INDIAN LINGUISTIC FAMILIES OF AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO. (continued 4)

TAÑOAN FAMILY.

> Tay-waugh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V. 689, 1855 (Pueblos of San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe. San Il de Conso, and one Moqui pueblo). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878.

> Taño, Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes Sandia, Téwa, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Santa Clara, Pojoaque, Nambé, Tesuque, Sinecú, Jemez, Taos, Picuri).

> Tegna, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (includes S. Juan, Sta. Clara, Pojuaque, Nambe, Tesugue, S. Ildefonso, Haro).

= Téwan, Powell in Am. Nat., 605, Aug., 1880 (makes five divisions: 1. Taño (Isleta, Isleta near El Paso, Sandía); 2. Taos (Taos, Picuni); 3. Jemes (Jemes); 4. Tewa or Tehua (San Ildefonso, San Juan, Pojoaque, Nambe, Tesuque, Santa Clara, and one Moki pueblo); 5. Piro).

> E-nagh-magh, Lane (1854) in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855 (includes Taos, Vicuris, Zesuqua, Sandia, Ystete, and two pueblos near El Paso, Texas). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane, but identifies Texan pueblos with Lentis? and Socorro?).

> Picori, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (or Enaghmagh).

= Stock of Rio Grande Pueblos, Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., vii, 415, 1879.

= Rio Grande Pueblo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 258, 1882.

Derivation: Probably from “taínin,” plural of tá-ide, “Indian,” in the dialect of Isleta and Sandia (Gatschet).

In a 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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The tribes of this family in the United States resided exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from about 33° to about 36°. A small body of these people joined the Tusayan in northern Arizona, as tradition avers to assist the latter against attacks by the Apache—though it seems more probable that they fled from the Rio Grande during the pueblo revolt of 1680—and remained to found the permanent pueblo of Hano, the seventh pueblo of the group. A smaller section of the family lived upon the Rio Grande in Mexico and Texas, just over the New Mexico border.

Population.—The following pueblos are included in the family, with a total population of about 3,237:

Hano (of the Tusayan group) 132

Isleta (New Mexico) 1,059

Isleta (Texas) few

Jemez 428

Nambé 79

Picuris 100

Pojoaque 20

Sandia 140

San Ildefonso 148

San Juan 406

Santa Clara 225

Senecú (below El Paso) few

Taos 409

Tesuque 91

TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

= Timuquana, Smith in Hist. Magazine, II, 1, 1858 (a notice of the language with vocabulary; distinctness of the language affirmed). Brinton. Floridian Peninsula, 134, 1859 (spelled also Timuaca, Timagoa, Timuqua).

= Timucua, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., XVI, April 6, 1877 (from Cape Cañaveral to mouth of St. John’s River). Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend I, 11-13, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.

= Atimuca, Gatschet in Science, ibid, (proper name).

Derivation: From ati-muca, “ruler,” “master;” literally, “servants attend upon him.”

In the Historical Magazine as above cited appears a notice of the Timuquana language by Buckingham Smith, in which is affirmed its distinctness upon the evidence of language. A short vocabulary is appended, which was collated from the “Confessionario” by Padre Pareja, 1613. Brinton and Gatschet have studied the Timuquana language and have agreed as to the distinctness of the family from any other of the United States. Both the latter authorities are inclined to take the view that it has affinities with the Carib family to the southward, and it seems by no means improbable that ultimately the Timuquana language will be considered an offshoot of the Carib linguistic stock. At the present time, however, such a conclusion would not be justified by the evidence gathered and published.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

It is impossible to assign definite limits to the area occupied by the tribes of this family. From documentary testimony of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the limits of the family domain appear to have been about as follows: In general terms the present northern limits of the State of Florida may be taken as the northern frontier, although upon the Atlantic side Timuquanan territory may have extended into Georgia. Upon the northwest the boundary line was formed in De Soto’s time by the Ocilla River. Lake Okeechobee on the south, or as it was then called Lake Sarrape or Mayaimi, may be taken as the boundary between the Timuquanan tribes proper and the Calusa province upon the Gulf coast and the Tegesta province upon the Atlantic side. Nothing whatever of the languages spoken in these two latter provinces is available for comparison. A number of the local names of these provinces given by Fontanedo (1559) have terminations similar to many of the Timuquanan local names. This slender evidence is all that we have from which to infer the Timuquanan relationship of the southern end of the peninsula.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

The following settlements appear upon the oldest map of the regions we possess, that of De Bry (Narratio; Frankf. a.M. 15, 1590):

(A) Shores of St. John’s River, from mouth to sources:

Patica. 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).

TONIKAN FAMILY.

= Tunicas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 115, 116, 1836 (quotes Dr. Sibley, who states they speak a distinct language). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (opposite mouth of Red River; quotes Dr. Sibley as to distinctness of language).

= Tonica, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 39, 1884 (brief account of tribe).

= Tonika, Gatschet in Science, 412, April 29, 1887 (distinctness as a family asserted; the tribe calls itself Túniχka).

Derivation: From the Tonika word óni, “man,” “people;” t- is a prefix or article; -ka, -χka a nominal suffix.

The distinctness of the Tonika language, has long been suspected, and was indeed distinctly stated by Dr. Sibley in 1806.98 The statement to this effect by Dr. Sibley was quoted by Gallatin in 1836, but as the latter possessed no vocabulary of the language he made no attempt to classify it. Latham also dismisses the language with the same quotation from Sibley. Positive linguistic proof of the position of the language was lacking until obtained by Mr. Gatschet in 1886, who declared it to form a family by itself.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities: First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that parish, about twenty-five are now living.

TONKAWAN FAMILY.

= Tonkawa, Gatschet, Zwölf Sprachen aus dem Südwesten Nordamerikas, 76, 1876 (vocabulary of about 300 words and some sentences). Gatschet, Die Sprache der Tonkawas, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 64, 1877. Gatschet (1876), in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., XVI, 318, 1877.

Derivation: the full form is the Caddo or Wako term tonkawéya, “they all stay together” (wéya, “all”).

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium, whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the western and southern parts of what is now Texas. About 1847 they were engaged as scouts in the United States Army, and from 1860-’62 (?) were in the Indian Territory; after the secession war till 1884 they lived in temporary camps near Fort Griffin, Shackelford County, Texas, and in October, 1884, they removed to the Indian Territory (now on Oakland Reserve). In 1884 there were seventy-eight individuals living; associated with them were nineteen Lipan Apache, who had lived in their company for many years, though in a separate camp. They have thirteen divisions (partly totem-clans) and observe mother-right.

UCHEAN FAMILY.

= Uchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 95, 1836 (based upon the Uchees alone). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III., 247, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II., pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878 (suggests that the language may have been akin to Natchez).

= Utchees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II., 306, 1836. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III., 401, 1853. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 472, 1878.

= Utschies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.

= Uché, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (Coosa River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II., 31-50, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.

= Yuchi, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 17, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.

The following is the account of this tribe given by Gallatin (probably derived from Hawkins) in Archæologia Americana, page 95:

The original seats of the Uchees were east of Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the country. They may have been the same nation which is called Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto’s expedition, and their towns were till lately principally on Flint River.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town, this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the Savannah, on the eastern and also the western side, as far as the Ogeechee River, and also upon tracts above and below Augusta, Georgia. These tracts were claimed by them as late as 1736.

In 1739 a portion of the Yuchi left their old seats and settled among the Lower Creek on the Chatahoochee River; there they established three colony villages in the neighborhood, and later on a Yuchi settlement is mentioned on Lower Tallapoosa River, among the Upper Creek.99 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

Population.—More than six hundred Yuchi reside in northeastern Indian Territory, upon the Arkansas River, where they are usually classed as Creek. Doubtless the latter are to some extent intermarried with them, but the Yuchi are jealous of their name and tenacious of their position as a tribe.

WAIILATPUAN.

= Waiilatpu, Hale, in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 214, 569, 1846 (includes Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and Molele). Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 14, 56, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 628, 1859. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (Cayuse and Mollale).

= Wailatpu, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Cayuse and Molele).

X Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (cited as including Cayús?).

X Sahaptins, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (cited because it includes Cayuse and Mollale).

= Molele, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850 (includes Molele, Cayús?).

> Cayús?, Latham, ibid.

= Cayuse, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 166, 1877 (Cayuse and Moléle). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.

Derivation: Wayíletpu, plural form of Wa-ílet, “one Cayuse man” (Gatschet).

Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Cayuse lived chiefly near the mouth of the Walla Walla River, extending a short distance above and below on the Columbia, between the Umatilla and Snake Rivers. The Molále were a mountain tribe and occupied a belt of mountain country south of the Columbia River, chiefly about Mounts Hood and Jefferson.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Cayuse. Molále.

Population.—There are 31 Molále now on the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon,102 and a few others live in the mountains west of Klamath Lake. The Indian Affairs Report for 1888 credits 401 and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890, 415 Cayuse Indians to the Umatilla Reservation, but Mr. Henshaw was able to find only six old men and women upon the reservation in August, 1888, who spoke their own language. The others, though presumably of Cayuse blood, speak the Umatilla tongue.

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´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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The tribes of the Aht division of this family are confined chiefly to the west coast of Vancouver Island. They range to the north as far as Cape Cook, the northern side of that cape being occupied by Haeltzuk tribes, as was ascertained by Dr. Boas in 1886. On the south they reached to a little above Sooke Inlet, that inlet being in possession of the Soke, a Salishan tribe.

The neighborhood of Cape Flattery, Washington, is occupied by the Makah, one of the Wakashan tribes, who probably wrested this outpost of the family from the Salish (Clallam) who next adjoin them on Puget Sound.

The boundaries of the Haeltzuk division of this family are laid down nearly as they appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s linguistic map of 1884. The west side of King Island and Cascade Inlet are said by Dr. Boas to be inhabited by Haeltzuk tribes, and are colored accordingly.

PRINCIPAL AHT TRIBES.

Ahowsaht. Ayhuttisaht. Chicklesaht. Clahoquaht. Hishquayquaht. Howchuklisaht. Kitsmaht. Kyoquaht. Macaw. Manosaht. Mowachat. Muclaht. Nitinaht. Nuchalaht. Ohiaht. Opechisaht. Pachenaht. Seshaht. Toquaht. Yuclulaht.

Population.—There are 457 Makah at the Neah Bay Agency, Washington.107 The total population of the tribes of this family under the West Coast Agency, British Columbia, is 3,160.108 The grand total for this division of the family is thus 3,617.

PRINCIPAL HAELTZUK TRIBES.

Aquamish. Belbellah. Clowetsus. Hailtzuk. Haishilla. Kakamatsis. Keimanoeitoh. Kwakiutl. Kwashilla. Likwiltoh. Mamaleilakitish. Matelpa. Nakwahtoh. Nawiti. Nimkish. Quatsino. Tsawadinoh.

Population.—There are 1,898 of the Haeltzuk division of the family under the Kwawkewlth Agency, British Columbia. Of the Bellacoola (Salishan family) and Haeltzuk, of the present family, there are 2,500 who are not under agents. No separate census of the latter exists at present.

WASHOAN FAMILY.

= Washo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882.

< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes).

< Snake, Keane, ibid. (Same as Shoshone, above.)

This family is represented by a single well known tribe, whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of the Carson Valley.

On the basis of vocabularies obtained by Stephen Powers and other investigators, Mr. Gatschet was the first to formally separate the language. The neighborhood of Carson is now the chief seat of the tribe, and here and in the neighboring valleys there are about 200 living a parasitic life about the ranches and towns.

WEITSPEKAN FAMILY.

= Weits-pek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (a band and language on Klamath at junction of Trinity). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1862 (junction of Klamath and Trinity Rivers). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.

< Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (junction of Klamath and Trinity Rivers; Weyot and Wishosk dialects). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860.

= Eurocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, VII, 530, June, 1872 (of the Lower Klamath and coastwise; Weitspek, a village of).

= Eurok, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 437, 1877.

= Yu´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 45, 1877 (from junction of Trinity to mouth and coastwise). Powell, ibid., 460 (vocabs. of Al-i-kwa, Klamath, Yu´-rok.)

X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (Eurocs belong here).

Derivation: Weitspek is the name of a tribe or village of the family situated on Klamath River. The etymology is unknown.

Gibbs was the first to employ this name, which he did in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is “the name of the principal band on the Klamath, at the junction of the Trinity,” adding that “this language prevails from a few miles above that point to the coast, but does not extend far from the river on either side.” It would thus seem clear that in this case, as in several others, he selected the name of a band to apply to the language spoken by it. The language thus defined has been accepted as distinct by later authorities except Latham, who included as dialects under the Weitspek language, the locality of which he gives as the junction of the Klamath and Trinity Rivers, the Weyot and Wishosk, both of which are now classed under the Wishoskan family.

By the Karok these tribes are called Yurok, “down” or “below,” by which name the family has recently been known.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

For our knowledge of the range of the tribes of this family we are chiefly indebted to Stephen Powers.109 The tribes occupy the lower Klamath River, Oregon, from the mouth of the Trinity down. Upon the coast, Weitspekan territory extends from Gold Bluff to about 6 miles above the mouth of the Klamath. The Chillúla are an offshoot of the Weitspek, living to the south of them, along Redwood Creek to a point about 20 miles inland, and from Gold Bluff to a point about midway between Little and Mad Rivers.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Chillúla, Redwood Creek. Mita, Klamath River. Pekwan, Klamath River. Rikwa, Regua, fishing village at outlet of Klamath River. Sugon, Shragoin, Klamath River. Weitspek, Klamath River (above Big Bend).

WISHOSKAN FAMILY.

> Wish-osk, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given as the name of a dialect on Mad River and Humboldt Bay).

= Wish-osk, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 478, 1877 (vocabularies of Wish-osk, Wi-yot, and Ko-wilth). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 162, 1877 (indicates area occupied by family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 437, 1877.

> Wee-yot, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (given as the name of a dialect on Eel River and Humboldt Bay).

X Weitspek, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (includes Weyot and Wishosk). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860.

< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Patawats, Weeyots, Wishosks).

Derivation: Wish-osk is the name given to the Bay and Mad River Indians by those of Eel River.

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

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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The area occupied by the tribes speaking dialects of this language was the coast from a little below the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River, including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay. They also extended up the above-named rivers into the mountain passes.

TRIBES.

Patawat, Lower Mad River and Humboldt Bay as far south as Arcata.

Weeyot, mouth of Eel River.

Wishosk, near mouth of Mad River and north part of Humboldt Bay.

YAKONAN FAMILY.

> Yakones, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 218, 1846 (or Iakon, coast of Oregon). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.

> Iakon, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or Lower Killamuks). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 612, 1859.

> Jacon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848.

> Jakon, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 17, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (language of Lower Killamuks). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 78, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.

> Yakon, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 324, 1850. Gatschet, in Mag. Am. Hist., 166, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 441, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 640, 1882.

> Yákona, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 256, 1882.

> Southern Killamuks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (or Yakones). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, 17, 1848 (after Hale).

> Süd Killamuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

> Sainstskla, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“south of the Yakon, between the Umkwa and the sea”).

> Sayúskla, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1882 (on Lower Umpqua, Sayúskla, and Smith Rivers).

> Killiwashat, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (“mouth of the Umkwa”).

X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Yacons).

Derivation: From yakwina, signifying “spirit” (Everette).

The Yakwina was the leading tribe of this family. It must have been of importance in early days, as it occupied fifty-six villages along Yaquina River, from the site of Elk City down to the ocean. Only a few survive, and they are with the Alsea on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon. They were classed by mistake with the Tillamook or “Killamucks” by Lewis and Clarke. They are called by Lewis and 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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The family consists of four primary divisions or tribes: Yakwina, Alsea, Siuslaw, and Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua. Each one of these comprised many villages, which were stretched along the western part of Oregon on the rivers flowing into the Pacific, from the Yaquina on the north down to and including the Umpqua River.

TRIBES.

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

Population.—The U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890 mentions thirty-one tribes as resident on the Siletz Reservation with a combined population of 571. How many Yakwina are among this number is not known. The breaking down of tribal distinctions by reason of the extensive intermarriage of the several tribes is given as the reason for the failure to give a census by tribes.

YANAN FAMILY.

= Nó-zi, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 275, 1877 (or No-si; mention of tribe; gives numerals and states they are different from any he has found in California).

= Noces, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, March, 1877 (or Nozes; merely mentioned under Meidoo family).

Derivation: Yana means “people” in the Yanan language.

In 1880 Powell collected a short vocabulary from this tribe, which is chiefly known to the settlers by the name Noje or Nozi. Judged by this vocabulary the language seemed to be distinct from any other. More recently, in 1884, Mr. Curtin visited the remnants of the tribe, consisting of thirty-five individuals, and obtained an extensive collection of words, the study of which seems to confirm the impression of the isolated position of the language as regards other American tongues.

The Nozi seem to have been a small tribe ever since known to Europeans. They have a tradition to the effect that they came to California from the far East. Powers states that they differ markedly in physical traits from all California tribes met by him. At present the Nozi are reduced to two little groups, one at Redding, the other in their original country at Round Mountain, California.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern side of Round Mountain, 3 miles from Pit River. The western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10 miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it averages double that distance or about 20 miles.

YUKIAN FAMILY.

= Yuki, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 125-138, 1877 (general description of tribe).

= Yú-ki, Powell in ibid., 483 (vocabs. of Yú-ki, Hūchnpōm, and a fourth unnamed vocabulary).

= Yuka, Powers in Overland Monthly, IX, 305, Oct., 1872 (same as above). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877 (defines habitat of family; gives Yuka, Ashochemies or Wappos, Shumeias, Tahtoos). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 435, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 566, 1882 (includes Yuka, Tahtoo, Wapo or Ashochemic).

= Uka, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 161, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 435, 1877 (same as his Yuka).

X Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (Yukas of his Klamath belong here).

Derivation: From the Wintun word yuki, meaning “stranger;” secondarily, “bad” or “thieving.”

A vocabulary of the Yuki tribe is given by Gibbs in vol. III of Schoolcraft’s Indian Tribes, 1853, but no indication is afforded that the language is of a distinct stock.

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Ashochimi (near Healdsburgh). Chumaya (Middle Eel River). Napa (upper Napa Valley). Tatu (Potter Valley). Yuki (Round Valley, California).

YUMAN FAMILY.

> Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101, 1856 (includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeño). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 86, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860 (as above). Latham in addenda to Opuscula, 392, 1860 (adds Cuchan to the group). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 420, 1862 (includes Cuchan, Cocomaricopa, Mojave, Dieguno). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (mentions only U.S. members of family). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 479, 1878 (includes Yumas, Maricopas, Cuchans, Mojaves, Yampais, Yavipais, Hualpais). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 569, 1882.

= Yuma, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (habitat and dialects of family). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 413, 414, 1879.

> Dieguno, Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 75, 1854 (includes mission of San Diego, Dieguno, Cocomaricopas, Cuchañ, Yumas, Amaquaquas.)

> Cochimi, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 87, 1856 (northern part peninsula California). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 471, 1859 (center of California peninsula). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (head of Gulf to near Loreto).

> Layamon, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (a dialect of Waikur?). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.

> Waikur, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 90, 1856 (several dialects of). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.

> Guaycura, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.

> Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).

> Ushiti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps a dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.

> Utshiti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Ushiti).

> Pericú, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.

> Pericui, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (from 23° N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).

> Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883, and XVIII, 115, 1886.

Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying “sons of the river” (Whipple).

In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.

Three years previously (1853) 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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least this is the region where they attained their highest physical and mental development. With the exception of certain small areas possessed by Shoshonean tribes, Indians of Yuman stock occupied the Colorado River from its mouth as far up as Cataract Creek where dwell the Havasupai. Upon the Gila and its tributaries they extended as far east as the Tonto Basin. From this center they extended west to the Pacific and on the south throughout the peninsula of Lower California. The mission of San Luis Rey in California was, when established, in Yuman territory, and marks the northern limit of the family. More recently and at the present time this locality is in possession of Shoshonean tribes.

The island of Angel de la Guardia and Tiburon Island were occupied by tribes of the Yuman family, as also was a small section of Mexico lying on the gulf to the north of Guaymas.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Cochimi. Cocopa. Cuchan or Yuma proper. Diegueño. Havasupai. Maricopa. Mohave. Seri. Waicuru. Walapai.

Population.—The present population of these tribes, as given in Indian Affairs Report for 1889, and the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890, is as follows:

Of the Yuma proper there are 997 in California attached to the Mission Agency and 291 at the San Carlos Agency in Arizona.

Mohave, 640 at the Colorado River Agency in Arizona; 791 under the San Carlos Agency; 400 in Arizona not under an agency.

Havasupai, 214 in Cosnino Cañon, Arizona.

Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.

Diegueño, 555 under the Mission Agency, California.

Maricopa, 315 at the Pima Agency, Arizona.

The population of the Yuman tribes in Mexico and Lower California is unknown.

ZUÑIAN FAMILY.

= Zuñi, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 91-93, 1856 (finds no radical affinity between Zuñi and Keres). Buschmann, Neu-Mexico, 254, 266, 276-278, 280-296, 302, 1858 (vocabs. and general references). Keane, App. Stanford’s Com. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (“a stock language”). Powell in Rocky Mountain Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes Zuñi, Las Nutrias, Ojo de Pescado). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 260, 1882.

= Zuñian, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, August, 1880.

Derivation: From the Cochití term Suinyi, said to mean “the people of the long nails,” referring to the surgeons of Zuñi who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing).

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

The small amount of linguistic material accessible to the earlier writers accounts for the little done in the way of classifying the Pueblo languages. Latham possessed vocabularies of the Moqui, Zuñi, A´coma or Laguna, Jemez, Tesuque, and Taos or Picuri. The affinity of the Tusayan (Moqui) tongue with the Comanche and other Shoshonean languages early attracted attention, and Latham pointed it out with some particularity. With the other Pueblo languages he does little, and attempts no classification into stocks.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Zuñi occupy but a single permanent pueblo, on the Zuñi River, western New Mexico. Recently, however, the summer villages of Tâiakwin, Heshotatsína, and K’iapkwainakwin have been occupied by a few families during the entire year.

Population.—The present population is 1,613.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

The task involved in the foregoing classification has been accomplished by intermittent labors extending through more than twenty years of time. Many thousand printed vocabularies, embracing numerous larger lexic and grammatic works, have been studied and compared. In addition to the printed material, a very large body of manuscript matter has been used, which is now in the archives of the Bureau of Ethnology, and which, it is hoped, will ultimately be published. The author does not desire that his work shall be considered final, but rather as initiatory and tentative. The task of studying many hundreds of languages and deriving therefrom ultimate conclusions as contributions to the science of philology is one of great magnitude, and in its accomplishment an army of scholars must be employed. The wealth of this promised harvest appeals strongly to the scholars of America for systematic and patient labor. The languages are many and greatly diverse in their characteristics, in grammatic as well as in lexic elements. The author believes it is safe to affirm that the philosophy of language is some time to be greatly enriched from this source. From the materials which have been and may be gathered in this field the evolution of language can be studied from an early form, wherein words are usually not parts of speech, to a form where the parts of speech are somewhat differentiated; and where the growth of gender, number, and case systems, together with the development of tense and mode systems can be observed. The evolution of mind in the endeavor to express thought, by coining, combining, and contracting words and by organizing logical sentences through the development of parts of speech and their syntactic arrangement, is abundantly illustrated. The languages are very unequally developed in their several parts. Low gender systems appear with high tense systems, highly evolved case systems with slightly developed mode systems; and there is scarcely any one of these languages, so far as they have been studied, which does not exhibit archaic devices in its grammar.

The author has delayed the present publication somewhat, expecting to supplement it with another paper on the characteristics of those languages which have been most fully recorded, but such supplementary paper has already grown too large for this place and is yet unfinished, while the necessity for speedy publication of the present results seems to be imperative. The needs of the Bureau of Ethnology, in directing the work of the linguists employed in it, and especially in securing and organizing the labor of a large body of collaborators throughout the country, call for this publication at the present time.

In arranging the scheme of linguistic families the author has proceeded very conservatively. Again and again languages have been thrown together as constituting one family and afterwards have been separated, while other languages at first deemed unrelated have ultimately been combined in one stock. Notwithstanding all this care, there remain a number of doubtful cases. For example, Buschmann has thrown the Shoshonean and Nahuatlan families into one. Now the Shoshonean languages are those best known to the author, and with some of them he has a tolerable speaking acquaintance. The evidence brought forward by Buschmann and others seems to be doubtful. A part is derived from jargon words, another part from adventitious similarities, while some facts seem to give warrant to the conclusion that they should be considered as one stock, but the author prefers, under the present state of knowledge, to hold them apart and await further evidence, being inclined to the opinion that the peoples speaking these languages have borrowed some part of their vocabularies from one another.

After considering the subject with such materials as are on hand, this general conclusion has been reached: That borrowed materials exist in all the languages; and that some of these borrowed materials can be traced to original sources, while the larger part of such acquisitions can not be thus relegated to known families. In fact, it is believed that the existing languages, great in number though they are, give evidence of a more primitive condition, when a far greater number were spoken. When there are two or more languages of the same stock, it appears that this differentiation into diverse tongues is due mainly to the absorption of other material, and that thus the multiplication of dialects and languages of the same group furnishes evidence that at some prior time there existed other languages which are now lost except as they are partially preserved in the divergent elements of the group. The conclusion which has been reached, therefore, does not accord with the hypothesis upon which the investigation began, namely, that common elements would be discovered in all these languages, for the longer the study has proceeded the more clear it has been made to appear that the grand process of linguistic development among the tribes of North America has been toward unification rather than toward multiplication, that is, that the multiplied languages of the same stock owe their origin very largely to absorbed languages that are lost. The data upon which this conclusion has been reached can not here be set forth, but the hope is entertained that the facts already collected may ultimately be marshaled in such a manner that philologists will be able to weigh the evidence and estimate it for what it may be worth.

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

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

In the studies which have been made as preliminary to this paper, I have had great assistance from Mr. James C. Pilling and Mr. Henry W. Henshaw. Mr. Pilling began by preparing a list of papers used by me, but his work has developed until it assumes the proportions of a great bibliographic research, and already he has published five bibliographies, amounting in all to about 1,200 pages. He is publishing this bibliographic material by linguistic families, as classified by myself in this paper. Scholars in this field of research will find their labors greatly abridged by the work of Mr. Pilling. Mr. Henshaw began the preparation of the list of tribes, but his work also has developed into an elaborate system of research into the synonymy of the North American tribes, and when his work is published it will constitute a great and valuable contribution to the subject. The present paper is but a preface to the works of Mr. Pilling and Mr. Henshaw, and would have been published in form as such had not their publications assumed such proportions as to preclude it. And finally, it is needful to say that I could not have found the time to make this classification, imperfect as it is, except with the aid of the great labors of the gentlemen mentioned, for they have gathered the literature and brought it ready to my hand. For the classification itself, however, I am wholly responsible.

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

The task of preparing the map accompanying this paper was greatly facilitated by the previously published map of Gallatin. I am especially indebted to Col. Garrick Mallery for work done in the early part of its preparation in this form. I have also received assistance from Messrs. Gatschet, Dorsey, Mooney and Curtin. The final form which it has taken is largely due to the labors of Mr. Henshaw, who has gathered many important facts relating to the habitat of North American tribes while preparing a synonymy of tribal names.

FOOTNOTES

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.

INDEX

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

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 literature 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

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 classificacation 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 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

Problems of Transcription

The phonetic symbol ⁿ has been expressed as superscript ⁿ.

In the printed text it was not clear whether the author intended hacek (Unicode “caron”) ˇ or breve ˘. Breve was chosen as it is phonetically plausible and the characters are more widely available.

The spelling “Lewis and Clarke” was used consistently in the original text, as was “Zuñi” with tilde.

All parenthetical references to “obvious typographical error,” “evident misprint” and the like are retained from the original text.