ”really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to theMendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoanfamily mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslenand Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio, and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong withinthe drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied tothem, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name. 

_Population. _--Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably neververy populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, whenfirst established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively1, 400 and 1, 300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these convertswere gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belongedto this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he wasable to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of thisfamily, 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, asindeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which hegives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribeis stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the ColumbiaRiver, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s Riveror the most northern branch of Lewis’s River. ” The former suppositionwas correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a singletribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, wereconsidered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible asthe family name; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few wordsfrom the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given byGallatin in Archæologia Americana, II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong underthis family. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

Since Gallatin’s time, through the labors of Riggs, Hale, Tolmie, Dawson, Boas, and others, our knowledge of the territorial limits ofthis linguistic family has been greatly extended. The most southernoutpost of the family, the Tillamook and Nestucca, were established onthe coast of Oregon, about 50 miles to the south of the Columbia, wherethey were quite separated from their kindred to the north by theChinookan 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 Macawterritory about Cape Flattery, and two insignificant spots, one nearPort Townsend, the other on the Pacific coast to the south of CapeFlattery, which were occupied by Chimakuan tribes. Eastern VancouverIsland to about midway of its length was also held by Salishan tribes, while the great bulk of their territory lay on the mainland opposite andincluded much of the upper Columbia. On the south they were hemmed inmainly by the Shahaptian tribes. Upon the east Salishan tribes dwelt toa little beyond the Arrow Lakes and their feeder, one of the extremenorth forks of the Columbia. Upon the southeast Salishan tribes extendedinto Montana, including the upper drainage of the Columbia. They weremet here in 1804 by Lewis and Clarke. On the northeast Salish territoryextended to about the fifty-third parallel. In the northwest it did notreach the Chilcat River. 

Within the territory thus indicated there is considerable diversity ofcustoms and a greater diversity of language. The language is split intoa great number of dialects, many of which are doubtless mutuallyunintelligible. 

The relationship of this family to the Wakashan is a very interestingproblem. Evidences of radical affinity have been discovered by Boas andGatschet, and the careful study of their nature and extent now beingprosecuted by the former may result in the union of the two, thoughuntil 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 is12, 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; CowichanAgency, 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 numberabout 5, 500, including a dozen small tribes upon the Yakama Reservation, which have been consolidated with the Clickatat (Shahaptian) throughintermarriage. The Salish of the United States are distributed asfollows (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 (SansPuell), 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 hisname was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamathtribes. He calls the tribe indifferently Shasties or Shasty, but theform applied by him to the family (see pp. 218, 569) is Saste, whichaccordingly is the one taken. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by theKlamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascaderange to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hillseast of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and theQuoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, theShasta 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 orNez Percés, the Kliketat, a scion of the Shahaptan, dwelling near MountRanier, and the Okanagan, inhabiting the upper part of Fraser River andits tributaries; “these tribes were asserted to speak dialects of thesame language. ” Of the above tribes the Okinagan are now known to beSalishan. 

The vocabularies given by Scouler were collected by Tolmie. The term“Sahaptin” appears on Gallatin’s map of 1836, where it doubtless refersonly to the Nez Percé tribe proper, with respect to whose linguisticaffinities Gallatin apparently knew nothing at the time. At all eventsthe name occurs nowhere in his discussion of the linguistic families. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The tribes of this family occupied a large section of country along theColumbia and its tributaries. Their western boundary was the CascadeMountains; their westernmost bands, the Klikitat on the north, the Tyighand Warm Springs on the south, enveloping for a short distance theChinook territory along the Columbia which extended to the Dalles. Shahaptian tribes extended along the tributaries of the Columbia for aconsiderable distance, their northern boundary being indicated by aboutthe 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 thisgreat family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of“some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of theriver Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them tobe found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of thefamily name is to be found on page 306, where, in his list of tribes andvocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which issufficient 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 anorthern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidencepresented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basinof the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far intoOregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallelor along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits ofthe pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrativeof Lewis and Clarke[79] contains the explicit statement that theShoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer homewas upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within theirown 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 isindicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quiteindeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina wasformerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held thefinest portion of southwestern Montana, [80] whence apparently they werebeing pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. [81] Upon theeast the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupiedsouthwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado washeld by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern partsof the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne(Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute countryincluded the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east ashort distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the familyextended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition theComanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omahatradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribeon the upper Kansas River in 1724. [82] According to Pike the Comancheterritory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying thehead waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande. [83] Howfar to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period isnot known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far downinto Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into IndianTerritory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territorywas limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived onboth banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchanon the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork. [84] The Kwaiantikwoketalso lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, includingone founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the ColoradoChiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed acrossCalifornia, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In theirextension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from whichterritory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leavinga 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 theheads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearlythe whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. Theentire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoniextraction. 

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, ” “thesnake-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 theOsages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distributionof the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats onthe Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock Riverof the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gensdu Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north toSpirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoansinhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and thaton the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of theRed River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, theYanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and theMissouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distancewest 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 orenemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a familydesignation, and “Dakota, ” which signifies friend or ally, has beenemployed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properlysynonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive orfamily sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to himto speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this senseonly, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is hereemployed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatinto the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members ofthe linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use ofthe term with this signification should be perpetuated. 

It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respectingthe relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribeknown to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatinthought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawbanlanguage with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw, ” though these were notsufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was thefirst to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of aconsiderable number of words having a Siouan affinity. 

Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawbalinguistic material available, which has been materially increased bythe labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify itsinclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the onlyexceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba andWoccon. 

Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend ofSiouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistorictimes, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the MississippiRiver. 

The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the HudsonBay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part ofthe watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi. It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distanceon the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line raneastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to theWinnebago. [86]

 [Footnote 86: See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825. ]

It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing theMississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began theAlgonquian territory (Sac, etc. ) on the west side of the Mississippi, extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returnedto the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of thepresent States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied byAlgonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a shortdistance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ranwest of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, andMississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties, Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippibecame the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan fromthe Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerlytribe in the main Siouan territory. In 1673[87] they were east of theMississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansasand two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, inour present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the oppositeside, in Arkansas. Shea says[88] that the Kaskaskias were found by DeSoto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up theMississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and thenortheast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged toAlgonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason forbelieving that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, ora sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable tocompromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all ofArkansas 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 inLouisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and runningnorthwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana;thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansasand Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osagescame in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the westernboundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latterbeing recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of theKansa or Kaw. 

The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska andnorthwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from theKansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the eastfrom Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoplesoccupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of theElkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrarain 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 theKiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (notclaimed by Cheyenne[89]), as well as the northern part of Wyoming andthe 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 thesoutheast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxisubsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found byMr. 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] TheEarl of Bellomont (1699) says[93] that the Shateras were “supposed to bethe Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia, ” and Pownall, in his map ofNorth America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i. E. , Big Sandy) River. Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to NorthCarolina. [94] They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined theNottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed intoPennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, wherethey joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand RiverReservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The lastfull-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of theSiouan 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 boundaryof South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leadingpeople of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of theCarolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in NorthCarolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers. 

The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of thesame 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 theUnited States. Below is given the population of the tribes officiallyrecognized, compiled chiefly from the Canadian Indian Report for 1888, the United States Indian Commissioner’s Report for 1889, and the UnitedStates 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 acompound word and being objectionable as a family name on account of itsunwieldiness, the term is a purely geographic one and is based upon nostated tribe; hence it is not eligible for use in systematicnomenclature. As it appears in the Archæologia Americana it representsnothing but the locality whence the vocabulary of an unknown tribe wasreceived. 

 [Footnote 95: Archæologia Americana, 1836, II, pp. 15, 306. ]

The family name to be considered as next in order of date is theNorthern (or Haidah) of Scouler, which appears in volume XI, RoyalGeographical Society, page 218, et seq. The term as employed by Scouleris involved in much confusion, and it is somewhat difficult to determinejust what tribes the author intended to cover by the designation. Reduced to its simplest form, the case stands as follows: Scouler’sprimary division of the Indians of the Northwest was into two groups, the insular and the inland. The insular (and coast tribes) were thensubdivided into two families, viz, Northern or Haidah family (for theterms are interchangeably used, as on page 224) and the Southern orNootka-Columbian family. Under the Northern or Haidah family the authorclasses 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 ofQueen Charlotte Island, and the Chimesyans. 

It will appear at a glance that such a heterogeneous assemblage oftribes, representing as they do several distinct stocks, can not havebeen classed together on purely linguistic evidence. In point of fact, Scouler’s remarkable classification seems to rest only in a very slightdegree upon a linguistic basis, if indeed it can be said to have alinguistic basis at all. Consideration of “physical character, manners, and customs” were clearly accorded such weight by this author as topractically remove his Northern or Haidah family from the list oflinguistic stocks. 

The next family name which was applied in this connection is theSkittagets of Gallatin as above cited. This name is given to designate afamily on page _c_, volume II, of Transactions of the EthnologicalSociety, 1848. In his subsequent list of vocabularies, page 77, hechanges his designation to Queen Charlotte Island, placing under thisfamily name the Skittagete tribe. His presentation of the former name ofSkittagets in his complete list of families is, however, sufficientlyformal to render it valid as a family designation, and it is, therefore, retained for the tribes of the Queen Charlotte Archipelago which haveusually been called Haida. 

From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language with othersof the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz Boas is inclined toconsider that the two are genetically related. The two languages possessa considerable number of words in common, but a more thoroughinvestigation is requisite for the settlement of the question than hasyet been given. Pending this the two families are here treatedseparately. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The tribes of this family occupy Queen Charlotte Islands, ForresterIsland to the north of the latter, and the southeastern part of Princeof Wales Island, the latter part having been ascertained by the agentsof 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 atpresent 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 onthe coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue River. Mr. Dorsey obtained avocabulary in 1884 which he has compared with Athapascan, Kusan, Yakonan, and other languages spoken in the region without finding anymarked resemblances. The family is hence admitted provisionally. Thelanguage appears to be spoken by but a single tribe, although there isa manuscript vocabulary in the Bureau of Ethnology exhibiting certaindifferences 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, fromIllinois River on the southwest, to Deep Rock, which was nearer the headof 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 thedialect of Isleta and Sandia (Gatschet). 

In a letter[97] from Wm. Carr Lane to H. R. Schoolcraft, appear someremarks on the affinities of the Pueblo languages, based in large parton hearsay evidence. No vocabularies are given, nor does any realclassification appear to be attempted, though referring to such of hisremarks as apply in the present connection, Lane states that the Indiansof “Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, and Ystete, and of two pueblos ofTexas, near El Paso, are said to speak the same language, which I haveheard called E-nagh-magh, ” and that the Indians of “San Juan, SantaClara, Pojuaque, Nambe, San Il de Conso, and one Moqui pueblo, all speakthe same language, as it is said: this I have heard called Tay-waugh. ”The ambiguous nature of his reference to these pueblos is apparent fromthe above quotation. 

 [Footnote 97: Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689. ]

The names given by Lane as those he had “heard” applied to certaingroups of pueblos which “it is said” speak the same language, rest ontoo slender a basis for serious consideration in a classificatory sense. 

Keane in the appendix to Stanford’s Compendium (Central and SouthAmerica), 1878, p. 479, presents the list given by Lane, correcting hisspelling in some cases and adding the name of the Tusayan pueblo as Haro(Hano). He gives the group no formal family name, though they areclassed together as speaking “Tegua or Tay-waugh. ”

The Taño of Powell (1878), as quoted, appears to be the first nameformally given the family, and is therefore accepted. Recentinvestigations of the dialect spoken at Taos and some of the otherpueblos of this group show a considerable body of words havingShoshonean affinities, and it is by no means improbable that furtherresearch will result in proving the radical relationship of theselanguages to the Shoshonean family. The analysis of the language has notyet, however, proceeded far enough to warrant a decided opinion. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The tribes of this family in the United States resided exclusively uponthe 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 theApache--though it seems more probable that they fled from the Rio Grandeduring the pueblo revolt of 1680--and remained to found the permanentpueblo of Hano, the seventh pueblo of the group. A smaller section ofthe family lived upon the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas, just over theNew Mexico border. 

_Population. _--The following pueblos are included in the family, with atotal 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, “servantsattend upon him. ”

In the Historical Magazine as above cited appears a notice of theTimuquana language by Buckingham Smith, in which is affirmed itsdistinctness upon the evidence of language. A short vocabulary isappended, which was collated from the “Confessionario” by Padre Pareja, 1613. Brinton and Gatschet have studied the Timuquana language and haveagreed as to the distinctness of the family from any other of the UnitedStates. Both the latter authorities are inclined to take the view thatit has affinities with the Carib family to the southward, and it seemsby no means improbable that ultimately the Timuquana language will beconsidered an offshoot of the Carib linguistic stock. At the presenttime, however, such a conclusion would not be justified by the evidencegathered and published. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

It is impossible to assign definite limits to the area occupied by thetribes of this family. From documentary testimony of the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries the limits of the family domain appear to havebeen about as follows: In general terms the present northern limits ofthe State of Florida may be taken as the northern frontier, althoughupon the Atlantic side Timuquanan territory may have extended intoGeorgia. Upon the northwest the boundary line was formed in De Soto’stime by the Ocilla River. Lake Okeechobee on the south, or as it wasthen called Lake Sarrape or Mayaimi, may be taken as the boundarybetween the Timuquanan tribes proper and the Calusa province upon theGulf coast and the Tegesta province upon the Atlantic side. Nothingwhatever of the languages spoken in these two latter provinces isavailable for comparison. A number of the local names of these provincesgiven by Fontanedo (1559) have terminations similar to many of theTimuquanan local names. This slender evidence is all that we have fromwhich to infer the Timuquanan relationship of the southern end of thepeninsula. 

PRINCIPAL TRIBES. 

The following settlements appear upon the oldest map of the regions wepossess, 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 fromthe 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 orarticle; -ka, -χka a nominal suffix. 

The distinctness of the Tonika language, has long been suspected, andwas indeed distinctly stated by Dr. Sibley in 1806. [98] The statement tothis effect by Dr. Sibley was quoted by Gallatin in 1836, but as thelatter possessed no vocabulary of the language he made no attempt toclassify it. Latham also dismisses the language with the same quotationfrom Sibley. Positive linguistic proof of the position of the languagewas lacking until obtained by Mr. Gatschet in 1886, who declared it toform 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 theLower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of Mississippi River (about1704); 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 allstay together” (wéya, “all”). 

After a careful examination of all the linguistic material available forcomparison, Mr. Gatschet has concluded that the language spoken by theTonkawa forms a distinct family. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a _colluvies gentium_, whoseearliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at thattime and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts ofwhat is now Texas. About 1847 they were engaged as scouts in the UnitedStates Army, and from 1860-’62 (?) were in the Indian Territory; afterthe secession war till 1884 they lived in temporary camps near FortGriffin, Shackelford County, Texas, and in October, 1884, they removedto the Indian Territory (now on Oakland Reserve). In 1884 there wereseventy-eight individuals living; associated with them were nineteenLipan Apache, who had lived in their company for many years, though in aseparate camp. They have thirteen divisions (partly totem-clans) andobserve 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 (probablyderived 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 ofcertainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto duringhis memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, isbelieved by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on theleft bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as issupposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this wouldlocate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, wasoccupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhatfarther down the Savannah, on the eastern and also the western side, asfar 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 amongthe Lower Creek on the Chatahoochee River; there they established threecolony villages in the neighborhood, and later on a Yuchi settlement ismentioned on Lower Tallapoosa River, among the Upper Creek. [99]Filson[100] gives a list of thirty Indian tribes and a statementconcerning Yuchi towns, which he must have obtained from a much earliersource: “Uchees occupy four different places of residence--at the headof St. John’s, the fork of St. Mary’s, the head of Cannouchee, and thehead 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 IndianTerritory, upon the Arkansas River, where they are usually classed asCreek. Doubtless the latter are to some extent intermarried with them, but the Yuchi are jealous of their name and tenacious of their positionas 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 Cayuseor Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Haleare the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about MountsHood 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 theUmatilla and Snake Rivers. The Molále were a mountain tribe and occupieda belt of mountain country south of the Columbia River, chiefly aboutMounts 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 KlamathLake. The Indian Affairs Report for 1888 credits 401 and the UnitedStates Census Bulletin for 1890, 415 Cayuse Indians to the UmatillaReservation, but Mr. Henshaw was able to find only six old men and womenupon the reservation in August, 1888, who spoke their own language. Theothers, 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. ” Whenheard by Cook at Friendly Cove, Nootka Sound, it was supposed to be thename of the tribe. 

Until recently the languages spoken by the Aht of the west coast ofVancouver Island and the Makah of Cape Flattery, congeneric tribes, andthe Haeltzuk and Kwakiutl peoples of the east coast of Vancouver Islandand the opposite mainland of British Columbia, have been regarded asrepresenting two distinct families. Recently Dr. Boas has made anextended study of these languages, has collected excellent vocabulariesof the supposed families, and as a result of his study it is nowpossible to unite them on the basis of radical affinity. The main bodyof the vocabularies of the two languages is remarkably distinct, thougha considerable number of important words are shown to be common to thetwo. 

Dr. Boas, however, points out that in both languages suffixes only areused in forming words, and a long list of these shows remarkablesimilarity. 

The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, “inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound issituated. ” The short vocabulary given was collected by Jewitt. Gallatinstates[103] that this language is the one “in that quarter, which, byvarious vocabularies, is best known to us. ” In 1848[104] Gallatinrepeats his Wakash family, and again gives the vocabulary of Jewitt. There would thus seem to be no doubt of his intention to give it formalrank 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 generallyignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted. “Nootka-Columbian” was employed by Scouler in 1841 for a group oflanguages, extending from the mouth of Salmon River to the south of theColumbia River, now known to belong to several distinct families. “Nootka family” was also employed by Hale[105] in 1846, who proposed thename for the tribes of Vancouver Island and those along the south sideof the Straits of Fuca. 

 [Footnote 105: U. S. Expl. Expd. , vol. 6, p. 220. ]

The term “Nootka-Columbian” is strongly condemned by Sproat. [106] Forthe group of related tribes on the west side of Vancouver Island thisauthor suggests Aht, “house, tribe, people, ” as a much more appropriatefamily appellation. 

 [Footnote 106: Savage Life, 312. ]

Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, itseems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other alliedlanguages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of1836 has priority and must be retained. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The tribes of the Aht division of this family are confined chiefly tothe west coast of Vancouver Island. They range to the north as far asCape Cook, the northern side of that cape being occupied by Haeltzuktribes, as was ascertained by Dr. Boas in 1886. On the south theyreached to a little above Sooke Inlet, that inlet being in possession ofthe 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 thefamily from the Salish (Clallam) who next adjoin them on Puget Sound. 

The boundaries of the Haeltzuk division of this family are laid downnearly as they appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s linguistic map of 1884. Thewest side of King Island and Cascade Inlet are said by Dr. Boas to beinhabited 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 underthe West Coast Agency, British Columbia, is 3, 160. [108] The grand totalfor 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 familyunder the Kwawkewlth Agency, British Columbia. Of the Bellacoola(Salishan family) and Haeltzuk, of the present family, there are 2, 500who are not under agents. No separate census of the latter exists atpresent. 

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 rangeextended from Reno, on the line of the Central Pacific Railroad, to thelower end of the Carson Valley. 

On the basis of vocabularies obtained by Stephen Powers and otherinvestigators, Mr. Gatschet was the first to formally separate thelanguage. The neighborhood of Carson is now the chief seat of the tribe, and here and in the neighboring valleys there are about 200 living aparasitic 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 familysituated on Klamath River. The etymology is unknown. 

Gibbs was the first to employ this name, which he did in 1853, as abovecited. He states that it is “the name of the principal band on theKlamath, at the junction of the Trinity, ” adding that “this languageprevails from a few miles above that point to the coast, but does notextend far from the river on either side. ” It would thus seem clear thatin this case, as in several others, he selected the name of a band toapply to the language spoken by it. The language thus defined has beenaccepted as distinct by later authorities except Latham, who included asdialects under the Weitspek language, the locality of which he gives asthe 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 whichname the family has recently been known. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

For our knowledge of the range of the tribes of this family we arechiefly indebted to Stephen Powers. [109] The tribes occupy the lowerKlamath River, Oregon, from the mouth of the Trinity down. Upon thecoast, Weitspekan territory extends from Gold Bluff to about 6 milesabove the mouth of the Klamath. The Chillúla are an offshoot of theWeitspek, living to the south of them, along Redwood Creek to a pointabout 20 miles inland, and from Gold Bluff to a point about midwaybetween 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 Indiansby those of Eel River. 

This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is knownconcerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes which speak it. 

Gibbs[110] mentions Wee-yot and Wish-osk as dialects of a generallanguage extending “from Cape Mendocino to Mad River and as far backinto the interior as the foot of the first range of mountains, ” but doesnot 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 samelanguage, i. E. , the Weitspek, from which, however, they appeared to himto differ much more than they do from each other. Both Powell andGatschet have treated the language represented by these dialects asquite distinct from any other, and both have employed the same name. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language wasthe coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little northof 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 ofimportance in early days, as it occupied fifty-six villages alongYaquina River, from the site of Elk City down to the ocean. Only a fewsurvive, and they are with the Alsea on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon. They were classed by mistake with theTillamook or “Killamucks” by Lewis and Clarke. They are called by Lewisand 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 SiletzReservation, Oregon. Perhaps a few are on the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon. 

The Siuslaw used to inhabit villages on the Siuslaw River, Oregon. Theremay be a few pure Siuslaw on the Siletz Reservation, but Mr. Dorsey didnot see any of them. They are mentioned by Drew, [113] who includes themamong the “Kat-la-wot-sett” bands. At that time, they were still on theSiuslaw River. The Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua villages were on both sides ofthe lower part of Umpqua River, Oregon, from its mouth upward for about30 miles. Above them were the Upper Umpqua villages, of the Athapascanstock. A few members of the Ku-itc still reside on the SiletzReservation, Oregon. 

 [Footnote 113: U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept. , 1857, p. 359. ]

This is a family based by Hale upon a single tribe, numbering six orseven hundred, who live on the coast, north of the Nsietshawus, fromwhom they differ merely in language. Hale calls the tribe Iakon orYakones or Southern Killamuks. 

The Sayúsklan language has usually been assumed to be distinct from allothers, and the comments of Latham and others all tend in thisdirection. Mr. Gatschet, as above quoted, finally classed it as adistinct stock, at the same time finding certain strong coincidenceswith the Yakonan family. Recently Mr. Dorsey has collected extensivevocabularies of the Yakonan, Sayúskla, and Lower Umpqua languages andfinds 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 manyvillages, which were stretched along the western part of Oregon on therivers flowing into the Pacific, from the Yaquina on the north down toand including the Umpqua River. 

TRIBES. 

 Alsea (on Alseya River). Yakwĭ´na. Kuitc. Siuslaw. 

_Population. _--The U. S. Census Bulletin for 1890 mentions thirty-onetribes as resident on the Siletz Reservation with a combined populationof 571. How many Yakwina are among this number is not known. Thebreaking down of tribal distinctions by reason of the extensiveintermarriage of the several tribes is given as the reason for thefailure 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 ischiefly known to the settlers by the name Noje or Nozi. Judged by thisvocabulary the language seemed to be distinct from any other. Morerecently, in 1884, Mr. Curtin visited the remnants of the tribe, consisting of thirty-five individuals, and obtained an extensivecollection of words, the study of which seems to confirm the impressionof the isolated position of the language as regards other Americantongues. 

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 fromthe far East. Powers states that they differ markedly in physical traitsfrom all California tribes met by him. At present the Nozi are reducedto two little groups, one at Redding, the other in their originalcountry at Round Mountain, California. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range ofmountains 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 PitRiver. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages doublethat 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 ofSchoolcraft’s Indian Tribes, 1853, but no indication is afforded thatthe language is of a distinct stock. 

Powell, as above cited, appears to have been the first to separate thelanguage. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION. 

Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive theYuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of thefamily, 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 itCuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno. 

Three years previously (1853) Latham[114] speaks of the Diegunolanguage, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego, Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems toconsider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that hebelieves them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formalfamily division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear torender his position with respect to their exact status as precise as isto be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to makeDiegueño a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856he includes both the Diegueño and the other above mentioned tribes inthe Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusionto having previously established a family name for the same group oflanguages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that theterm Diegueño as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. Itthus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the aboveauthors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of PacificRailroad 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 thathis proof was going through the press during the month of May, which isthe month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before the PhilologicalSociety. The fact that Latham’s article was not read until May 9 enablesus to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with areasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable periodelapsed between the presentation of Latham’s paper to the society andits final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yumaof Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubtedapplication. 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 generallyconsidered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least this isthe region where they attained their highest physical and mentaldevelopment. With the exception of certain small areas possessed byShoshonean tribes, Indians of Yuman stock occupied the Colorado Riverfrom 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 TontoBasin. From this center they extended west to the Pacific and on thesouth throughout the peninsula of Lower California. The mission of SanLuis Rey in California was, when established, in Yuman territory, andmarks the northern limit of the family. More recently and at the presenttime this locality is in possession of Shoshonean tribes. 

The island of Angel de la Guardia and Tiburon Island were occupied bytribes of the Yuman family, as also was a small section of Mexico lyingon 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 inIndian 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 MissionAgency and 291 at the San Carlos Agency in Arizona. 

Mohave, 640 at the Colorado River Agency in Arizona; 791 under the SanCarlos 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 isunknown. 

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 ofthe long nails, ” referring to the surgeons of Zuñi who always wear someof their nails very long (Cushing). 

Turner was able to compare the Zuñi language with the Keran, and hisconclusion that they were entirely distinct has been fullysubstantiated. Turner had vocabularies collected by Lieut. Simpson andby Capt. Eaton, and also one collected by Lieut. Whipple. 

The small amount of linguistic material accessible to the earlierwriters accounts for the little done in the way of classifying thePueblo languages. Latham possessed vocabularies of the Moqui, Zuñi, A´coma or Laguna, Jemez, Tesuque, and Taos or Picuri. The affinity ofthe Tusayan (Moqui) tongue with the Comanche and other Shoshoneanlanguages early attracted attention, and Latham pointed it out with someparticularity. With the other Pueblo languages he does little, andattempts 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 familiesduring the entire year. 

_Population. _--The present population is 1, 613. 

 * * * * *

 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

The task involved in the foregoing classification has been accomplishedby intermittent labors extending through more than twenty years of time. Many thousand printed vocabularies, embracing numerous larger lexic andgrammatic works, have been studied and compared. In addition to theprinted material, a very large body of manuscript matter has been used, which is now in the archives of the Bureau of Ethnology, and which, itis hoped, will ultimately be published. The author does not desire thathis work shall be considered final, but rather as initiatory andtentative. The task of studying many hundreds of languages and derivingtherefrom ultimate conclusions as contributions to the science ofphilology is one of great magnitude, and in its accomplishment an armyof scholars must be employed. The wealth of this promised harvestappeals strongly to the scholars of America for systematic and patientlabor. The languages are many and greatly diverse in theircharacteristics, in grammatic as well as in lexic elements. The authorbelieves it is safe to affirm that the philosophy of language is sometime to be greatly enriched from this source. From the materials whichhave been and may be gathered in this field the evolution of languagecan be studied from an early form, wherein words are usually not partsof speech, to a form where the parts of speech are somewhatdifferentiated; and where the growth of gender, number, and casesystems, together with the development of tense and mode systems can beobserved. The evolution of mind in the endeavor to express thought, bycoining, combining, and contracting words and by organizing logicalsentences through the development of parts of speech and their syntacticarrangement, is abundantly illustrated. The languages are very unequallydeveloped in their several parts. Low gender systems appear with hightense systems, highly evolved case systems with slightly developed modesystems; and there is scarcely any one of these languages, so far asthey have been studied, which does not exhibit archaic devices in itsgrammar. 

The author has delayed the present publication somewhat, expecting tosupplement it with another paper on the characteristics of thoselanguages which have been most fully recorded, but such supplementarypaper has already grown too large for this place and is yet unfinished, while the necessity for speedy publication of the present results seemsto be imperative. The needs of the Bureau of Ethnology, in directing thework of the linguists employed in it, and especially in securing andorganizing the labor of a large body of collaborators throughout thecountry, call for this publication at the present time. 

In arranging the scheme of linguistic families the author has proceededvery conservatively. Again and again languages have been thrown togetheras constituting one family and afterwards have been separated, whileother languages at first deemed unrelated have ultimately been combinedin one stock. Notwithstanding all this care, there remain a number ofdoubtful cases. For example, Buschmann has thrown the Shoshonean andNahuatlan families into one. Now the Shoshonean languages are those bestknown to the author, and with some of them he has a tolerable speakingacquaintance. The evidence brought forward by Buschmann and others seemsto be doubtful. A part is derived from jargon words, another part fromadventitious similarities, while some facts seem to give warrant to theconclusion that they should be considered as one stock, but the authorprefers, under the present state of knowledge, to hold them apart andawait further evidence, being inclined to the opinion that the peoplesspeaking these languages have borrowed some part of their vocabulariesfrom one another. 

After considering the subject with such materials as are on hand, thisgeneral conclusion has been reached: That borrowed materials exist inall the languages; and that some of these borrowed materials can betraced to original sources, while the larger part of such acquisitionscan not be thus relegated to known families. In fact, it is believedthat the existing languages, great in number though they are, giveevidence of a more primitive condition, when a far greater number werespoken. When there are two or more languages of the same stock, itappears that this differentiation into diverse tongues is due mainly tothe absorption of other material, and that thus the multiplication ofdialects and languages of the same group furnishes evidence that at someprior time there existed other languages which are now lost except asthey are partially preserved in the divergent elements of the group. Theconclusion which has been reached, therefore, does not accord with thehypothesis upon which the investigation began, namely, that commonelements would be discovered in all these languages, for the longer thestudy has proceeded the more clear it has been made to appear that thegrand process of linguistic development among the tribes of NorthAmerica has been toward unification rather than toward multiplication, that is, that the multiplied languages of the same stock owe theirorigin very largely to absorbed languages that are lost. The data uponwhich this conclusion has been reached can not here be set forth, butthe hope is entertained that the facts already collected may ultimatelybe marshaled in such a manner that philologists will be able to weighthe evidence and estimate it for what it may be worth. 

The opinion that the differentiation of languages within a single stockis mainly due to the absorption of materials from other stocks, often tothe extinguishment of the latter, has grown from year to year as theinvestigation has proceeded. Wherever the material has been sufficientto warrant a conclusion on this subject, no language has been found tobe simple in its origin, but every language has been found to becomposed of diverse elements. The processes of borrowing known inhistoric times are those which have been at work in prehistoric times, and it is not probable that any simple language derived from some singlepristine group of roots can be discovered. 

There is an opinion current that the lower languages change with greatrapidity, and that, by reason of this, dialects and languages of thesame stock are speedily differentiated. This widely spread opinion doesnot find warrant in the facts discovered in the course of this research. The author has everywhere been impressed with the fact that savagetongues are singularly persistent, and that a language which isdependent for its existence upon oral tradition is not easily modified. The same words in the same form are repeated from generation togeneration, so that lexic and grammatic elements have a life thatchanges very slowly. This is especially true where the habitat of thetribe is unchanged. Migration introduces a potent agency of mutation, but a new environment impresses its characteristics upon a language moreby a change in the semantic content or meaning of words than by changein their forms. There is another agency of change of profound influence, namely, association with other tongues. When peoples are absorbed bypeaceful or militant agencies new materials are brought into theirlanguage, and the affiliation of such matter seems to be the chieffactor in the differentiation of languages within the same stock. Inthe presence of opinions that have slowly grown in this direction, theauthor is inclined to think that some of the groups herein recognized asfamilies will ultimately be divided, as the common materials of suchlanguages, when they are more thoroughly studied, will be seen to havebeen borrowed. 

In the studies which have been made as preliminary to this paper, I havehad 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 workhas developed until it assumes the proportions of a great bibliographicresearch, and already he has published five bibliographies, amounting inall to about 1, 200 pages. He is publishing this bibliographic materialby linguistic families, as classified by myself in this paper. Scholarsin this field of research will find their labors greatly abridged by thework of Mr. Pilling. Mr. Henshaw began the preparation of the list oftribes, but his work also has developed into an elaborate system ofresearch into the synonymy of the North American tribes, and when hiswork is published it will constitute a great and valuable contributionto 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 suchhad not their publications assumed such proportions as to preclude it. And finally, it is needful to say that I could not have found the timeto make this classification, imperfect as it is, except with the aid ofthe great labors of the gentlemen mentioned, for they have gathered theliterature and brought it ready to my hand. For the classificationitself, however, I am wholly responsible. 

I am also indebted to Mr. Albert S. Gatschet and Mr. J. Owen Dorsey forthe preparation of many comparative lists necessary to my work. 

The task of preparing the map accompanying this paper was greatlyfacilitated by the previously published map of Gallatin. I am especiallyindebted to Col. Garrick Mallery for work done in the early part of itspreparation in this form. I have also received assistance from Messrs. Gatschet, Dorsey, Mooney and Curtin. The final form which it has takenis largely due to the labors of Mr. Henshaw, who has gathered manyimportant facts relating to the habitat of North American tribes whilepreparing 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]

 * * * * * * * * *