Siouan Family
X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 121, 306, 1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes, Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.
> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 87, 1836 (Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 245, et map, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.
> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian, IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306, 1836 (numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)
> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 243, 1840.
> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862 (treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas, Iowas).
> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties, Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas, Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas, Minnetarees.)
> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
Derivation: A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,” “the snake-like ones,” “the enemies” (Trumbull).
Under the family Gallatin makes four subdivisions, viz, the Winnebagos, the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins, the Minnetare group, and the Osages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distribution of the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats on the Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock River of the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gens du Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north to Spirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoans inhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and that on the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and the Missouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distance west of the Missouri, between 43° and 47° of latitude. The “Shyennes” are included in the family but are marked as doubtfully belonging here.
Owing to the fact that “Sioux” is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and “Dakota,” which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated.
It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,” though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family.
The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the only exceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba and Woccon.
Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend of Siouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistoric times, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the Mississippi River.
The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the Hudson Bay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part of the watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi. It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distance on the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line ran eastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to the Winnebago.86
It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began the Algonquian territory (Sac, etc.) on the west side of the Mississippi, extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returned to the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of the present States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied by Algonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a short distance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ran west of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, and Mississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties, Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippi became the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan from the Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerly tribe in the main Siouan territory. In 167387 they were east of the Mississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansas and two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, in our present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the opposite side, in Arkansas. Shea says88 that the Kaskaskias were found by De Soto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up the Mississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and the northeast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged to Algonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason for believing that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, or a sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable to compromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all of Arkansas up to about 36° north.
On the southwest of the Siouan family was the Southern Caddoan group, the boundary extending from the west side of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and running northwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana; thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osages came in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the western boundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latter being recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of the Kansa or Kaw.
The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska and northwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from the Kansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the east from Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoples occupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of the Elkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrara in northern Nebraska.
There seems to be sufficient evidence for assigning to the Crows (Siouan) the northwest corner of Nebraska (i.e., that part north of the Kiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (not claimed by Cheyenne89), as well as the northern part of Wyoming and the southern part of Montana, where they met the Shoshonean stock.90
The Biloxi habitat in 1699 was on the Pascogoula river,91 in the southeast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxi subsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found by Mr. Gatschet in 1886.
The Tutelo habitat in 1671 was in Brunswick County, southern Virginia, and it probably included Lunenburgh and Mecklenburg Counties.92 The Earl of Bellomont (1699) says93 that the Shateras were “supposed to be the Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia,” and Pownall, in his map of North America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i.e., Big Sandy) River. Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to North Carolina.94 They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined the Nottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed into Pennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, where they joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand River Reservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The last full-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of the Siouan affinity of the Tutelo language we are indebted to Mr. Hale.
The Catawba lived on the river of the same name on the northern boundary of South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leading people of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of the Carolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in North Carolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers.
The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of the same linguistic connection.
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.
[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.
The present number of the Siouan family is about 43,400, of whom about 2,204 are in British North America, the rest being in the United States. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the Canadian Indian Report for 1888, the United States Indian Commissioner’s Report for 1889, and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890:
| Dakota: | ||
| Mdewakantonwan and Wahpekute (Santee) on Santee Reserve, Nebraska | 869 | |
| At Flandreau, Dakota | 292 | |
| Santee at Devil’s Lake Agency | 54 | |
| Sisseton and Wahpeton on Sisseton Reserve, South Dakota | 1,522 | |
| Sisseton, Wahpeton, and Cuthead (Yanktonnais) at Devil’s Lake Reservation | 857 | |
| Yankton: | ||
| On Yankton Reservation, South Dakota | 1,725 | |
| At Devil’s Lake Agency | 123 | |
| On Fort Peck Reservation, Montana | 1,121 | |
| A few on Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota | 10 | |
| A few on Lower Brulé Reservation, South Dakota | 10 | |
| 2,989 | ||
| Yanktonnais: | ||
| Upper Yanktonnais on Standing Rock Reservation | 1,786 | |
| Lower Yanktonnais on Crow Creek Reservation | 1,058 | |
| At Standing Rock Agency | 1,739 | |
| 4,583 | ||
| Teton: | ||
| Brulé, Upper Brulé on Rosebud Reservation | 3,245 | |
| On Devil’s Lake Reservation | 2 | |
| Lower Brulé at Crow Creek and Lower Brulé Agency | 1,026 | |
| Minneconjou (mostly) and Two Kettle, on Cheyenne River Reserve | 2,823 | |
| Blackfeet on Standing Rock Reservation | 545 | |
| Two Kettle on Rosebud Reservation | 315 | |
| Oglala on Pine Ridge Reservation | 4,552 | |
| Wajaja (Oglala gens) on Rosebud Reservation | 1,825 | |
| Wagluxe (Oglala gens) on Rosebud Reservation | 1,353 | |
| Uncapapa, on Standing Rock Reservation | 571 | |
| Dakota at Carlisle, Lawrence, and Hampton schools | 169 | |
| 16,426 | ||
| Dakota in British North America (tribes not stated): | ||
| On Bird Tail Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency, Northwest Territory | 108 | |
| On Oak River Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency | 276 | |
| On Oak Lake Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency | 55 | |
| On Turtle Mountain Sioux Reserve, Birtle Agency | 34 | |
| On Standing Buffalo Reserve, under Northwest Territory | 184 | |
| Muscowpetung’s Agency: | ||
| White Cap Dakota (Moose Woods Reservation) | 105 | |
| American Sioux (no reserve) | 95 | |
| 857 | ||
| Assinaboin: | ||
| On Fort Belknap Reservation, Montana | 952 | |
| On Fort Peck Reservation, Montana | 719 | |
| At Devil’s Lake Agency | 2 | |
| The following are in British North America: | ||
| Pheasant Rump’s band, at Moose Mountain (of whom 6 at Missouri and 4 at Turtle Mountain) | 69 | |
| Ocean Man’s band, at Moose Mountain (of whom 4 at Missouri) | 68 | |
| The-man-who-took-the-coat’s band, at Indian Head (of whom 5 are at Milk River) | 248 | |
| Bear’s Head band, Battleford Agency | 227 | |
| Chee-pooste-quahn band, at Wolf Creek, Peace Hills Agency | 128 | |
| Bear’s Paw band, at Morleyville | 236 | |
| Chiniquy band, Reserve, at Sarcee Agency | 134 | |
| Jacob’s band | 227 | |
| 3,008 | ||
| Omaha: | ||
| Omaha and Winnebago Agency, Nebraska | 1,158 | |
| At Carlisle School, Pennsylvania | 19 | |
| At Hampton School, Virginia | 10 | |
| At Lawrence School, Kansas | 10 | |
| 1,197 | ||
| Ponka: | ||
| In Nebraska (under the Santee agent) | 217 | |
| In Indian Territory (under the Ponka agent) | 605 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 1 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 24 | |
| 847 | ||
| Osage: | ||
| At Osage Agency, Indian Territory | 1,509 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 7 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 65 | |
| 1,581 | ||
| Kansa or Kaw: | ||
| At Osage Agency, Indian Territory | 198 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 1 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 15 | |
| 214 | ||
| Quapaw: | ||
| On Quapaw Reserve, Indian Territory | 154 | |
| On Osage Reserve, Indian Territory | 71 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 3 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 4 | |
| 232 | ||
| Iowa: | ||
| On Great Nemaha Reservation, Kansas | 165 | |
| On Sac and Fox Reservation, Oklahoma | 102 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 1 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 5 | |
| 273 | ||
| Oto and Missouri, in Indian Territory | 358 | |
| Winnebago: | ||
| In Nebraska | 1,215 | |
| In Wisconsin (1889) | 930 | |
| At Carlisle, Pennsylvania | 27 | |
| At Lawrence, Kansas | 2 | |
| At Hampton, Virginia | 10 | |
| 2,184 | ||
| Mandan: | ||
| On Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota | 251 | |
| At Hampton, Virginia | 1 | |
| 252 | ||
| Hidatsa, on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota | 522 | |
| Crow, on Crow Reservation, Montana | 2,287 | |
| Tutelo, about a dozen mixed bloods on Grand River Reserve, Ontario, Canada, and a few more near Montreal (?), say, about | 20 | |
| Biloxi: | ||
| In Louisiana, about | 25 | |
| At Atoka, Indian Territory | 1 | |
| 26 | ||
| Catawba: | ||
| In York County, South Carolina, about | 80 | |
| Scattered through North Carolina, about | 40? | |
| 120? |
> 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 Gallatin95 to “Queen Charlotte’s Islands” unquestionably belongs to the present family. In addition to being a compound word and being objectionable as a family name on account of its unwieldiness, the term is a purely geographic one and is based upon no stated tribe; hence it is not eligible for use in systematic nomenclature. As it appears in the Archæologia Americana it represents nothing but the locality whence the vocabulary of an unknown tribe was received.
The family name to be considered as next in order of date is the Northern (or Haidah) of Scouler, which appears in volume XI, Royal Geographical Society, page 218, et seq. The term as employed by Scouler is involved in much confusion, and it is somewhat difficult to determine just what tribes the author intended to cover by the designation. Reduced to its simplest form, the case stands as follows: Scouler’s primary division of the Indians of the Northwest was into two groups, the insular and the inland. The insular (and coast tribes) were then subdivided into two families, viz, Northern or Haidah family (for the terms are interchangeably used, as on page 224) and the Southern or Nootka-Columbian family. Under the Northern or Haidah family the author classes all the Indian tribes in the Russian territory, the Kolchians (Athapascas of Gallatin, 1836), the Koloshes, Ugalentzes, and Tun Ghaase (the Koluscans of Gallatin, 1836); the Atnas (Salish of Gallatin, 1836); the Kenaians (Athapascas, Gallatin, 1836); the Haidah tribes proper of Queen Charlotte Island, and the Chimesyans.
It will appear at a glance that such a heterogeneous assemblage of tribes, representing as they do several distinct stocks, can not have been classed together on purely linguistic evidence. In point of fact, Scouler’s remarkable classification seems to rest only in a very slight degree upon a linguistic basis, if indeed it can be said to have a linguistic basis at all. Consideration of “physical character, manners, and customs” were clearly accorded such weight by this author as to practically remove his Northern or Haidah family from the list of linguistic stocks.
The next family name which was applied in this connection is the Skittagets of Gallatin as above cited. This name is given to designate a family on page c, volume II, of Transactions of the Ethnological Society, 1848. In his subsequent list of vocabularies, page 77, he changes his designation to Queen Charlotte Island, placing under this family name the Skittagete tribe. His presentation of the former name of Skittagets in his complete list of families is, however, sufficiently formal to render it valid as a family designation, and it is, therefore, retained for the tribes of the Queen Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.
From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically related. The two languages possess a considerable number of words in common, but a more thorough investigation is requisite for the settlement of the question than has yet been given. Pending this the two families are here treated separately.
The tribes of this family occupy Queen Charlotte Islands, Forrester Island to the north of the latter, and the southeastern part of Prince of Wales Island, the latter part having been ascertained by the agents of the Tenth Census.96
The following is a list of the principal villages:
| Haida: | ||
| Aseguang. Cumshawa. Kayung. Kung. Kunχit. Massett. | New Gold Harbor. Skedan. Skiteiget. Tanu. Tartanee. Uttewas. | |
| Kaigani: | ||
| Chatcheeni. Clickass. Howakan. Quiahanless. Shakan. | ||
The population of the Haida is 2,500, none of whom are at present under an agent.
= Takilma, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 1882 (Lower Rogue River).
This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue River. Mr. Dorsey obtained a vocabulary in 1884 which he has compared with Athapascan, Kusan, Yakonan, and other languages spoken in the region without finding any marked resemblances. The family is hence admitted provisionally. The language appears to be spoken by but a single tribe, although there is a manuscript vocabulary in the Bureau of Ethnology exhibiting certain differences which may be dialectic.
The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now included among the “Rogue River Indians,” and they reside to the number of twenty-seven on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey found them in 1884.
> Tay-waugh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V. 689, 1855 (Pueblos of San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe. San Il de Conso, and one Moqui pueblo). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878.
> Taño, Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes Sandia, Téwa, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojoaque, Nambé, Tesuque, Sinecú, Jemez, Taos, Picuri).
> Tegna, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (includes S. Juan, Sta. Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe, Tesugue, S. Ildefonso, Haro).
= Téwan, Powell in Am. Nat., 605, Aug., 1880 (makes five divisions: 1. Taño (Isleta, Isleta near El Paso, Sandía); 2. Taos (Taos, Picuni); 3. Jemes (Jemes); 4. Tewa or Tehua (San Ildefonso, San Juan, Pojoaque, Nambe, Tesuque, Santa Clara, and one Moki pueblo); 5. Piro).
> E-nagh-magh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855 (includes Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, Ystete, and two pueblos near El Paso, Texas). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane, but identifies Texan pueblos with Lentis? and Socorro?).
> Picori, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (or Enaghmagh).
= Stock of Rio Grande Pueblos, Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., vii, 415, 1879.
= Rio Grande Pueblo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 258, 1882.
Derivation: Probably from “taínin,” plural of tá-ide, “Indian,” in the dialect of Isleta and Sandia (Gatschet).
In a letter97 from Wm. Carr Lane to H. R. Schoolcraft, appear some remarks on the affinities of the Pueblo languages, based in large part on hearsay evidence. No vocabularies are given, nor does any real classification appear to be attempted, though referring to such of his remarks as apply in the present connection, Lane states that the Indians of “Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, and Ystete, and of two pueblos of Texas, near El Paso, are said to speak the same language, which I have heard called E-nagh-magh,” and that the Indians of “San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe, San Il de Conso, and one Moqui pueblo, all speak the same language, as it is said: this I have heard called Tay-waugh.” The ambiguous nature of his reference to these pueblos is apparent from the above quotation.
The names given by Lane as those he had “heard” applied to certain groups of pueblos which “it is said” speak the same language, rest on too slender a basis for serious consideration in a classificatory sense.
Keane in the appendix to Stanford’s Compendium (Central and South America), 1878, p. 479, presents the list given by Lane, correcting his spelling in some cases and adding the name of the Tusayan pueblo as Haro (Hano). He gives the group no formal family name, though they are classed together as speaking “Tegua or Tay-waugh.”
The Taño of Powell (1878), as quoted, appears to be the first name formally given the family, and is therefore accepted. Recent investigations of the dialect spoken at Taos and some of the other pueblos of this group show a considerable body of words having Shoshonean affinities, and it is by no means improbable that further research will result in proving the radical relationship of these languages to the Shoshonean family. The analysis of the language has not yet, however, proceeded far enough to warrant a decided opinion.
The tribes of this family in the United States resided exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from about 33° to about 36°. A small body of these people joined the Tusayan in northern Arizona, as tradition avers to assist the latter against attacks by the Apache—though it seems more probable that they fled from the Rio Grande during the pueblo revolt of 1680—and remained to found the permanent pueblo of Hano, the seventh pueblo of the group. A smaller section of the family lived upon the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas, just over the New Mexico border.
Population.—The following pueblos are included in the family, with a total population of about 3,237:
| Hano (of the Tusayan group) | 132 | |
| Isleta (New Mexico) | 1,059 | |
| Isleta (Texas) | few | |
| Jemez | 428 | |
| Nambé | 79 | |
| Picuris | 100 | |
| Pojoaque | 20 | |
| Sandia | 140 | |
| San Ildefonso | 148 | |
| San Juan | 406 | |
| Santa Clara | 225 | |
| Senecú (below El Paso) | few | |
| Taos | 409 | |
| Tesuque | 91 |
= Timuquana, Smith in Hist. Magazine, II, 1, 1858 (a notice of the language with vocabulary; distinctness of the language affirmed). Brinton. Floridian Peninsula, 134, 1859 (spelled also Timuaca, Timagoa, Timuqua).
= Timucua, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., XVI, April 6, 1877 (from Cape Cañaveral to mouth of St. John’s River). Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend I, 11-13, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
= Atimuca, Gatschet in Science, ibid, (proper name).
Derivation: From ati-muca, “ruler,” “master;” literally, “servants attend upon him.”
In the Historical Magazine as above cited appears a notice of the Timuquana language by Buckingham Smith, in which is affirmed its distinctness upon the evidence of language. A short vocabulary is appended, which was collated from the “Confessionario” by Padre Pareja, 1613. Brinton and Gatschet have studied the Timuquana language and have agreed as to the distinctness of the family from any other of the United States. Both the latter authorities are inclined to take the view that it has affinities with the Carib family to the southward, and it seems by no means improbable that ultimately the Timuquana language will be considered an offshoot of the Carib linguistic stock. At the present time, however, such a conclusion would not be justified by the evidence gathered and published.
It is impossible to assign definite limits to the area occupied by the tribes of this family. From documentary testimony of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the limits of the family domain appear to have been about as follows: In general terms the present northern limits of the State of Florida may be taken as the northern frontier, although upon the Atlantic side Timuquanan territory may have extended into Georgia. Upon the northwest the boundary line was formed in De Soto’s time by the Ocilla River. Lake Okeechobee on the south, or as it was then called Lake Sarrape or Mayaimi, may be taken as the boundary between the Timuquanan tribes proper and the Calusa province upon the Gulf coast and the Tegesta province upon the Atlantic side. Nothing whatever of the languages spoken in these two latter provinces is available for comparison. A number of the local names of these provinces given by Fontanedo (1559) have terminations similar to many of the Timuquanan local names. This slender evidence is all that we have from which to infer the Timuquanan relationship of the southern end of the peninsula.
The following settlements appear upon the oldest map of the regions we possess, that of De Bry (Narratio; Frankf. a.M. 15, 1590):
| (A) Shores of St. John’s River, from mouth to sources: | |
| Patica. Saturiwa. Atore. Homolua or Molua. Alimacani. Casti. Malica. Melona. Timoga or Timucua. Enecaqua. Choya. Edelano (island). Astina. | Utina. Patchica. Chilili. Calanay. Onochaquara. Mayarca. Mathiaca. Maiera. Mocoso. Cadica. Eloquale. Aquonena. |
| (B) On a (fictitious) western tributary of St. John’s River, from mouth to source: | |
| Hicaranaou. Appalou. Oustaca. Onathcaqua. | Potanou. Ehiamana. Anouala. |
| (C) East Floridian coast, from south to north: | |
| Mocossou. Oathcaqua. Sorrochos. | Hanocoroucouay. Marracou. |
| (D) On coast north of St. John’s River: | |
| Hiouacara. | |
| (E) The following are gathered from all other authorities, mostly from the accounts of De Soto’s expedition: | |
| Acquera. Aguile. Basisa or Vacissa (1688). Cholupaha. Hapaluya. Hirrihiqua. Itafi (perhaps a province). Itara Machaua (1688). Napetuca. Osile (Oxille). San Juan de Guacara (1688). | San Mateo (1688). Santa Lucia de Acuera (SE. coast). Tacatacuru. Tocaste. Tolemato. Topoqui. Tucururu (SE. coast) Ucita. Urriparacuxi. Yupaha (perhaps a province). |
= Tunicas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 115, 116, 1836 (quotes Dr. Sibley, who states they speak a distinct language). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (opposite mouth of Red River; quotes Dr. Sibley as to distinctness of language).
= Tonica, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 39, 1884 (brief account of tribe).
= Tonika, Gatschet in Science, 412, April 29, 1887 (distinctness as a family asserted; the tribe calls itself Túniχka).
Derivation: From the Tonika word óni, “man,” “people;” t- is a prefix or article; -ka, -χka a nominal suffix.
The distinctness of the Tonika language, has long been suspected, and was indeed distinctly stated by Dr. Sibley in 1806.98 The statement to this effect by Dr. Sibley was quoted by Gallatin in 1836, but as the latter possessed no vocabulary of the language he made no attempt to classify it. Latham also dismisses the language with the same quotation from Sibley. Positive linguistic proof of the position of the language was lacking until obtained by Mr. Gatschet in 1886, who declared it to form a family by itself.
The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities: First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that parish, about twenty-five are now living.
= Tonkawa, Gatschet, Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nordamerikas, 76, 1876 (vocabulary of about 300 words and some sentences). Gatschet, Die Sprache der Tonkawas, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 64, 1877. Gatschet (1876), in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., XVI, 318, 1877.
Derivation: the full form is the Caddo or Wako term tonkawéya, “they all stay together” (wéya, “all”).
After a careful examination of all the linguistic material available for comparison, Mr. Gatschet has concluded that the language spoken by the Tonkawa forms a distinct family.
Geographic Distribution
The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium, whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts of what is now Texas. About 1847 they were engaged as scouts in the United States Army, and from 1860-’62 (?) were in the Indian Territory; after the secession war till 1884 they lived in temporary camps near Fort Griffin, Shackelford County, Texas, and in October, 1884, they removed to the Indian Territory (now on Oakland Reserve). In 1884 there were seventy-eight individuals living; associated with them were nineteen Lipan Apache, who had lived in their company for many years, though in a separate camp. They have thirteen divisions (partly totem-clans) and observe mother-right.
= Uchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 95, 1836 (based upon the Uchees alone). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III., 247, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II., pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878 (suggests that the language may have been akin to Natchez).
= Utchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 306, 1836. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III., 401, 1853. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878.
= Utschies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
= Uché, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (Coosa River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II., 31-50, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.
= Yuchi, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 17, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
The following is the account of this tribe given by Gallatin (probably derived from Hawkins) in Archæologia Americana, page 95:
The original seats of the Uchees were east of Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the country. They may have been the same nation which is called Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto’s expedition, and their towns were till lately principally on Flint River.
The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the Savannah, on the eastern and also the western side, as far as the Ogeechee River, and also upon tracts above and below Augusta, Georgia. These tracts were claimed by them as late as 1736.
In 1739 a portion of the Yuchi left their old seats and settled among the Lower Creek on the Chatahoochee River; there they established three colony villages in the neighborhood, and later on a Yuchi settlement is mentioned on Lower Tallapoosa River, among the Upper Creek.99 Filson100 gives a list of thirty Indian tribes and a statement concerning Yuchi towns, which he must have obtained from a much earlier source: “Uchees occupy four different places of residence—at the head of St. John’s, the fork of St. Mary’s, the head of Cannouchee, and the head of St. Tillis” (Satilla), etc.101
More than six hundred Yuchi reside in northeastern Indian Territory, upon the Arkansas River, where they are usually classed as Creek. Doubtless the latter are to some extent intermarried with them, but the Yuchi are jealous of their name and tenacious of their position as a tribe.
= Waiilatpu, Hale, in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 214, 569, 1846 (includes Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and Molele). Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 14, 56, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 628, 1859. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (Cayuse and Mollale).
= Wailatpu, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Cayuse and Molele).
X Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (cited as including Cayús?).
X Sahaptins, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (cited because it includes Cayuse and Mollale).
= Molele, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850 (includes Molele, Cayús?).
> Cayús?, Latham, ibid.
= Cayuse, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 166, 1877 (Cayuse and Moléle). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.
Derivation: Wayíletpu, plural form of Wa-ílet, “one Cayuse man” (Gatschet).
Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver.
The Cayuse lived chiefly near the mouth of the Walla Walla River, extending a short distance above and below on the Columbia, between the Umatilla and Snake Rivers. The Molále were a mountain tribe and occupied a belt of mountain country south of the Columbia River, chiefly about Mounts Hood and Jefferson.
Cayuse.
Molále.
Population.—There are 31 Molále now on the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon,102 and a few others live in the mountains west of Klamath Lake. The Indian Affairs Report for 1888 credits 401 and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890, 415 Cayuse Indians to the Umatilla Reservation, but Mr. Henshaw was able to find only six old men and women upon the reservation in August, 1888, who spoke their own language. The others, though presumably of Cayuse blood, speak the Umatilla tongue.
> 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´kiūtl, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (general account of family with list of tribes).
Derivation: Waukash, waukash, is the Nootka word “good” “good.” When heard by Cook at Friendly Cove, Nootka Sound, it was supposed to be the name of the tribe.
Until recently the languages spoken by the Aht of the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Makah of Cape Flattery, congeneric tribes, and the Haeltzuk and Kwakiutl peoples of the east coast of Vancouver Island and the opposite mainland of British Columbia, have been regarded as representing two distinct families. Recently Dr. Boas has made an extended study of these languages, has collected excellent vocabularies of the supposed families, and as a result of his study it is now possible to unite them on the basis of radical affinity. The main body of the vocabularies of the two languages is remarkably distinct, though a considerable number of important words are shown to be common to the two.
Dr. Boas, however, points out that in both languages suffixes only are used in forming words, and a long list of these shows remarkable similarity.
The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, “inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound is situated.” The short vocabulary given was collected by Jewitt. Gallatin states103 that this language is the one “in that quarter, which, by various vocabularies, is best known to us.” In 1848104 Gallatin repeats his Wakash family, and again gives the vocabulary of Jewitt. There would thus seem to be no doubt of his intention to give it formal rank as a family.
The term “Wakash” for this group of languages has since been generally ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted. “Nootka-Columbian” was employed by Scouler in 1841 for a group of languages, extending from the mouth of Salmon River to the south of the Columbia River, now known to belong to several distinct families. “Nootka family” was also employed by Hale105 in 1846, who proposed the name for the tribes of Vancouver Island and those along the south side of the Straits of Fuca.
The term “Nootka-Columbian” is strongly condemned by Sproat.106 For the group of related tribes on the west side of Vancouver Island this author suggests Aht, “house, tribe, people,” as a much more appropriate family appellation.
Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority and must be retained.
The tribes of the Aht division of this family are confined chiefly to the west coast of Vancouver Island. They range to the north as far as Cape Cook, the northern side of that cape being occupied by Haeltzuk tribes, as was ascertained by Dr. Boas in 1886. On the south they reached to a little above Sooke Inlet, that inlet being in possession of the Soke, a Salishan tribe.
The neighborhood of Cape Flattery, Washington, is occupied by the Makah, one of the Wakashan tribes, who probably wrested this outpost of the family from the Salish (Clallam) who next adjoin them on Puget Sound.
The boundaries of the Haeltzuk division of this family are laid down nearly as they appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s linguistic map of 1884. The west side of King Island and Cascade Inlet are said by Dr. Boas to be inhabited by Haeltzuk tribes, and are colored accordingly.
| Ahowsaht. | Mowachat. |
| Ayhuttisaht. | Muclaht. |
| Chicklesaht. | Nitinaht. |
| Clahoquaht. | Nuchalaht. |
| Hishquayquaht. | Ohiaht. |
| Howchuklisaht. | Opechisaht. |
| Kitsmaht. | Pachenaht. |
| Kyoquaht. | Seshaht. |
| Macaw. | Toquaht. |
| Manosaht. | Yuclulaht. |
There are 457 Makah at the Neah Bay Agency, Washington.107 The total population of the tribes of this family under the West Coast Agency, British Columbia, is 3,160.108 The grand total for this division of the family is thus 3,617.
Principal Haeltzuk Tribes
Aquamish.
Belbellah.
Clowetsus.
Hailtzuk.
Haishilla.
Kakamatsis.
Keimanoeitoh.
Kwakiutl.
Kwashilla. Likwiltoh.
Mamaleilakitish.
Matelpa.
Nakwahtoh.
Nawiti.
Nimkish.
Quatsino.
Tsawadinoh.
There are 1,898 of the Haeltzuk division of the family under the Kwawkewlth Agency, British Columbia. Of the Bellacoola (Salishan family) and Haeltzuk, of the present family, there are 2,500 who are not under agents. No separate census of the latter exists at present.
= Washo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882.
< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes).
< Snake, Keane, ibid. (Same as Shoshone, above.)
This family is represented by a single well known tribe, whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of the Carson Valley.
On the basis of vocabularies obtained by Stephen Powers and other investigators, Mr. Gatschet was the first to formally separate the language. The neighborhood of Carson is now the chief seat of the tribe, and here and in the neighboring valleys there are about 200 living a parasitic life about the ranches and towns.
= Weits-pek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (a band and language on Klamath at junction of Trinity). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1862 (junction of Klamath and Trinity Rivers). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
< Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (junction of Klamath and Trinity Rivers; Weyot and Wishosk dialects). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860.
= Eurocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, VII, 530, June, 1872 (of the Lower Klamath and coastwise; Weitspek, a village of).
= Eurok, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 437, 1877.
= Yu´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 45, 1877 (from junction of Trinity to mouth and coastwise). Powell, ibid., 460 (vocabs. of Al-i-kwa, Klamath, Yu´-rok.)
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (Eurocs belong here).
Derivation: Weitspek is the name of a tribe or village of the family situated on Klamath River. The etymology is unknown.
Gibbs was the first to employ this name, which he did in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is “the name of the principal band on the Klamath, at the junction of the Trinity,” adding that “this language prevails from a few miles above that point to the coast, but does not extend far from the river on either side.” It would thus seem clear that in this case, as in several others, he selected the name of a band to apply to the language spoken by it. The language thus defined has been accepted as distinct by later authorities except Latham, who included as dialects under the Weitspek language, the locality of which he gives as the junction of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, the Weyot and Wishosk, both of which are now classed under the Wishoskan family.
By the Karok these tribes are called Yurok, “down” or “below,” by which name the family has recently been known.
For our knowledge of the range of the tribes of this family we are chiefly indebted to Stephen Powers.109 The tribes occupy the lower Klamath River, Oregon, from the mouth of the Trinity down. Upon the coast, Weitspekan territory extends from Gold Bluff to about 6 miles above the mouth of the Klamath. The Chillúla are an offshoot of the Weitspek, living to the south of them, along Redwood Creek to a point about 20 miles inland, and from Gold Bluff to a point about midway between Little and Mad Rivers.
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).
> Wish-osk, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given as the name of a dialect on Mad River and Humboldt Bay).
= Wish-osk, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 478, 1877 (vocabularies of Wish-osk, Wi-yot, and Ko-wilth). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 162, 1877 (indicates area occupied by family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 437, 1877.
> Wee-yot, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given as the name of a dialect on Eel River and Humboldt Bay).
X Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (includes Weyot and Wishosk). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860.
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Patawats, Weeyots, Wishosks).
Derivation: Wish-osk is the name given to the Bay and Mad River Indians by those of Eel River.
This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes which speak it.
Gibbs110 mentions Wee-yot and Wish-osk as dialects of a general language extending “from Cape Mendocino to Mad River and as far back into the interior as the foot of the first range of mountains,” but does not distinguish the language by a family name.
Latham considered Weyot and Wishosk to be mere dialects of the same language, i.e., the Weitspek, from which, however, they appeared to him to differ much more than they do from each other. Both Powell and Gatschet have treated the language represented by these dialects as quite distinct from any other, and both have employed the same name.
The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language was the coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River, including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay. They also extended up the above-named rivers into the mountain passes.
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.
> Yakones, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 218, 1846 (or Iakon, coast of Oregon). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.
> Iakon, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or Lower Killamuks). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.
> Jacon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848.
> Jakon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 17, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (language of Lower Killamuks). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 78, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.
> Yakon, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850. Gatschet, in Mag. Am. Hist., 166, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 441, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 640, 1882.
> Yákona, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 256, 1882.
> Southern Killamuks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or Yakones). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, 17, 1848 (after Hale).
> Süd Killamuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
> Sainstskla, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“south of the Yakon, between the Umkwa and the sea”).
> Sayúskla, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1882 (on Lower Umpqua, Sayúskla, and Smith Rivers).
> Killiwashat, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“mouth of the Umkwa”).
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Yacons).
Derivation: From yakwina, signifying “spirit” (Everette).
The Yakwina was the leading tribe of this family. It must have been of importance in early days, as it occupied fifty-six villages along Yaquina River, from the site of Elk City down to the ocean. Only a few survive, and they are with the Alsea on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon. They were classed by mistake with the Tillamook or “Killamucks” by Lewis and Clarke. They are called by Lewis and Clarke111 Youikcones and Youkone.112
The Alsea formerly dwelt in villages along both sides of Alsea River, Oregon, and on the adjacent coast. They are now on the Siletz Reservation, Oregon. Perhaps a few are on the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon.
The Siuslaw used to inhabit villages on the Siuslaw River, Oregon. There may be a few pure Siuslaw on the Siletz Reservation, but Mr. Dorsey did not see any of them. They are mentioned by Drew,113 who includes them among the “Kat-la-wot-sett” bands. At that time, they were still on the Siuslaw River. The Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua villages were on both sides of the lower part of Umpqua River, Oregon, from its mouth upward for about 30 miles. Above them were the Upper Umpqua villages, of the Athapascan stock. A few members of the Ku-itc still reside on the Siletz Reservation, Oregon.
This is a family based by Hale upon a single tribe, numbering six or seven hundred, who live on the coast, north of the Nsietshawus, from whom they differ merely in language. Hale calls the tribe Iakon or Yakones or Southern Killamuks.
The Sayúsklan language has usually been assumed to be distinct from all others, and the comments of Latham and others all tend in this direction. Mr. Gatschet, as above quoted, finally classed it as a distinct stock, at the same time finding certain strong coincidences with the Yakonan family. Recently Mr. Dorsey has collected extensive vocabularies of the Yakonan, Sayúskla, and Lower Umpqua languages and finds unquestioned evidence of relationship.
The family consists of four primary divisions or tribes: Yakwina, Alsea, Siuslaw, and Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua. Each one of these comprised many villages, which were stretched along the western part of Oregon on the rivers flowing into the Pacific, from the Yaquina on the north down to and including the Umpqua River.
Alsea (on Alseya River).
Yakwĭ´na.
Kuitc.
Siuslaw.
Population.—The U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890 mentions thirty-one tribes as resident on the Siletz Reservation with a combined population of 571. How many Yakwina are among this number is not known. The breaking down of tribal distinctions by reason of the extensive intermarriage of the several tribes is given as the reason for the failure to give a census by tribes.
= Nó-zi, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 275, 1877 (or No-si; mention of tribe; gives numerals and states they are different from any he has found in California).
= Noces, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, March, 1877 (or Nozes; merely mentioned under Meidoo family).
Derivation: Yana means “people” in the Yanan language.
In 1880 Powell collected a short vocabulary from this tribe, which is chiefly known to the settlers by the name Noje or Nozi. Judged by this vocabulary the language seemed to be distinct from any other. More recently, in 1884, Mr. Curtin visited the remnants of the tribe, consisting of thirty-five individuals, and obtained an extensive collection of words, the study of which seems to confirm the impression of the isolated position of the language as regards other American tongues.
The Nozi seem to have been a small tribe ever since known to Europeans. They have a tradition to the effect that they came to California from the far East. Powers states that they differ markedly in physical traits from all California tribes met by him. At present the Nozi are reduced to two little groups, one at Redding, the other in their original country at Round Mountain, California.
The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern side of Round Mountain, 3 miles from Pit River. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10 miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages double that distance or about 20 miles.
= Yuki, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 125-138, 1877 (general description of tribe).
= Yú-ki, Powell in ibid., 483 (vocabs. of Yú-ki, Hūchnpōm, and a fourth unnamed vocabulary).
= Yuka, Powers in Overland Monthly, IX, 305, Oct., 1872 (same as above). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877 (defines habitat of family; gives Yuka, Ashochemies or Wappos, Shumeias, Tahtoos). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 435, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 566, 1882 (includes Yuka, Tahtoo, Wapo or Ashochemic).
= Uka, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 435, 1877 (same as his Yuka).
X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (Yukas of his Klamath belong here).
Derivation: From the Wintun word yuki, meaning “stranger;” secondarily, “bad” or “thieving.”
A vocabulary of the Yuki tribe is given by Gibbs in vol. III of Schoolcraft’s Indian Tribes, 1853, but no indication is afforded that the language is of a distinct stock.
Powell, as above cited, appears to have been the first to separate the language.
Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast.
Principal Tribes
Ashochimi (near Healdsburgh).
Chumaya (Middle Eel River).
Napa (upper Napa Valley).
Tatu (Potter Valley).
Yuki (Round Valley, California).
> Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101, 1856 (includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeño). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 86, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860 (as above). Latham in addenda to Opuscula, 392, 1860 (adds Cuchan to the group). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 420, 1862 (includes Cuchan, Cocomaricopa, Mojave, Dieguno). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (mentions only U.S. members of family). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 479, 1878 (includes Yumas, Maricopas, Cuchans, Mojaves, Yampais, Yavipais, Hualpais). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 569, 1882.
= Yuma, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (habitat and dialects of family). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 413, 414, 1879.
> Dieguno, Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 75, 1854 (includes mission of San Diego, Dieguno, Cocomaricopas, Cuchañ, Yumas, Amaquaquas.)
> Cochimi, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 87, 1856 (northern part peninsula California). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 471, 1859 (center of California peninsula). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (head of Gulf to near Loreto).
> Layamon, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (a dialect of Waikur?). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.
> Waikur, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 90, 1856 (several dialects of). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.
> Guaycura, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
> Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).
> Ushiti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps a dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
> Utshiti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Ushiti).
> Pericú, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
> Pericui, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (from 23° N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).
> Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883, and XVIII, 115, 1886.
Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying “sons of the river” (Whipple).
In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.
Three years previously (1853) Latham114 speaks of the Dieguno language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego, Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems to consider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that he believes them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formal family division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear to render his position with respect to their exact status as precise as is to be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to make Diegueño a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856 he includes both the Diegueño and the other above mentioned tribes in the Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusion to having previously established a family name for the same group of languages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that the term Diegueño as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. It thus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the above authors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of Pacific Railroad Reports, in which Turner’s article is published, is dated 1855, it appears from a foot-note (p. 84) that his paper was not handed to Mr. Whipple till January, 1856, the date of title page of volume, and that his proof was going through the press during the month of May, which is the month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before the Philological Society. The fact that Latham’s article was not read until May 9 enables us to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with a reasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable period elapsed between the presentation of Latham’s paper to the society and its final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yuma of Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubted application. Pimentel makes Yuma a part of Piman stock.
The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least this is the region where they attained their highest physical and mental development. With the exception of certain small areas possessed by Shoshonean tribes, Indians of Yuman stock occupied the Colorado River from its mouth as far up as Cataract Creek where dwell the Havasupai. Upon the Gila and its tributaries they extended as far east as the Tonto Basin. From this center they extended west to the Pacific and on the south throughout the peninsula of Lower California. The mission of San Luis Rey in California was, when established, in Yuman territory, and marks the northern limit of the family. More recently and at the present time this locality is in possession of Shoshonean tribes.
The island of Angel de la Guardia and Tiburon Island were occupied by tribes of the Yuman family, as also was a small section of Mexico lying on the gulf to the north of Guaymas.
| Cochimi. | Maricopa. |
| Cocopa. | Mohave. |
| Cuchan or Yuma proper. | Seri. |
| Diegueño. | Waicuru. |
| Havasupai. | Walapai. |
The present population of these tribes, as given in Indian Affairs Report for 1889, and the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890, is as follows:
Of the Yuma proper there are 997 in California attached to the Mission Agency and 291 at the San Carlos Agency in Arizona.
Mohave, 640 at the Colorado River Agency in Arizona; 791 under the San Carlos Agency; 400 in Arizona not under an agency.
Havasupai, 214 in Cosnino Cañon, Arizona.
Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.
Diegueño, 555 under the Mission Agency, California.
Maricopa, 315 at the Pima Agency, Arizona.
The population of the Yuman tribes in Mexico and Lower California is unknown.
= Zuñi, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 91-93, 1856 (finds no radical affinity between Zuñi and Keres). Buschmann, Neu-Mexico, 254, 266, 276-278, 280-296, 302, 1858 (vocabs. and general references). Keane, App. Stanford’s Com. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (“a stock language”). Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes Zuñi, Las Nutrias, Ojo de Pescado). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 260, 1882.
= Zuñian, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, August, 1880.
Derivation: From the Cochití term Suinyi, said to mean “the people of the long nails,” referring to the surgeons of Zuñi who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing).
Turner was able to compare the Zuñi language with the Keran, and his conclusion that they were entirely distinct has been fully substantiated. Turner had vocabularies collected by Lieut. Simpson and by Capt. Eaton, and also one collected by Lieut. Whipple.
The small amount of linguistic material accessible to the earlier writers accounts for the little done in the way of classifying the Pueblo languages. Latham possessed vocabularies of the Moqui, Zuñi, A´coma or Laguna, Jemez, Tesuque, and Taos or Picuri. The affinity of the Tusayan (Moqui) tongue with the Comanche and other Shoshonean languages early attracted attention, and Latham pointed it out with some particularity. With the other Pueblo languages he does little, and attempts no classification into stocks.
The Zuñi occupy but a single permanent pueblo, on the Zuñi River, western New Mexico. Recently, however, the summer villages of Tâiakwin, Heshotatsína, and K’iapkwainakwin have been occupied by a few families during the entire year.
The present population is 1,613.
The task involved in the foregoing classification has been accomplished by intermittent labors extending through more than twenty years of time. Many thousand printed vocabularies, embracing numerous larger lexic and grammatic works, have been studied and compared. In addition to the printed material, a very large body of manuscript matter has been used, which is now in the archives of the Bureau of Ethnology, and which, it is hoped, will ultimately be published. The author does not desire that his work shall be considered final, but rather as initiatory and tentative. The task of studying many hundreds of languages and deriving therefrom ultimate conclusions as contributions to the science of philology is one of great magnitude, and in its accomplishment an army of scholars must be employed. The wealth of this promised harvest appeals strongly to the scholars of America for systematic and patient labor. The languages are many and greatly diverse in their characteristics, in grammatic as well as in lexic elements. The author believes it is safe to affirm that the philosophy of language is some time to be greatly enriched from this source. From the materials which have been and may be gathered in this field the evolution of language can be studied from an early form, wherein words are usually not parts of speech, to a form where the parts of speech are somewhat differentiated; and where the growth of gender, number, and case systems, together with the development of tense and mode systems can be observed. The evolution of mind in the endeavor to express thought, by coining, combining, and contracting words and by organizing logical sentences through the development of parts of speech and their syntactic arrangement, is abundantly illustrated. The languages are very unequally developed in their several parts. Low gender systems appear with high tense systems, highly evolved case systems with slightly developed mode systems; and there is scarcely any one of these languages, so far as they have been studied, which does not exhibit archaic devices in its grammar.
The author has delayed the present publication somewhat, expecting to supplement it with another paper on the characteristics of those languages which have been most fully recorded, but such supplementary paper has already grown too large for this place and is yet unfinished, while the necessity for speedy publication of the present results seems to be imperative. The needs of the Bureau of Ethnology, in directing the work of the linguists employed in it, and especially in securing and organizing the labor of a large body of collaborators throughout the country, call for this publication at the present time.
In arranging the scheme of linguistic families the author has proceeded very conservatively. Again and again languages have been thrown together as constituting one family and afterwards have been separated, while other languages at first deemed unrelated have ultimately been combined in one stock. Notwithstanding all this care, there remain a number of doubtful cases. For example, Buschmann has thrown the Shoshonean and Nahuatlan families into one. Now the Shoshonean languages are those best known to the author, and with some of them he has a tolerable speaking acquaintance. The evidence brought forward by Buschmann and others seems to be doubtful. A part is derived from jargon words, another part from adventitious similarities, while some facts seem to give warrant to the conclusion that they should be considered as one stock, but the author prefers, under the present state of knowledge, to hold them apart and await further evidence, being inclined to the opinion that the peoples speaking these languages have borrowed some part of their vocabularies from one another.
After considering the subject with such materials as are on hand, this general conclusion has been reached: That borrowed materials exist in all the languages; and that some of these borrowed materials can be traced to original sources, while the larger part of such acquisitions can not be thus relegated to known families. In fact, it is believed that the existing languages, great in number though they are, give evidence of a more primitive condition, when a far greater number were spoken. When there are two or more languages of the same stock, it appears that this differentiation into diverse tongues is due mainly to the absorption of other material, and that thus the multiplication of dialects and languages of the same group furnishes evidence that at some prior time there existed other languages which are now lost except as they are partially preserved in the divergent elements of the group. The conclusion which has been reached, therefore, does not accord with the hypothesis upon which the investigation began, namely, that common elements would be discovered in all these languages, for the longer the study has proceeded the more clear it has been made to appear that the grand process of linguistic development among the tribes of North America has been toward unification rather than toward multiplication, that is, that the multiplied languages of the same stock owe their origin very largely to absorbed languages that are lost. The data upon which this conclusion has been reached can not here be set forth, but the hope is entertained that the facts already collected may ultimately be marshaled in such a manner that philologists will be able to weigh the evidence and estimate it for what it may be worth.
The opinion that the differentiation of languages within a single stock is mainly due to the absorption of materials from other stocks, often to the extinguishment of the latter, has grown from year to year as the investigation has proceeded. Wherever the material has been sufficient to warrant a conclusion on this subject, no language has been found to be simple in its origin, but every language has been found to be composed of diverse elements. The processes of borrowing known in historic times are those which have been at work in prehistoric times, and it is not probable that any simple language derived from some single pristine group of roots can be discovered.
There is an opinion current that the lower languages change with great rapidity, and that, by reason of this, dialects and languages of the same stock are speedily differentiated. This widely spread opinion does not find warrant in the facts discovered in the course of this research. The author has everywhere been impressed with the fact that savage tongues are singularly persistent, and that a language which is dependent for its existence upon oral tradition is not easily modified. The same words in the same form are repeated from generation to generation, so that lexic and grammatic elements have a life that changes very slowly. This is especially true where the habitat of the tribe is unchanged. Migration introduces a potent agency of mutation, but a new environment impresses its characteristics upon a language more by a change in the semantic content or meaning of words than by change in their forms. There is another agency of change of profound influence, namely, association with other tongues. When peoples are absorbed by peaceful or militant agencies new materials are brought into their language, and the affiliation of such matter seems to be the chief factor in the differentiation of languages within the same stock. In the presence of opinions that have slowly grown in this direction, the author is inclined to think that some of the groups herein recognized as families will ultimately be divided, as the common materials of such languages, when they are more thoroughly studied, will be seen to have been borrowed.
In the studies which have been made as preliminary to this paper, I have had great assistance from Mr. James C. Pilling and Mr. Henry W. Henshaw. Mr. Pilling began by preparing a list of papers used by me, but his work has developed until it assumes the proportions of a great bibliographic research, and already he has published five bibliographies, amounting in all to about 1,200 pages. He is publishing this bibliographic material by linguistic families, as classified by myself in this paper. Scholars in this field of research will find their labors greatly abridged by the work of Mr. Pilling. Mr. Henshaw began the preparation of the list of tribes, but his work also has developed into an elaborate system of research into the synonymy of the North American tribes, and when his work is published it will constitute a great and valuable contribution to the subject. The present paper is but a preface to the works of Mr. Pilling and Mr. Henshaw, and would have been published in form as such had not their publications assumed such proportions as to preclude it. And finally, it is needful to say that I could not have found the time to make this classification, imperfect as it is, except with the aid of the great labors of the gentlemen mentioned, for they have gathered the literature and brought it ready to my hand. For the classification itself, however, I am wholly responsible.
I am also indebted to Mr. Albert S. Gatschet and Mr. J. Owen Dorsey for the preparation of many comparative lists necessary to my work.
The task of preparing the map accompanying this paper was greatly facilitated by the previously published map of Gallatin. I am especially indebted to Col. Garrick Mallery for work done in the early part of its preparation in this form. I have also received assistance from Messrs. Gatschet, Dorsey, Mooney and Curtin. The final form which it has taken is largely due to the labors of Mr. Henshaw, who has gathered many important facts relating to the habitat of North American tribes while preparing a synonymy of tribal names.
Footnotes
1. Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.
2. Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.
3. Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.
4. Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.
5. Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.
6. Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.
7. Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.
8. Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.
9. Cruise of the Corwin, 1887.
10. Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep. I, 1855, p. 428.
11. Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.
12. Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.
13. Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.
14. Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.
15. Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.
16. Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.
17. Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.
18. Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.
19. Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.
20. Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.
21. Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.
22. Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.
23. Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.
24. Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.
25. Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.
26. In 1719, fide Margry, VI, 289, “the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”
27. 1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.
28. Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.
29. 1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.
30. 1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.
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.
32. B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.
33. Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
34. Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.
35. Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.
36. Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.
37. Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.
38. Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.
39. Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.
40. American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.
41. New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.
42. Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.
43. Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.
44. Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
45. Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, p. 163.
46. Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
47. Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp. 155-159.
48. Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
49. Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of Pontiac, app.
50. Bancroft, Hist. U.S.
51. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.
52. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.
53. Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 336.
54. Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.
55. Bancroft, Hist. U.S.
56. Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.
57. Summer pueblos only.
58. Includes Acomita and Pueblito.
59. Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia, Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.
60. Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. II, p. 133.
61. Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.
62. Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810, pt. 3, p. 9.
63. Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1887.
64. Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.
65. U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.
66. Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.
67. Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.
68. U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.
69. On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.
70. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.
71. Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.
72. D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.
73. U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.
74. Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.
75. Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.
76. According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.
77. U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, p. 631.
78. Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 1836.
79. Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.
80. U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.
81. Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.
82. Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.
83. Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16, 1810.
84. Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.
85. Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.
86. See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.
87. Marquette’s Autograph Map.
88. Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.
89. See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp. 124, 5481-5489.
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.
91. Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.
92. Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194. Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.
93. Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.
94. Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860, p. 384.
95. Archæologia Americana, 1836, II, pp. 15, 306.
96. See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.
97. Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.
98. President’s message, February 19, 1806.
99. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 21-22, 1884.
100. Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793, II, 84-7.
101. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, p. 20.
102. U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.
103. Archæologia Americana, II, p. 15.
104. Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, p. 77.
105. U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.
106. Savage Life, 312.
107. U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.
108. Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.
109. Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.
110. Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.
111. Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.
112. Ibid., p. 118.
113. U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.
114. Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.
Some browsers may not display marginal page numbers correctly. If an Index link appears to take you to the wrong page, the link is right and the visible page number is wrong.