Hunting claims.—The great body of the land within the area mapped which was occupied by agricultural tribes, and all the land outside it, was held as a common hunting ground, and the tribal claim to territory, independent of village sites and corn fields, amounted practically to little else than hunting claims. The community of possession in the tribe to the hunting ground was established and practically enforced by hunting laws, which dealt with the divisions of game among the village, or among the families of the hunters actually taking part in any particular hunt. As a rule, such natural landmarks as rivers, lakes, hills, and mountain chains served to mark with sufficient accuracy the territorial tribal limits. In California, and among the Haida and perhaps other tribes of the northwest coast, the value of certain hunting and fishing claims led to their definition by artificial boundaries, as by sticks or stones.
[Footnote 5: Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.]
Such precautions imply a large population, and in such regions as California the killing of game upon the land of adjoining tribes was rigidly prohibited and sternly punished.
As stated above, every part of the vast area included in the present map is to be regarded as belonging, according to Indian ideas of land title, to one or another of the Indian tribes. To determine the several tribal possessions and to indicate the proper boundary lines between individual tribes and linguistic families is a work of great difficulty. This is due more to the imperfection and scantiness of available data concerning tribal claims than to the absence of claimants or to any ambiguity in the minds of the Indians as to the boundaries of their several possessions.
Not only is precise data wanting respecting the limits of land actually held or claimed by many tribes, but there are other tribes, which disappeared early in the history of our country, the boundaries to whose habitat is to be determined only in the most general way. Concerning some of these, our information is so vague that the very linguistic family they belonged to is in doubt. In the case of probably no one family are the data sufficient in amount and accuracy to determine positively the exact areas definitely claimed or actually held by the tribes. Even in respect of the territory of many of the tribes of the eastern United States, much of whose land was ceded by actual treaty with the Government, doubt exists. The fixation of the boundary points, when these are specifically mentioned in the treaty, as was the rule, is often extremely difficult, owing to the frequent changes of geographic names and the consequent disagreement of present with ancient maps. Moreover, when the Indian's claim to his land had been admitted by Government, and the latter sought to acquire a title through voluntary cession by actual purchase, land assumed a value to the Indian never attaching to it before.
Under these circumstances, either under plea of immemorial occupancy or of possession by right of conquest, the land was often claimed, and the claims urged with more or less plausibility by several tribes, sometimes of the same linguistic family, sometimes of different families.
It was often found by the Government to be utterly impracticable to decide between conflicting claims, and not infrequently the only way out of the difficulty lay in admitting the claim of both parties, and in paying for the land twice or thrice. It was customary for a number of different tribes to take part in such treaties, and not infrequently several linguistic families were represented. It was the rule for each tribe, through its representatives, to cede its share of a certain territory, the natural boundaries of which as a whole are usually recorded with sufficient accuracy. The main purpose of the Government in treaty-making being to obtain possession of the land, comparatively little attention was bestowed to defining the exact areas occupied by the several tribes taking part in a treaty, except in so far as the matter was pressed upon attention by disputing claimants. Hence the territory claimed by each tribe taking part in the treaty is rarely described, and occasionally not all the tribes interested in the proposed cession are even mentioned categorically. The latter statement applies more particularly to the territory west of the Mississippi, the data for determining ownership to which is much less precise, and the doubt and confusion respecting tribal boundary lines correspondingly greater than in the country east of that river. Under the above circumstances, it will be readily understood that to determine tribal boundaries within accurately drawn lines is in the vast majority of cases quite impossible.
Imperfect and defective as the terms of the treaties frequently are as regards the definition of tribal boundaries, they are by far the most accurate and important of the means at our command for fixing boundary lines upon the present map. By their aid the territorial possessions of a considerable number of tribes have been determined with desirable precision, and such areas definitely established have served as checks upon the boundaries of other tribes, concerning the location and extent of whose possessions little is known.
For establishing the boundaries of such tribes as are not mentioned in treaties, and of those whose territorial possessions are not given with sufficient minuteness, early historical accounts are all important. Such accounts, of course, rarely indicate the territorial possessions of the tribes with great precision. In many cases, however, the sites of villages are accurately given. In others the source of information concerning a tribe is contained in a general statement of the occupancy of certain valleys or mountain ranges or areas at the heads of certain rivers, no limiting lines whatever being assigned. In others, still, the notice of a tribe is limited to a brief mention of the presence in a certain locality of hunting or war parties.
Data of this loose character would of course be worthless in an attempt to fix boundary lines in accordance with the ideas of the modern surveyor. The relative positions of the families and the relative size of the areas occupied by them, however, and not their exact boundaries, are the chief concern in a linguistic map, and for the purpose of establishing these, and, in a rough way, the boundaries of the territory held by the tribes composing them, these data are very important, and when compared with one another and corrected by more definite data, when such are at hand, they have usually been found to be sufficient for the purpose.
SUMMARY OF DEDUCTIONS.
In conclusion, the more important deductions derivable from the data upon which the linguistic map is based, or that are suggested by it, may be summarized as follows:
First, the North American Indian tribes, instead of speaking related dialects, originating in a single parent language, in reality speak many languages belonging to distinct families, which have no apparent unity of origin.
Second, the Indian population of North America was greatly exaggerated by early writers, and instead of being large was in reality small as compared with the vast territory occupied and the abundant food supply; and furthermore, the population had nowhere augmented sufficiently, except possibly in California, to press upon the food supply.
Third, although representing a small population, the numerous tribes had overspread North America and had possessed themselves of all the territory, which, in the case of a great majority of tribes, was owned in common by the tribe.
Fourth, prior to the advent of the European, the tribes were probably nearly in a state of equilibrium, and were in the main sedentary, and those tribes which can be said with propriety to have been nomadic became so only after the advent of the European, and largely as the direct result of the acquisition of the horse and the introduction of firearms.
Fifth, while agriculture was general among the tribes of the eastern United States, and while it was spreading among western tribes, its products were nowhere sufficient wholly to emancipate the Indian from the hunter state.
* * * * *
Within the area covered by the map there are recognized fifty-eight distinct linguistic families.
These are enumerated in alphabetical order and each is accompanied by a table of the synonyms of the family name, together with a brief statement of the geographical area occupied by each family, so far as it is known. A list of the principal tribes of each family also is given.
= Adaize, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306, 1836. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond., II, 31-59, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the most isolated languages of N.A.). Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (or Adees).
= Adaizi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847.
= Adaise, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
= Adahi, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 368, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp., Phil., 473, 477, 1863 (same as his Adaize above).
= Adaes, Buschmann, Spuren der aztekischen Sprache, 424, 1859.
= Adees. Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.) 478, 1878 (same as his Adaize).
= Adi, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., 41, 1884.
Derivation: From a Caddo word hadai, sig. "brush wood."
This family was based upon the language spoken by a single tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley, lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission of Adaize, "about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with the division of Red River that passes by Bayau Pierre." A vocabulary of about two hundred and fifty words is all that remains to us of their language, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, "differs from all others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten words of it."
[Footnote 6: Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.]
It was from an examination of Sibley's vocabulary that Gallatin reached the conclusion of the distinctness of this language from any other known, an opinion accepted by most later authorities. A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adi words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he regards it as a Caddoan dialect. The amount of material, however, necessary to establish its relationship to Caddoan is not at present forthcoming, and it may be doubted if it ever will be, as recent inquiry has failed to reveal the existence of a single member of the tribe, or of any individual of the tribes once surrounding the Adi who remembers a word of the language.
Mr. Gatschet found that some of the older Caddo in the Indian Territory remembered the Adi as one of the tribes formerly belonging to the Caddo Confederacy. More than this he was unable to learn from them.
Owing to their small numbers, their remoteness from lines of travel, and their unwarlike character the Adi have cut but a small figure in history, and accordingly the known facts regarding them are very meager. The first historical mention of them appears to be by Cabea de Vaca, who in his "Naufragios," referring to his stay in Texas, about 1530, calls them Atayos. Mention is also made of them by several of the early French explorers of the Mississippi, as d'Iberville and Joutel.
The Mission of Adayes, so called from its proximity to the home of the tribe, was established in 1715. In 1792 there was a partial emigration of the Adi to the number of fourteen families to a site south of San Antonio de Bejar, southwest Texas, where apparently they amalgamated with the surrounding Indian population and were lost sight of. (From documents preserved at the City Hall, San Antonio, and examined by Mr. Gatschet in December, 1886.) The Adi who were left in their old homes numbered one hundred in 1802, according to Baudry de Lozieres. According to Sibley, in 1809 there were only "twenty men of them remaining, but more women." In 1820 Morse mentions only thirty survivors.
> Algonkin-Lenape, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 23, 305, 1836. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid, 1852.
> Algonquin, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 337, 1840. Prichard Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847 (follows Gallatin).
> Algonkins, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
> Algonkin, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rept., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (gives Delaware and Shawnee vocabs.). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Inds., 232, 1862 (treats only of Crees, Blackfeet, Shyennes). Hale in Am. Antiq., 112, April, 1883 (treated with reference to migration).
< Algonkin, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 1856 (adds to Gallatin's list of 1836 the Bethuck, Shyenne, Blackfoot, and Arrapaho). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860 (as in preceding). Latham, Elements Comp. Phil, 447, 1862.
< Algonquin, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp., (Cent. and S. Am.), 460, 465, 1878 (list includes the Maquas, an Iroquois tribe).
> Saskatschawiner, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (probably designates the Arapaho).
> Arapahoes, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
X Algonkin und Beothuk, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
Derivation: Contracted from Algomequin, an Algonkin word, signifying "those on the other side of the river," i.e., the St. Lawrence River.
The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. In Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period had separated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until about the beginning of the eighteenth century they were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north to the Ohio River.
The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from their kindred on the north and had forced their way through hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of the Shoshonean family in front.
PRINCIPAL ALGONQUINIAN TRIBES.
Abnaki. Menominee. Ottawa. Algonquin. Miami. Pamlico. Arapaho. Micmac. Pennacook. Cheyenne. Mohegan. Pequot. Conoy. Montagnais. Piankishaw. Cree. Montauk. Pottawotomi. Delaware. Munsee. Powhatan. Fox. Nanticoke. Sac. Illinois. Narraganset. Shawnee. Kickapoo. Nauset. Siksika. Mahican. Nipmuc. Wampanoag. Massachuset. Ojibwa. Wappinger.
Population.—The present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the United States. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the United States Indian Commissioner's report for 1889 and the Canadian Indian report for 1888. It is impossible to give exact figures, owing to the fact that in many instances two or more tribes are enumerated together, while many individuals are living with other tribes or amongst the whites:
Abnaki: "Oldtown Indians," Maine 410 Passamaquoddy Indians, Maine 215? Abenakis of St. Francis and Bcancour, Quebec 369 "Amalecites" of Tmiscouata and Viger, Quebec 198 "Amalecites" of Madawaska, etc., New Brunswick 683 ——- 1,874? Algonquin: Of Renfrew, Golden Lake and Carleton, Ontario 797 With Iroquois (total 131) at Gibson, Ontario 31? With Iroquois at Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec 30 Quebec Province 3,909 ——- 4,767? Arapaho: Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 1,272 Shoshone Agency, Wyoming (Northern Arapaho) 885 Carlisle school, Pennsylvania, and Lawrence school, Kansas 55 ——- 2,212 Cheyenne: Pine Ridge Agency, South Dakota (Northern Cheyenne) 517 Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 2,091 Carlisle school, Pennsylvania, and Lawrence school, Kansas 153 Tongue River Agency, Montana (Northern Cheyenne) 865 ——- 3,626 Cree: With Salteau in Manitoba, etc., British America (treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5: total, 6,066) 3,066? Plain and Wood Cree, treaty No. 6, Manitoba, etc. 5,790 Cree (with Salteau, etc.), treaty No. 4, Manitoba, etc. 8,530 ——- 17,386? Delaware, etc.: Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Agency, Indian Territory 95 Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 1,000? Delaware with the Seneca in New York 3 Hampton and Lawrence schools 3 Muncie in New York, principally with Onondaga and Seneca 36 Munsee with Stockbridge (total 133), Green Bay Agency, Wis. 23? Munsee with Chippewa at Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas (total 75) 37? Munsee with Chippewa on the Thames, Ontario 131 "Moravians" of the Thames, Ontario 288 Delaware with Six Nations on Grand River, Ontario 134 ——- 1,750? Kickapoo: Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 325 Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 237 In Mexico 200? ——- 762? Menominee: Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 1,311 Carlisle school 1 ——- 1,312 Miami: Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 67 Indiana, no agency 300? Lawrence and Carlisle schools 7 ——- 374? Micmac: Restigouche, Maria, and Gasp, Quebec 732 In Nova Scotia 2,145 New Brunswick 912 Prince Edward Island 319 ——- 4,108 Misisauga: Alnwick, New Credit, etc., Ontario 774
Monsoni, Maskegon, etc.: Eastern Rupert's Land, British America 4,016
Montagnais: Betsiamits, Lake St. John, Grand Romaine, etc., Quebec 1,607 Seven Islands, Quebec 312 ——- 1,919 Nascapee: Lower St. Lawrence, Quebec 2,860
Ojibwa: White Earth Agency, Minnesota 6,263 La Pointe Agency, Wisconsin 4,778 Mackinac Agency, Michigan (about one-third of 5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 1,854? Mackinac Agency, Michigan (Chippewa alone) 1,351 Devil's Lake Agency, North Dakota (Turtle Mountain Chippewa) 1,340 Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas (one-half of 75 Chippewa and Muncie) 38? Lawrence and Carlisle schools 15 "Ojibbewas" of Lake Superior and Lake Huron, Ontario 5,201 "Chippewas" of Sarnia, etc., Ontario 1,956 "Chippewas" with Munsees on Thames, Ontario 454 "Chippewas" with Pottawatomies on Walpole Island, Ontario 658 "Ojibbewas" with Ottawas (total 1,856) on Manitoulin and Cockburn Islands, Ontario 928? "Salteaux" of treaty Nos. 3 and 4, etc., Manitoba, etc. 4,092 "Chippewas" with Crees in Manitoba, etc., treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (total Chippewa and Cree, 6,066) 3,000? ——- 31,928? Ottawa: Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 137 Mackinac Agency, Michigan (5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 3,709? Lawrence and Carlisle schools 20 With "Ojibbewas" on Manitoulin and Cockburn Islands, Ontario 928 ——- 4,794? Peoria, etc.: Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 160 Lawrence and Carlisle schools 5 ——- 165 Pottawatomie: Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 480 Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 462 Mackinac Agency, Michigan 77 Prairie band, Wisconsin 280 Carlisle, Lawrence and Hampton schools 117 With Chippewa on Walpole Island, Ontario 166 ——- 1,582 Sac and Fox: Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 515 Sac and Fox Agency, Iowa 381 Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 77 Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 8 ——- 981 Shawnee: Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 79 Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 640 Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 800? Lawrence, Carlisle, and Hampton schools 40 ——- 1,559? Siksika: Blackfoot Agency, Montana. (Blackfoot, Blood, Piegan) 1,811 Blackfoot reserves in Alberta, British America (with Sarcee and Assiniboine) 4,932 ——- 6,743 Stockbridge (Mahican): Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 110 In New York (with Tuscarora and Seneca) 7 Carlisle school 4 ——- 121
> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 16, 305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in "Literary World," 281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on linguistic evidence).
> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853. (Evident misprint.)
> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as shown by him in "Literary World." Hoopah also asserted to be Athapascan.)
> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis, Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)
= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856. Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs, Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 161, 1848 (Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860. Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.
> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 14, 305, 1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family, though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 440-448, 1847 (follows Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 32-34, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862 (referred to Esquimaux stock).
> Kintzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 441, 1847 (same as his Kinai above).
> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to Athapaskan).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841. (Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenes of present family.)
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).
> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847 (same as Athapascas above).
> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846 ("a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;" includes Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.
> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi, Loucheux, ibid. 1852.
> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).
> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the Saintskla).
> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 ("perhaps Athapascas").
> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 72, 1854 (a single tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.
> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.
> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.
> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (tribe on Lower Trinity, California).
> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.
> H-p, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be Athapascan).
= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S., XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races, III, 562, 583, 603, 1882.
= Tinn, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877. Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.
X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)
Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to Lacombe, "place of hay and reeds."
As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52 30'.
The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be Athapascan.
The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbia and of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom they were cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northern family in North America.
Since Gallatin's time the history of this family has been further elucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolated branches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, and along the southern border of the United States.
The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are best given under three primary groups—Northern, Pacific, and Southern.
Northern group.—This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo of Hudson's Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and Dawson's map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimmesyan families.
The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family. Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to somewhat below Shageluk Island, and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite to Kolmakoff Redoubt. Upon the two latter they reach quite to their heads. A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan tribes reach the coast—the K'naia-khotana, on Cook's Inlet, and the Ahtena, of Copper River.
[Footnote 7: Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.]
[Footnote 8: Fide Nelson in Dall's address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.]
[Footnote 9: Cruise of the Corwin, 1887.]
Pacific group.—Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following: Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower Chinook; Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the northwest side of Wapatoo Island. Gibbs was informed by an old Indian that this tribe "formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to the south"—a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon, whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille River southward to the California line, including, among others, the Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tnnĕ, and other "Rogue River" or "Tou-touten bands," Chasta Costa, Galice Creek, Naltunne tnnĕ and Chetco villages; the Athapascan villages formerly on Smith River and tributaries, California; those villages extending southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of Klamath River; the Hup villages or "clans" formerly on Lower Trinity River, California; the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as follows: "They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and Larrabie Creeks;" and Saiaz, who "formerly occupied the tongue of land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen's Fork."
[Footnote 10: Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep. I, 1855, p. 428.]
[Footnote 11: Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.]
[Footnote 12: Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-'84.]
[Footnote 13: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]
[Footnote 14: Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.]
[Footnote 15: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]
[Footnote 16: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.]
[Footnote 17: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.]
[Footnote 18: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.]
Southern group.—Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer Jos Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in 1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north and south from 29 N. to 36 N., and east and west from 99 W. to 114 W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande. More recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.
[Footnote 19: Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.]
[Footnote 20: Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.]
The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean tribes.
A. Northern group: B. Pacific group: C. Southern group:
Ah-tena. Ătaăkt. Arivaipa. Kaiyuh-khotana. Chasta Costa. Chiricahua. Kcaltana. Chetco. Coyotero. K'naia-khotana. Dakube tede Faraone. Koyukukhotana. (on Applegate Creek). Gileo. Kutchin. Euchre Creek. Jicarilla. Montagnais. Hup. Lipan. Montagnards. Kălts'erea tnnĕ. Llanero. Nagailer. Kenesti or Wailakki. Mescalero. Slave. Kwalhioqua. Mimbreo. Sluacus-tinneh. Kwa[t]ami. Mogollon. Taculli. Micikqwtme tnnĕ. Na-isha. Tahl-tan (1). Mikono tnnĕ. Navajo. Unakhotana. Owilapsh. Pinal Coyotero. Qwinctnnetn. Tchĕkn. Saiaz. Tchishi. Taltctun tde. (on Galice Creek). Tcm (Joshuas). Tcĕtlĕstcan tnnĕ. Terwar. Tlatscanai. Tolowa. Tutu tnnĕ.
Population.—The present number of the Athapascan family is about 32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409, belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.
Northern group.—This may be said to consist of the following: Ah-tena (1877) 364? Ai-yan (1888) 250 Al-ta-tin (Sicannie) estimated (1888) 500 of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887) 73 of whom there are at Fort Liard (1887) 78 Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib at Fort Resolution 469 Dog Rib at Fort Norman 133 Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae 657 Hare at Fort Good Hope 364 Hare at Fort Norman 103 Kai-yuh-kho-tna (1877), Koyukukhotna (1877), and Unakhotna (1877) 2,000? K'nai-a Khotna (1880) 250? Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope 95 Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre's House 337 Kutchin on the Yukon (six tribes) 842 Nahanie at Fort Good Hope 8 Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde, Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians) 332 Nahanie at Fort Liard 38 Nahanie at Fort Norman 43 —- 421 Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company's Territory) 87 Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company's Territory) 658 Slave at Fort Liard 281 Slave at Fort Norman 84 Tenn Kutchin (1877) 700? ——- 8,595?
To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following: Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California 468 Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 47 Siletz Reservation, Oregon (about one-half the Indians thereon) 300? Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 80 —- 895?
Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo: Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania 142 Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama 356 Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation) 733? Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado) 808 Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory 15? Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico) 513 Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory) 326 Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania) 17,208 San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 1,352? White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 36 White Mountain Apache (under military at Camp Apache, Arizona) 1,920 ——— 23,409?
= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II. pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.
= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (or "Men eaters"). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.
= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).
= Atkapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.
Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning "man-eater."
Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the "Carankouas," who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10 miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of their brethren farther to the east.
The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.
= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to be "Algonkin rather than aught else"). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.
= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885. Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.
Derivation: Beothuk signifies "Indian" or "red Indian."
The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland must be considered to be doubtful.
In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to the somewhat ambiguous statement that the language "was akin to those of the ordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; further investigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it was Algonkin rather than aught else."
Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor quality is the material sufficient to permit final and satisfactory deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other American tongue.
It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians.
In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.
Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz., the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.
> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306, 1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1858 [gives as languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].
> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847.
> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.). Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101, 1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.
> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and Riccari).
> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 128, 306, 1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (gives as languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes Pawnees and Arikaras).
> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 117, 128, 1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847 (supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from Pawnee family).
> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see Pawnee above).
> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856 (Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).
= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas; Caddoes).
= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847.
> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach, Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).
> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).
> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not classified).
> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any other; referred to as a family).
> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from Pawnee family).
> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).
> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).
Derivation: From the Caddo term ka-ede, signifying "chief" (Gatschet).
The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family, were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and accordingly both names appear in the Archologia Americana as family designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has priority by a few pages preference is given to it.
Gallatin states "that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red River but have now moved to a branch of Red River." He refers to the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialects of the Caddo language.
Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper Missouri in latitude 46 30'. The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups, Northern, Middle, and Southern.
Northern group.—This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of "Paneas," who had been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in three villages, nearer their present location.
[Footnote 21: Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.]
According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River. Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest corner of North Dakota.
[Footnote 22: Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.]
Middle group.—This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee, the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: "The original hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara," in Nebraska, "south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed." In modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork. The Pawnee were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village on a "large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they rejoined the Grand Pawnee." The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition, formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to this day. De L'Isle gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.
[Footnote 23: Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.]
[Footnote 24: Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.]
[Footnote 25: Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.]
Southern group.—This includes the Caddo, Wichita, Kichai, and other tribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indian Territory.
The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscan habitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names (Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and the statement of La Harpe, are now in or near one of their early abodes. Dr. Sibley locates the Caddo habitat 35 miles west of the main branch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and they formerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell's Atlas (1870) places Caddo Lake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It also gives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red River of Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichita migrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to the Indian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (as above) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, Ioni, Nabadache, and Eyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kdo hadatco, of Le Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti and La Harpe about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita, and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon the following as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southern group of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that part of Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowa and Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of the Choctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to the headwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thence through Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river to its mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine River near Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to Tawakonay Creek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following that stream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the North Fork of Red River; and thence to the beginning.
[Footnote 26: In 1719, fide Margry, VI, 289, "the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River."]
[Footnote 27: 1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.]
[Footnote 28: Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.]
[Footnote 29: 1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.]
[Footnote 30: 1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.]
A. Pawnee. Grand Pawnee. Tappas. Republican Pawnee. Skidi.
C. Wichita. (Ki-i-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe, Ki-dhi-chash or Ki-ri-chash).
E. Caddo (K-do).
Population.—The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of whom 447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest in the Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation, the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the Indian Report for 1889:
Arikara 448 Pawnee 824 Wichita 176 Towakarehu 145 Waco 64 —- 385 Kichai 63 Caddo 539 ——- Total 2,259
= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep., I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).
= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers language different from any of its neighbors).
< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).
< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).
Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:
The language of the Chimakum "differs materially from either that of the Clallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of their neighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. To what family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided."
Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of its neighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language family rank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison of vocabularies and finds the language to be quite distinct from any other, gives it the above name.
The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteen small lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs "their territory seems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow." In 1884 there were, according to Mr. Myron Eells, about twenty individuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend, Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at the southern end of Hood's Canal.
[Footnote 31: Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the peninsula between Hood's Canal and Port Townsend.]
The Quile-ute, of whom in 1889 there were 252 living on the Pacific south of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe of the latter, number 71 and are under the Puyallup Agency.
The following tribes are recognized:
= Chim-a-ri-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 474, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).
According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-ml-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left. In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundred words from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of that tribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko man seventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two living survivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and much valuable information relative to the former habitat and history of the tribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of words having correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet the greater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latter family, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed as distinct.
= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 154, 1848 (between 53 30' and 55 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.
Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok, Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 401, 1862.
= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).
= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane's list but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (published in 1870). Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 39, 40, 1877 (probably distinct from T'linkets). Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564, 607, 1882.
= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.
= Tsimpsi-an, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of family).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841 (includes Chimmesyans).
X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841 (same as his Northern family).
< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848 (including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).
< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).
= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present family).
Derivation: From the Chimsian ts'em, "on;" kcian, "main river:" "On the main (Skeena) river."
This name appears in a paper of Latham's published in 1848. To it is referred a vocabulary of Tolmie's. The area where it is spoken is said by Latham to be 50 30' and 55 30'. The name has become established by long usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been given preference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter name was given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be not related, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billechola belongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin's of 1836.
Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply to Chimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of Chimsian Indians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk, which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from the Chimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favor of Chimmesyan of the same date.
For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmie and Dawson, in 1884, is followed.
Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:
A. Nasqa: Nasqa. Gyitksan.
B. Tsimshian proper: Ts'emsian. Gyits'umrlon. Gyits'alaser. Gyitqⱥtla. Gyitgⱥata. Gyidesdzo.
[Footnote 32: B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.]
Population.—The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total for all the tribes of this family of 5,000. In the fall of 1887 about 1,000 of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removed to Annette Island, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, near Port Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called New Metlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schools established, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkable progress in civilization.
> Chinooks, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134, 306, 1836 (a single tribe at mouth of Columbia).
= Chinooks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 198, 1846. Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 15, 1848 (or Tsinuk).
= Tshinuk, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 562, 569, 1846 (contains Watlala or Upper Chinook, including Watlala, Nihaloitih, or Echeloots; and Tshinuk, including Tshinuk, Tlatsap, Wakaikam).
= Tsinuk, Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 15, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
> Cheenook, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 236, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 253, 1860.
> Chinuk, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 317, 1850 (same as Tshink; includes Chinks proper, Klatsops, Kathlamut, Wakikam, Watlala, Nihaloitih). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of family name). Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Buschmann. Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 616-619, 1859.
= Tschinuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of family name). Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 402, 1862 (cites a short vocabulary of Watlala).
= Tshinook, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Chinooks, Clatsops, and Watlala). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs. Brit. Col., 51, 61, 1884.
> Tshinuk, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 616, 1859 (same as his Chinuk).
= T'sinuk, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (mere mention of family).
= Chinook, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 167, 1877 (names and gives habitats of tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.
< Chinooks, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (includes Skilloots, Watlalas, Lower Chinooks, Wakiakurns, Cathlamets, Clatsops, Calapooyas, Clackamas, Killamooks, Yamkally, Chimook Jargon; of these Calapooyas and Yamkally are Kalapooian, Killamooks are Salishan).
> Chinook, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 626-628, 1882 (enumerates Chinook, Wakiakum, Cathlamet, Clatsop, Multnomah, Skilloot, Watlala).
X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224, 1841 (includes Cheenooks, and Cathlascons of present family).
X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 234 (same as his Nootka-Columbian family above).
The vocabulary of the Chinook tribe, upon which the family name was based, was derived from the mouth of the Columbia. As now understood the family embraces a number of tribes, speaking allied languages, whose former homes extended from the mouth of the river for some 200 miles, or to The Dalles. According to Lewis and Clarke, our best authorities on the pristine home of this family, most of their villages were on the banks of the river, chiefly upon the northern bank, though they probably claimed the land upon either bank for several miles back. Their villages also extended on the Pacific coast north nearly to the northern extreme of Shoalwater Bay, and to the south to about Tillamook Head, some 20 miles from the mouth of the Columbia.
Lower Chinook: Chinook. Clatsop.
Upper Chinook: Cathlamet. Cathlapotle. Chilluckquittequaw. Clackama. Cooniac. Echeloot. Multnoma. Wahkiacum. Wasco.
Population.—There are two hundred and eighty-eight Wasco on the Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon, and one hundred and fifty on the Yakama Reservation, Washington. On the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon, there are fifty-nine Clackama. From information derived from Indians by Mr. Thomas Priestly, United States Indian Agent at Yakama, it is learned that there still remain three or four families of "regular Chinook Indians," probably belonging to one of the down-river tribes, about 6 miles above the mouth of the Columbia. Two of these speak the Chinook proper, and three have an imperfect command of Clatsop. There are eight or ten families, probably also of one of the lower river tribes, living near Freeport, Washington.
Some of the Watlala, or Upper Chinook, live near the Cascades, about 55 miles below The Dalles. There thus remain probably between five and six hundred of the Indians of this family.
= Chitimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 114, 117, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847.
= Chetimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
= Chetimacha, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.
= Chetemachas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (same as Chitimachas).
= Shetimasha, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 44, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.
Derivation: From Choctaw words tchti, "cooking vessels," msha, "they possess," (Gatschet).
This family was based upon the language of the tribe of the same name, "formerly living in the vicinity of Lake Barataria, and still existing (1836) in lower Louisiana."
Du Pratz asserted that the Taensa and Chitimacha were kindred tribes of the Na'htchi. A vocabulary of the Shetimasha, however, revealed to Gallatin no traces of such affinity. He considered both to represent distinct families, a conclusion subsequent investigations have sustained.
In 1881 Mr. Gatschet visited the remnants of this tribe in Louisiana. He found about fifty individuals, a portion of whom lived on Grand River, but the larger part in Charenton, St. Mary's Parish. The tribal organization was abandoned in 1879 on the death of their chief.
> Santa Barbara, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, San Luis Obispo languages). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 531, 535, 538, 602, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860. Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 550, 567, 1877 (Kasu, Santa Inez, Id. of Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 419, 1879 (cites La Pursima, Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, Kasu, Mugu, Santa Cruz Id.).
X Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Id., San Luis Obispo, San Antonio).
Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders.
The several dialects of this family have long been known under the group or family name, "Santa Barbara," which seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz: Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely known than any of the others. Nevertheless, as it is the family name first applied to the group and has, moreover, passed into current use its claim to recognition would not be questioned were it not a compound name. Under the rule adopted the latter fact necessitates its rejection. As a suitable substitute the term Chumashan is here adopted. Chumash is the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders, who spoke a dialect of this stock, and is a term widely known among the Indians of this family.
The Indians of this family lived in villages, the villages as a whole apparently having no political connection, and hence there appears to have been no appellation in use among them to designate themselves as a whole people.
Dialects of this language were spoken at the Missions of San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Iez, Pursima, and San Luis Obispo. Kindred dialects were spoken also upon the Islands of Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz, and also, probably, upon such other of the Santa Barbara Islands as formerly were permanently inhabited.
These dialects collectively form a remarkably homogeneous family, all of them, with the exception of the San Luis Obispo, being closely related and containing very many words in common. Vocabularies representing six dialects of the language are in possession of the Bureau of Ethnology.
The inland limits of this family can not be exactly defined, although a list of more than one hundred villages with their sites, obtained by Mr. Henshaw in 1884, shows that the tribes were essentially maritime and were closely confined to the coast.
Population.—In 1884 Mr. Henshaw visited the several counties formerly inhabited by the populous tribes of this family and discovered that about forty men, women, and children survived. The adults still speak their old language when conversing with each other, though on other occasions they use Spanish. The largest settlement is at San Buenaventura, where perhaps 20 individuals live near the outskirts of the town.
= Coahuilteco, Orozco y Berra, Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, map, 1864.
= Tejano Coahuilteco, Pimentel, Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de las Lenguas Indgenas de Mxico, II, 409, 1865. (A preliminary notice with example from the language derived from Garcia's Manual, 1760.)
Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila.
This family appears to have included numerous tribes in southwestern Texas and in Mexico. They are chiefly known through the record of the Rev. Father Bartolom Garcia (Manual para administrar, etc.), published in 1760. In the preface to the "Manual" he enumerates the tribes and sets forth some phonetic and grammatic differences between the dialects.
On page 63 of his Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, 1864, Orozco y Berra gives a list of the languages of Mexico and includes Coahuilteco, indicating it as the language of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. He does not, however, indicate its extension into Texas. It would thus seem that he intended the name as a general designation for the language of all the cognate tribes.
Upon his colored ethnographic map, also, Orozco y Berra designates the Mexican portion of the area formerly occupied by the tribes of this family Coahuilteco. In his statement that the language and tribes are extinct this author was mistaken, as a few Indians still survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in 1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las Prietas, State of Tamaulipas. Of the Comecrudo some twenty-five still remain, of whom seven speak the language.
[Footnote 33: Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, map, 1864.]
The Cotoname are practically extinct, although Mr. Gatschet obtained one hundred and twenty-five words from a man said to be of this blood. Besides the above, Mr. Gatschet obtained information of the existence of two women of the Pinto or Pakaw tribe who live at La Volsa, near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, on the Rio Grande, and who are said to speak their own language.
Alasapa. Pajalate. Cachopostate. Pakaw. Casa chiquita. Pamaque. Chayopine. Pampopa. Comecrudo. Pastancoya. Cotoname. Patacale. Mano de perro. Pausane. Mescal. Payseya. Miakan. Sanipao. Orejone. Tcame. Pacuche. Venado.
> Cop-eh, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853 (mentioned as a dialect).
= Copeh, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 79, 1856 (of Upper Sacramento; cites vocabs. from Gallatin and Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 345, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 412, 1862.
= Wintoons, Powers in Overland Monthly, 530, June, 1874 (Upper Sacramento and Upper Trinity). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, 1877 (defines habitat and names tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 434, 1877.
= Win-tn, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 518-534, 1877 (vocabularies of Wintun, Sacramento River, Trinity Indians). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 418, 1879 (defines area occupied by family).
X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Copahs, Patawats, Wintoons). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Copah).
> Napa, Keane, ibid., 476, 524, 1878 (includes Myacomas, Calayomanes, Caymus, Ulucas, Suscols). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 567, 1882 (includes Napa, Myacoma, Calayomane, Caymus, Uluca, Suscol).
This name was proposed by Latham with evident hesitation. He says of it: "How far this will eventually turn out to be a convenient name for the group (or how far the group itself will be real), is uncertain." Under it he places two vocabularies, one from the Upper Sacramento and the other from Mag Redings in Shasta County. The head of Putos Creek is given as headquarters for the language. Recent investigations have served to fully confirm the validity of the family.
The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan, Yanan, and Pujunan families, and on the south by the bays of San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento.
The eastern boundary of the territory begins about 5 miles east of Mount Shasta, crosses Pit River a little east of Squaw Creek, and reaches to within 10 miles of the eastern bank of the Sacramento at Redding. From Redding to Chico Creek the boundary is about 10 miles east of the Sacramento. From Chico downward the Pujunan family encroaches till at the mouth of Feather River it occupies the eastern bank of the Sacramento. The western boundary of the Copehan family begins at the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay, trends to the northwest in a somewhat irregular line till it reaches John's Peak, from which point it follows the Coast Range to the tipper waters of Cottonwood Creek, whence it deflects to the west, crossing the headwaters of the Trinity and ending at the southern boundary of the Sastean family.
A. Patwin: B. Wintu: Chenposel. Daupom. Gruilito. Nomlaki. Korusi. Nommuk. Liwaito. Norelmuk. Lolsel. Normuk. Makhelchel. Waikenmuk. Malaka. Wailaki. Napa. Olelato. Olposel. Suisun. Todetabi. Topaidisel. Waikosel. Wailaksel.
= Costano, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 82, 1856 (includes the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos, Romonans, Tulornos, Altatmos). Latham, Opuscula, 348, 1860.
< Mutsun, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (includes Ahwastes, Olhones, Altahmos, Romonans, Tulomos). Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 535, 1877 (includes under this family vocabs. of Costano, Mutsun, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz).
Derivation: From the Spanish costano, "coast-men."
Under this group name Latham included five tribes, given above, which were under the supervision of the Mission Dolores. He gives a few words of the Romonan language, comparing it with Tshokoyem which he finds to differ markedly. He finally expresses the opinion that, notwithstanding the resemblance of a few words, notably personal pronouns, to Tshokoyem of the Moquelumnan group, the affinities of the dialects of the Costano are with the Salinas group, with which, however, he does not unite it but prefers to keep it by itself. Later, in 1877, Mr. Gatschet, under the family name Mutsun, united the Costano dialects with the ones classified by Latham under Moquelumnan. This arrangement was followed by Powell in his classification of vocabularies. More recent comparison of all the published material by Mr. Curtin, of the Bureau, revealed very decided and apparently radical differences between the two groups of dialects. In 1888 Mr. H. W. Henshaw visited the coast to the north and south of San Francisco, and obtained a considerable body of linguistic material for further comparison. The result seems fully to justify the separation of the two groups as distinct families.
[Footnote 34: Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.]
[Footnote 35: Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.]
The territory of the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point near the southern end of Monterey Bay. On the south it is bounded from Monterey Bay to the mountains by the Esselenian territory. On the east side of the mountains it extends to the southern end of Salinas Valley. On the east it is bounded by a somewhat irregular line running from the southern end of Salinas Valley to Gilroy Hot Springs and the upper waters of Conestimba Creek, and, northward from the latter points by the San Joaquin River to its mouth. The northern boundary is formed by Suisun Bay, Carquinez Straits, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays, and the Golden Gate.
Population.—The surviving Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now scattered over several counties and probably do not number, all told, over thirty individuals, as was ascertained by Mr. Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey. Only the older individuals speak the language.
> Eskimaux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 9, 305, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
= Eskimo, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 288, 1850 (general remarks on origin and habitat). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 689, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 385, 1862. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 574, 1882.
> Esquimaux, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 367-371, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 182-191, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 266-274, 1860.
> Eskimo, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869 (treats of Alaskan Eskimo and Tuski only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (excludes the Aleutian).
> Eskimos, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878 (excludes Aleutian).
> Ounngan, Veniamnoff, Zapski ob ostrova[ch] Unalshkinskago otdailo, II, 1, 1840 (Aleutians only).
> Unŭ[g]ŭn, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 22, 1877 (Aleuts a division of his Orarian group).
> Unangan, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841 (includes Ugalentzes of present family).
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224, 1841 (same as his Northern family).
> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (lat. 60, between Prince Williams Sound and Mount St. Elias, perhaps Athapascas).
Aleuten, Holmberg, Ethnog. Skizzen d. Vlker Russ. Am., 1855.
> Aleutians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869. Dall, Alaska and Resources, 374, 1870 (in both places a division of his Orarian family).
> Aleuts, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878 (consist of Unalaskans of mainland and of Fox and Shumagin Ids., with Akkhas of rest of Aleutian Arch.).
> Aleut, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 1882 (two dialects, Unalaska and Atkha).
> Konjagen, Holmberg, Ethnograph. Skizzen Volker Russ. Am., 1855 (Island of Koniag or Kadiak).
= Orarians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 265, 1869 (group name; includes Innuit, Aleutians, Tuski). Dall, Alaska and Resources, 374, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 8, 9, 1877.
X Tinneb, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (includes "Ugalense").
> Innuit, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 9, 1877 ("Major group" of Orarians: treats of Alaska Innuit only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 73, 1887 (excludes the Aleutians).
Derivation: From an Algonkin word eskimantik, "eaters of raw flesh."
The geographic boundaries of this family were set forth by Gallatin in 1836 with considerable precision, and require comparatively little revision and correction.
In the linear extent of country occupied, the Eskimauan is the most remarkable of the North American linguistic families. It extends coastwise from eastern Greenland to western Alaska and to the extremity of the Aleutian Islands, a distance of considerably more than 5,000 miles. The winter or permanent villages are usually situated on the coast and are frequently at considerable distances from one another, the intervening areas being usually visited in summer for hunting and fishing purposes. The interior is also visited by the Eskimo for the purpose of hunting reindeer and other animals, though they rarely penetrate farther than 50 miles. A narrow strip along the coast, perhaps 30 miles wide, will probably, on the average, represent Eskimo occupancy.
Except upon the Aleutian Islands, the dialects spoken over this vast area are very similar, the unity of dialect thus observable being in marked contrast to the tendency to change exhibited in other linguistic families of North America.
How far north the east coast of Greenland is inhabited by Eskimo is not at present known. In 1823 Capt. Clavering met with two families of Eskimo north of 74 30'. Recent explorations (1884-'85) by Capt. Holm, of the Danish Navy, along the southeast coast reveal the presence of Eskimo between 65 and 66 north latitude. These Eskimo profess entire ignorance of any inhabitants north of themselves, which may be taken as proof that if there are fiords farther up the coast which are inhabited there has been no intercommunication in recent times at least between these tribes and those to the south. It seems probable that more or less isolated colonies of Eskimo do actually exist along the east coast of Greenland far to the north.
Along the west coast of Greenland, Eskimo occupancy extends to about 74. This division is separated by a considerable interval of uninhabited coast from the Etah Eskimo who occupy the coast from Smith Sound to Cape York, their most northerly village being in 78 18'. For our knowledge of these interesting people we are chiefly indebted to Ross and Bessels.
In Grinnell Land, Gen. Greely found indications of permanent Eskimo habitations near Fort Conger, lat. 81 44'.
On the coast of Labrador the Eskimo reach as far south as Hamilton Inlet, about 55 30'. Not long since they extended to the Straits of Belle Isle, 50 30'.
On the east coast of Hudson Bay the Eskimo reach at present nearly to James Bay. According to Dobbs in 1744 they extended as far south as east Maine River, or about 52. The name Notaway (Eskimo) River at the southern end of the bay indicates a former Eskimo extension to that point.
[Footnote 36: Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson's Bay. London, 1744.]
According to Boas and Bessels the most northern Eskimo of the middle group north of Hudson Bay reside on the southern extremity of Ellesmere Land around Jones Sound. Evidences of former occupation of Prince Patrick, Melville, and other of the northern Arctic islands are not lacking, but for some unknown cause, probably a failure of food supply, the Eskimo have migrated thence and the islands are no longer inhabited. In the western part of the central region the coast appears to be uninhabited from the Coppermine River to Cape Bathurst. To the west of the Mackenzie, Herschel Island marks the limit of permanent occupancy by the Mackenzie Eskimo, there being no permanent villages between that island and the settlements at Point Barrow.
The intervening strip of coast is, however, undoubtedly hunted over more or less in summer. The Point Barrow Eskimo do not penetrate far into the interior, but farther to the south the Eskimo reach to the headwaters of the Nunatog and Koyuk Rivers. Only visiting the coast for trading purposes, they occupy an anomalous position among Eskimo.
Eskimo occupancy of the rest of the Alaska coast is practically continuous throughout its whole extent as far to the south and east as the Atna or Copper River, where begin the domains of the Koluschan family. Only in two places do the Indians of the Athapascan family intrude upon Eskimo territory, about Cook's Inlet, and at the mouth of Copper River.
Owing to the labors of Dall, Petroff, Nelson, Turner, Murdoch, and others we are now pretty well informed as to the distribution of the Eskimo in Alaska.
Nothing is said by Gallatin of the Aleutian Islanders and they were probably not considered by him to be Eskimauan. They are now known to belong to this family, though the Aleutian dialects are unintelligible to the Eskimo proper. Their distribution has been entirely changed since the advent of the Russians and the introduction of the fur trade, and at present they occupy only a very small portion of the islands. Formerly they were much more numerous than at present and extended throughout the chain.
The Eskimauan family is represented in northeast Asia by the Yuit of the Chukchi peninsula, who are to be distinguished from the sedentary Chukchi or the Tuski of authors, the latter being of Asiatic origin. According to Dall the former are comparatively recent arrivals from the American continent, and, like their brethren of America, are confined exclusively to the coast.
PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND VILLAGES.
Greenland group— Labrador group: Alaska group: East Greenland villages: Itivimiut. Chiglit. Akorninak. Kiguaqtagmiut. Chugachigmiut. Aluik. Suqinimiut. Ikogmiut. Anarnitsok. Taqagmiut. Imahklimiut. Angmagsalik. Inguhklimiut. Igdlolnarsuk. Middle Group: Kaialigmiut. Ivimiut. Aggomiut. Kangmaligmiut. Kemisak. Ahaknanelet. Kaviagmiut. Kikkertarsoak. Aivillirmiut. Kittegareut. Kinarbik. Akudliarmiut. Kopagmiut. Maneetsuk. Akudnirmiut. Kuagmiut. Narsuk. Amitormiut. Kuskwogmiut. Okkiosorbik. Iglulingmiut. Magemiut. Sermiligak. Kangormiut. Mahlemiut. Sermilik. Kinnepatu. Nunatogmiut. Taterat. Kramalit. Nunivagmiut. Umanak. Nageuktormiut. Nushagagmiut. Umerik. Netchillirmiut. Nuwungmiut. Nugumiut. Oglemiut. West coast villages: Okomiut. Selawigmiut. Akbat. Pilinginiut. Shiwokugmiut. Karsuit. Sagdlirmiut. Ukivokgmiut. Tessuisak. Sikosuilarmiut. Unaligmiut. Sinimiut. Ugjulirmiut. Aleutian group: Ukusiksalingmiut. Atka. Unalashka.
Asiatic group: Yuit.
Population.—Only a rough approximation of the population of the Eskimo can be given, since of some of the divisions next to nothing is known. Dall compiles the following estimates of the Alaskan Eskimo from the most reliable figures up to 1885: Of the Northwestern Innuit 3,100 (?), including the Kopagmiut, Kangmaligmiut, Nuwukmiut, Nunatogmiut, Kuagmiut, the Inguhklimiut of Little Diomede Island 40 (?), Shiwokugmiut of St. Lawrence Island 150 (?), the Western Innuit 14,500 (?), the Aleutian Islanders (Unungun) 2,200 (?); total of the Alaskan Innuit, about 20,000.
The Central or Baffin Land Eskimo are estimated by Boas to number about 1,100.
[Footnote 37: Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.]
From figures given by Rink, Packard, and others, the total number of Labrador Eskimo is believed to be about 2,000.
According to Holm (1884-'85) there are about 550 Eskimo on the east coast of Greenland. On the west coast the mission Eskimo numbered 10,122 in 1886, while the northern Greenland Eskimo, the Arctic Highlanders of Ross, number about 200.
Thus throughout the Arctic regions generally there is a total of about 34,000.
< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Gioloco?, Ruslen, Soledad, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, and San Miguel, cited as including Eslen). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.
As afterwards mentioned under the Salinan family, the present family was included by Latham in the heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. For reasons there given the term Salinan was restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel languages, leaving the present family without a name. It is called Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of which it is composed.
Its history is a curious and interesting one. Apparently the first mention of the tribe and language is to be found in the Voyage de la Prouse, Paris, 1797, page 288, where Lamanon (1786) states that the language of the Ecclemachs (Esselen) differs "absolutely from all those of their neighbors." He gives a vocabulary of twenty-two words and by way of comparison a list of the ten numerals of the Achastlians (Costanoan family). It was a study of the former short vocabulary, published by Taylor in the California Farmer, October 24, 1862, that first led to the supposition of the distinctness of this language.
A few years later the Esselen people came under the observation of Galiano, who mentions the Eslen and Runsien as two distinct nations, and notes a variety of differences in usages and customs which are of no great weight. It is of interest to note, however, that this author also appears to have observed essential differences in the languages of the two peoples, concerning which he says: "The same difference as in usage and custom is observed in the languages of the two nations, as will be perceived from the following comparison with which we will conclude this chapter."
[Footnote 38: Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el ao de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.]
Galiano supplies Esselen and Runsien vocabularies of thirty-one words, most of which agree with the earlier vocabulary of Lamanon. These were published by Taylor in the California Farmer under date of April 20, 1860.
In the fall of 1888 Mr. H. W. Henshaw visited the vicinity of Monterey with the hope of discovering survivors of these Indians. Two women were found in the Salinas Valley to the south who claimed to be of Esselen blood, but neither of them was able to recall any of the language, both having learned in early life to speak the Runsien language in place of their own. An old woman was found in the Carmelo Valley near Monterey and an old man living near the town of Cayucos, who, though of Runsien birth, remembered considerable of the language of their neighbors with whom they were connected by marriage. From them a vocabulary of one hundred and ten words and sixty-eight phrases and short sentences were obtained. These serve to establish the general correctness of the short lists of words collected so long ago by Lamanon and Galiano, and they also prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Esselen language forms a family by itself and has no connection with any other known.
The tribe or tribes composing this family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles.
> Iroquois, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 21, 23, 305, 1836 (excludes Cherokee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 463, 1862.
> Irokesen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
X Irokesen, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (includes Kataba and said to be derived from Dakota).
> Huron-Iroquois, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 243, 1840.
> Wyandot-Iroquois, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 468, 1878.
> Cherokees, Gallatin in Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 89, 306, 1836 (kept apart from Iroquois though probable affinity asserted). Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 246, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 401, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (a separate group perhaps to be classed with Iroquois and Sioux). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853. Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 472, 1878 (same as Chelekees or Tsalagi—"apparently entirely distinct from all other American tongues").
> Tschirokies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848.
> Chelekees, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (or Cherokees).
> Cheroki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
= Huron-Cherokee, Hale in Am. Antiq., 20, Jan., 1883 (proposed as a family name instead of Huron-Iroquois; relationship to Iroquois affirmed).
Derivation: French, adaptation of the Iroquois word hiro, used to conclude a speech, and kou, an exclamation (Charlevoix). Hale gives as possible derivations ierokwa, the indeterminate form of the verb to smoke, signifying "they who smoke;" also the Cayuga form of bear, iakwai. Mr. Hewitt suggests the Algonkin words ɨrɨn, true, or real; ako, snake; with the French termination ois, the word becomes Irinakois.
[Footnote 39: Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.]
[Footnote 40: American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.]
With reference to this family it is of interest to note that as early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a connection between them. Gallatin, in the Archologia Americana, refers to the opinion expressed by Barton, and although he states that he is inclined to agree with that author, yet he does not formally refer Cheroki to that family, concluding that "We have not a sufficient knowledge of the grammar, and generally of the language of the Five Nations, or of the Wyandots, to decide that question."
[Footnote 41: New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.]
[Footnote 42: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.]
Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made by Mr. Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of the two languages as affirmed by Barton so long ago.
[Footnote 43: Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.]
Unlike most linguistic stocks, the Iroquoian tribes did not occupy a continuous area, but when first known to Europeans were settled in three distinct regions, separated from each other by tribes of other lineage. The northern group was surrounded by tribes of Algonquian stock, while the more southern groups bordered upon the Catawba and Maskoki.
A tradition of the Iroquois points to the St. Lawrence region as the early home of the Iroquoian tribes, whence they gradually moved down to the southwest along the shores of the Great Lakes.
When Cartier, in 1534, first explored the bays and inlets of the Gulf of St. Lawrence he met a Huron-Iroquoian people on the shores of the Bay of Gasp, who also visited the northern coast of the gulf. In the following year when he sailed up the St. Lawrence River he found the banks of the river from Quebec to Montreal occupied by an Iroquoian people. From statements of Champlain and other early explorers it seems probable that the Wyandot once occupied the country along the northern shore of Lake Ontario.
The Conestoga, and perhaps some allied tribes, occupied the country about the Lower Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and have commonly been regarded as an isolated body, but it seems probable that their territory was contiguous to that of the Five Nations on the north before the Delaware began their westward movement.
As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southern colonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations, they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to which they had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract in South Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of the Edisto, but about one-half of this tract, forming the present Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree. In 1755 they sold a second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree), but all of this tract east of Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between the Congaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in the upper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawba boundary. In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha, but the Iroquois claimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of the Alleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to the Kentucky River, and two years previously they had made a treaty with Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners of all between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee. The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which the Cherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, the Shawnee, about 1721. The Cherokee had no villages north of the Tennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and at a conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquois the skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as the animal had been killed north of the Tennessee. In 1805, 1806, and 1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in middle Tennessee, north of the Tennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, but this territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, and at one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim. The adjacent tract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa, was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to move westward, about 1770.