Chapter IV: Part 4

Scanty as was the population compared with the vast area teeming with natural products capable of supporting human life, it may be safely said that at the time of the discovery, and long prior thereto, practically the whole of the area included in the present map was claimed and to some extent occupied by Indian tribes; but the possession of land by the Indian by no means implies occupancy in the modern or civilized sense of the term. In the latter sense occupation means to a great extent individual control and ownership. Very different was it with the Indians. Individual ownership of land was, as a rule, a thing entirely foreign to the Indian mind, and quite unknown in the culture stage to which he belonged. All land, of whatever character or however utilized, was held in common by the tribe, or in a few instances by the clan. Apparently an exception to this broad statement is to be made in the case of the Haida of the northwest coast, who have been studied by Dawson. According to him[3] the land is divided among the different families and is held as strictly personal property, with hereditary rights or possessions descending from one generation to another. “The lands may be bartered or given away. The larger salmon streams are, however, often the property jointly of a number of families.” The tendency in this case is toward personal right in land.

[Footnote 3: Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.]

TRIBAL LAND.

For convenience of discussion, Indian tribal land may be divided into three classes: First, the land occupied by the villages; second, the land actually employed in agriculture; third, the land claimed by the tribe but not occupied, except as a hunting ground.

_Village sites_.--The amount of land taken up as village sites varied considerably in different parts of the country. It varied also in the same tribe at different times. As a rule, the North American Indians lived in communal houses of sufficient size to accommodate several families. In such cases the village consisted of a few large structures closely grouped together, so that it covered very little ground. When territory was occupied by warlike tribes, the construction of rude palisades around the villages and the necessities of defense generally tended to compel the grouping of houses, and the permanent village sites of even the more populous tribes covered only a very small area. In the case of confederated tribes and in the time of peace the tendency was for one or more families to establish more or less permanent settlements away from the main village, where a livelihood was more readily obtainable. Hence, in territory which had enjoyed a considerable interval of peace the settlements were in the nature of small agricultural communities, established at short distances from each other and extending in the aggregate over a considerable extent of country. In the case of populous tribes the villages were probably of the character of the Choctaw towns described by Adair.[4] “The barrier towns, which are next to the Muskohge and Chikkasah countries, are compactly settled for social defense, according to the general method of other savage nations; but the rest, both in the center and toward the Mississippi, are only scattered plantations, as best suits a separate easy way of living. A stranger might be in the middle of one of their populous, extensive towns without seeing half a dozen houses in the direct course of his path.” More closely grouped settlements are described by Wayne in American State Papers, 1793, in his account of an expedition down the Maumee Valley, where he states that “The margins of the Miamis of the Lake and the Au Glaize appear like one continuous village for a number of miles, nor have I ever beheld such immense fields of corn in any part of America from Canada to Florida.” Such a chain of villages as this was probably highly exceptional; but even under such circumstances the village sites proper formed but a very small part of the total area occupied.

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

From the foregoing considerations it will be seen that the amount of land occupied as village sites under any circumstances was inconsiderable.

_Agricultural land_.--It is practically impossible to make an accurate estimate of the relative amount of land devoted to agricultural purposes by any one tribe or by any family of tribes. None of the factors which enter into the problem are known to us with sufficient accuracy to enable reliable estimates to be made of the amount of land tilled or of the products derived from the tillage; and only in few cases have we trustworthy estimates of the population of the tribe or tribes practicing agriculture. Only a rough approximation of the truth can be reached from the scanty data available and from a general knowledge of Indian methods of subsistence.

The practice of agriculture was chiefly limited to the region south of the St. Lawrence and east of the Mississippi. In this region it was far more general and its results were far more important than is commonly supposed. To the west of the Mississippi only comparatively small areas were occupied by agricultural tribes and these lay chiefly in New Mexico and Arizona and along the Arkansas, Platte, and Missouri Rivers. The rest of that region was tenanted by non-agricultural tribes--unless indeed the slight attention paid to the cultivation of tobacco by a few of the west coast tribes, notably the Haida, may be considered agriculture. Within the first mentioned area most of the tribes, perhaps all, practiced agriculture to a greater or less extent, though unquestionably the degree of reliance placed upon it as a means of support differed much with different tribes and localities.

Among many tribes agriculture was relied upon to supply an important--and perhaps in the case of a few tribes, the most important--part of the food supply. The accounts of some of the early explorers in the southern United States, where probably agriculture was more systematized than elsewhere, mention corn fields of great extent, and later knowledge of some northern tribes, as the Iroquois and some of the Ohio Valley tribes, shows that they also raised corn in great quantities. The practice of agriculture to a point where it shall prove the main and constant supply of a people, however, implies a degree of sedentariness to which our Indians as a rule had not attained and an amount of steady labor without immediate return which was peculiarly irksome to them. Moreover, the imperfect methods pursued in clearing, planting, and cultivating sufficiently prove that the Indians, though agriculturists, were in the early stages of development as such--a fact also attested by the imperfect and one-sided division of labor between the sexes, the men as a rule taking but small share of the burdensome tasks of clearing land, planting, and harvesting.

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

_Hunting claims_.--The great body of the land within the area mapped which was occupied by agricultural tribes, and all the land outside it, was held as a common hunting ground, and the tribal claim to territory, independent of village sites and corn fields, amounted practically to little else than hunting claims. The community of possession in the tribe to the hunting ground was established and practically enforced by hunting laws, which dealt with the divisions of game among the village, or among the families of the hunters actually taking part in any particular hunt. As a rule, such natural landmarks as rivers, lakes, hills, and mountain chains served to mark with sufficient accuracy the territorial tribal limits. In California, and among the Haida and perhaps other tribes of the northwest coast, the value of certain hunting and fishing claims led to their definition by artificial boundaries, as by sticks or stones.[5]

[Footnote 5: Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson,
Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.]

Such precautions imply a large population, and in such regions as California the killing of game upon the land of adjoining tribes was rigidly prohibited and sternly punished.

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

Not only is precise data wanting respecting the limits of land actually held or claimed by many tribes, but there are other tribes, which disappeared early in the history of our country, the boundaries to whose habitat is to be determined only in the most general way. Concerning some of these, our information is so vague that the very linguistic family they belonged to is in doubt. In the case of probably no one family are the data sufficient in amount and accuracy to determine positively the exact areas definitely claimed or actually held by the tribes. Even in respect of the territory of many of the tribes of the eastern United States, much of whose land was ceded by actual treaty with the Government, doubt exists. The fixation of the boundary points, when these are specifically mentioned in the treaty, as was the rule, is often extremely difficult, owing to the frequent changes of geographic names and the consequent disagreement of present with ancient maps. Moreover, when the Indian’s claim to his land had been admitted by Government, and the latter sought to acquire a title through voluntary cession by actual purchase, land assumed a value to the Indian never attaching to it before.

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

It was often found by the Government to be utterly impracticable to decide between conflicting claims, and not infrequently the only way out of the difficulty lay in admitting the claim of both parties, and in paying for the land twice or thrice. It was customary for a number of different tribes to take part in such treaties, and not infrequently several linguistic families were represented. It was the rule for each tribe, through its representatives, to cede its share of a certain territory, the natural boundaries of which as a whole are usually recorded with sufficient accuracy. The main purpose of the Government in treaty-making being to obtain possession of the land, comparatively little attention was bestowed to defining the exact areas occupied by the several tribes taking part in a treaty, except in so far as the matter was pressed upon attention by disputing claimants. Hence the territory claimed by each tribe taking part in the treaty is rarely described, and occasionally not all the tribes interested in the proposed cession are even mentioned categorically. The latter statement applies more particularly to the territory west of the Mississippi, the data for determining ownership to which is much less precise, and the doubt and confusion respecting tribal boundary lines correspondingly greater than in the country east of that river. Under the above circumstances, it will be readily understood that to determine tribal boundaries within accurately drawn lines is in the vast majority of cases quite impossible.

Imperfect and defective as the terms of the treaties frequently are as regards the definition of tribal boundaries, they are by far the most accurate and important of the means at our command for fixing boundary lines upon the present map. By their aid the territorial possessions of a considerable number of tribes have been determined with desirable precision, and such areas definitely established have served as checks upon the boundaries of other tribes, concerning the location and extent of whose possessions little is known.

For establishing the boundaries of such tribes as are not mentioned in treaties, and of those whose territorial possessions are not given with sufficient minuteness, early historical accounts are all important. Such accounts, of course, rarely indicate the territorial possessions of the tribes with great precision. In many cases, however, the sites of villages are accurately given. In others the source of information concerning a tribe is contained in a general statement of the occupancy of certain valleys or mountain ranges or areas at the heads of certain rivers, no limiting lines whatever being assigned. In others, still, the notice of a tribe is limited to a brief mention of the presence in a certain locality of hunting or war parties.

Data of this loose character would of course be worthless in an attempt to fix boundary lines in accordance with the ideas of the modern surveyor. The relative positions of the families and the relative size of the areas occupied by them, however, and not their exact boundaries, are the chief concern in a linguistic map, and for the purpose of establishing these, and, in a rough way, the boundaries of the territory held by the tribes composing them, these data are very important, and when compared with one another and corrected by more definite data, when such are at hand, they have usually been found to be sufficient for the purpose.

SUMMARY OF DEDUCTIONS.

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

First, the North American Indian tribes, instead of speaking related dialects, originating in a single parent language, in reality speak many languages belonging to distinct families, which have no apparent unity of origin.

Second, the Indian population of North America was greatly exaggerated by early writers, and instead of being large was in reality small as compared with the vast territory occupied and the abundant food supply; and furthermore, the population had nowhere augmented sufficiently, except possibly in California, to press upon the food supply.

Third, although representing a small population, the numerous tribes had overspread North America and had possessed themselves of all the territory, which, in the case of a great majority of tribes, was owned in common by the tribe.

Fourth, prior to the advent of the European, the tribes were probably nearly in a state of equilibrium, and were in the main sedentary, and those tribes which can be said with propriety to have been nomadic became so only after the advent of the European, and largely as the direct result of the acquisition of the horse and the introduction of firearms.

Fifth, while agriculture was general among the tribes of the eastern United States, and while it was spreading among western tribes, its products were nowhere sufficient wholly to emancipate the Indian from the hunter state.

* * * * *

LINGUISTIC FAMILIES.

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

These are enumerated in alphabetical order and each is accompanied by a table of the synonyms of the family name, together with a brief statement of the geographical area occupied by each family, so far as it is known. A list of the principal tribes of each family also is given.

ADAIZAN FAMILY.

= Adaize, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306,
1836. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond., II, 31-59, 1846. Latham,
Opuscula, 293, 1860. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Latham, Elements
Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the most isolated
languages of N.A.). Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.
Am.), 478, 1878 (or Adees).

= Adaizi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847.

= Adaise, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.

= Adahi, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Latham in Trans. Philolog.
Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 368, 1860. Latham,
Elements Comp., Phil., 473, 477, 1863 (same as his Adaize above).

= Adaes, Buschmann, Spuren der aztekischen Sprache, 424, 1859.

= Adees. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.) 478, 1878
(same as his Adaize).

= Adái, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., 41, 1884.

Derivation: From a Caddo word hadai, sig. “brush wood.”

This family was based upon the language spoken by a single tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley, lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission of Adaize, “about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates with the division of Red River that passes by Bayau Pierre.”[6] A vocabulary of about two hundred and fifty words is all that remains to us of their language, which according to the collector, Dr. Sibley, “differs from all others, and is so difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten words of it.”

[Footnote 6: Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.]

It was from an examination of Sibley’s vocabulary that Gallatin reached the conclusion of the distinctness of this language from any other known, an opinion accepted by most later authorities. A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr. Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he regards it as a Caddoan dialect. The amount of material, however, necessary to establish its relationship to Caddoan is not at present forthcoming, and it may be doubted if it ever will be, as recent inquiry has failed to reveal the existence of a single member of the tribe, or of any individual of the tribes once surrounding the Adái who remembers a word of the language.

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

Owing to their small numbers, their remoteness from lines of travel, and their unwarlike character the Adái have cut but a small figure in history, and accordingly the known facts regarding them are very meager. The first historical mention of them appears to be by Cabeça de Vaca, who in his “Naufragios,” referring to his stay in Texas, about 1530, calls them Atayos. Mention is also made of them by several of the early French explorers of the Mississippi, as d’Iberville and Joutel.

The Mission of Adayes, so called from its proximity to the home of the tribe, was established in 1715. In 1792 there was a partial emigration of the Adái to the number of fourteen families to a site south of San Antonio de Bejar, southwest Texas, where apparently they amalgamated with the surrounding Indian population and were lost sight of. (From documents preserved at the City Hall, San Antonio, and examined by Mr. Gatschet in December, 1886.) The Adái who were left in their old homes numbered one hundred in 1802, according to Baudry de Lozieres. According to Sibley, in 1809 there were only “twenty men of them remaining, but more women.” In 1820 Morse mentions only thirty survivors.

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

> Algonkin-Lenape, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 23, 305,
1836. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid, 1852.

> Algonquin, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 337, 1840. Prichard Phys.
Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847 (follows Gallatin).

> Algonkins, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77,
1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.

> Algonkin, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rept., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (gives
Delaware and Shawnee vocabs.). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri
Inds., 232, 1862 (treats only of Crees, Blackfeet, Shyennes). Hale in
Am. Antiq., 112, April, 1883 (treated with reference to migration).

< Algonkin, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 1856 (adds to
Gallatin’s list of 1836 the Bethuck, Shyenne, Blackfoot, and
Arrapaho). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860 (as in preceding). Latham,
Elements Comp. Phil, 447, 1862.

< Algonquin, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp., (Cent. and S. Am.), 460,
465, 1878 (list includes the Maquas, an Iroquois tribe).

> Saskatschawiner, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (probably
designates the Arapaho).

> Arapahoes, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

X Algonkin und Beothuk, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.

Derivation: Contracted from Algomequin, an Algonkin word, signifying “those on the other side of the river,” i.e., the St. Lawrence River.

ALGONQUIAN AREA.

The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who were gradually retreating before them to the north. In Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early period had separated from the main body of the tribe in central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until about the beginning of the eighteenth century they were finally driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country stretching north to the Ohio River.

The Cheyenne and Arapaho, two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from their kindred on the north and had forced their way through hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado, thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of the Shoshonean family in front.

PRINCIPAL ALGONQUINIAN TRIBES.

Abnaki. Menominee. Ottawa.
Algonquin. Miami. Pamlico.
Arapaho. Micmac. Pennacook.
Cheyenne. Mohegan. Pequot.
Conoy. Montagnais. Piankishaw.
Cree. Montauk. Pottawotomi.
Delaware. Munsee. Powhatan.
Fox. Nanticoke. Sac.
Illinois. Narraganset. Shawnee.
Kickapoo. Nauset. Siksika.
Mahican. Nipmuc. Wampanoag.
Massachuset. Ojibwa. Wappinger.

_Population._--The present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the United States. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the United States Indian Commissioner’s report for 1889 and the Canadian Indian report for 1888. It is impossible to give exact figures, owing to the fact that in many instances two or more tribes are enumerated together, while many individuals are living with other tribes or amongst the whites:

Abnaki:
“Oldtown Indians,” Maine 410
Passamaquoddy Indians, Maine 215?
Abenakis of St. Francis and Bécancour, Quebec 369
“Amalecites” of Témiscouata and Viger, Quebec 198
“Amalecites” of Madawaska, etc., New Brunswick 683
----- 1,874?
Algonquin:
Of Renfrew, Golden Lake and Carleton, Ontario 797
With Iroquois (total 131) at Gibson, Ontario 31?
With Iroquois at Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec 30
Quebec Province 3,909
----- 4,767?
Arapaho:
Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 1,272
Shoshone Agency, Wyoming (Northern Arapaho) 885
Carlisle school, Pennsylvania,
and Lawrence school, Kansas 55
----- 2,212
Cheyenne:
Pine Ridge Agency, South Dakota (Northern Cheyenne) 517
Cheyenne and Arapaho Agency, Indian Territory 2,091
Carlisle school, Pennsylvania,
and Lawrence school, Kansas 153
Tongue River Agency, Montana (Northern Cheyenne) 865
----- 3,626
Cree:
With Salteau in Manitoba, etc., British America
(treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5: total, 6,066) 3,066?
Plain and Wood Cree, treaty No. 6, Manitoba, etc. 5,790
Cree (with Salteau, etc.), treaty No. 4,
Manitoba, etc. 8,530
----- 17,386?
Delaware, etc.:
Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Agency, Indian Territory 95
Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 1,000?
Delaware with the Seneca in New York 3
Hampton and Lawrence schools 3
Muncie in New York,
principally with Onondaga and Seneca 36
Munsee with Stockbridge (total 133),
Green Bay Agency, Wis. 23?
Munsee with Chippewa at Pottawatomie and
Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas (total 75) 37?
Munsee with Chippewa on the Thames, Ontario 131
“Moravians” of the Thames, Ontario 288
Delaware with Six Nations on Grand River, Ontario 134
----- 1,750?
Kickapoo:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 325
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 237
In Mexico 200?
----- 762?
Menominee:
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 1,311
Carlisle school 1
----- 1,312
Miami:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 67
Indiana, no agency 300?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 7
----- 374?
Micmac:
Restigouche, Maria, and Gaspé, Quebec 732
In Nova Scotia 2,145
New Brunswick 912
Prince Edward Island 319
----- 4,108
Misisauga:
Alnwick, New Credit, etc., Ontario 774

Monsoni, Maskegon, etc.:
Eastern Rupert’s Land, British America 4,016

Montagnais:
Betsiamits, Lake St. John, Grand Romaine, etc., Quebec 1,607
Seven Islands, Quebec 312
----- 1,919
Nascapee:
Lower St. Lawrence, Quebec 2,860

Ojibwa:
White Earth Agency, Minnesota 6,263
La Pointe Agency, Wisconsin 4,778
Mackinac Agency, Michigan
(about one-third of 5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 1,854?
Mackinac Agency, Michigan (Chippewa alone) 1,351
Devil’s Lake Agency, North Dakota
(Turtle Mountain Chippewa) 1,340
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas
(one-half of 75 Chippewa and Muncie) 38?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 15
“Ojibbewas” of Lake Superior and Lake Huron, Ontario 5,201
“Chippewas” of Sarnia, etc., Ontario 1,956
“Chippewas” with Munsees on Thames, Ontario 454
“Chippewas” with Pottawatomies
on Walpole Island, Ontario 658
“Ojibbewas” with Ottawas (total 1,856)
on Manitoulin and Cockburn Islands, Ontario 928?
“Salteaux” of treaty Nos. 3 and 4, etc.,
Manitoba, etc. 4,092
“Chippewas” with Crees in Manitoba, etc.,
treaties Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (total Chippewa
and Cree, 6,066) 3,000?
----- 31,928?
Ottawa:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 137
Mackinac Agency, Michigan (5,563 Ottawa and Chippewa) 3,709?
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 20
With “Ojibbewas” on Manitoulin and Cockburn
Islands, Ontario 928
----- 4,794?
Peoria, etc.:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 160
Lawrence and Carlisle schools 5
----- 165
Pottawatomie:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 480
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 462
Mackinac Agency, Michigan 77
Prairie band, Wisconsin 280
Carlisle, Lawrence and Hampton schools 117
With Chippewa on Walpole Island, Ontario 166
----- 1,582
Sac and Fox:
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 515
Sac and Fox Agency, Iowa 381
Pottawatomie and Great Nemaha Agency, Kansas 77
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 8
----- 981
Shawnee:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 79
Sac and Fox Agency, Indian Territory 640
Incorporated with Cherokee, Indian Territory 800?
Lawrence, Carlisle, and Hampton schools 40
----- 1,559?
Siksika:
Blackfoot Agency, Montana. (Blackfoot, Blood, Piegan) 1,811
Blackfoot reserves in Alberta, British America
(with Sarcee and Assiniboine) 4,932
----- 6,743
Stockbridge (Mahican):
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin 110
In New York (with Tuscarora and Seneca) 7
Carlisle school 4
----- 121

ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 16,
305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in
Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845),
Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,”
281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on
linguistic evidence).

> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.
(Evident misprint.)

> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere
mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as
shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be
Athapascan.)

> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern
Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis,
Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under
Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)

= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856.
Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs,
Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham,
El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II,
31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with
Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 161, 1848
(Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour.
Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860.
Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.

> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 14, 305,
1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family,
though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with
Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 440-448, 1847 (follows
Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans.
Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.

> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 32-34, 1846.
Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862
(referred to Esquimaux stock).

> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 441, 1847 (same as his
Kinai above).

> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai
above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to
Athapaskan).

X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841.
(Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)

X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).

> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 375, 1847 (same as
Athapascas above).

> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846
(“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes
Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in
Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.

> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi,
Loucheux, ibid. 1852.

> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between
Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).

> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the
Saintskla).

> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(“perhaps Athapascas”).

> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 72, 1854 (a single
tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.

> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853
(a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856
(a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.

> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith
River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.

> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853 (tribe on
Lower Trinity, California).

> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.

> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be
Athapascan).

= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S., XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly
Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in
Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races, III, 562, 583,
603, 1882.

= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of
Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877.
Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and
Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72,
1887.

= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
463, 1878.

X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475,
1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)

Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to Lacombe, “place of hay and reeds.”

As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30'.

The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be Athapascan.

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

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

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

_Northern group_.--This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo of Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimmesyan families.

The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family. Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to somewhat below Shageluk Island,[7] and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite to Kolmakoff Redoubt.[8] Upon the two latter they reach quite to their heads.[9] A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan tribes reach the coast--the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and the Ahtena, of Copper River.

[Footnote 7: Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.]

[Footnote 8: Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,
1885, p. 13.]

[Footnote 9: Cruise of the _Corwin_, 1887.]

_Pacific group_.--Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following: Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower Chinook;[10] Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the northwest side of Wapatoo Island.[11] Gibbs was informed by an old Indian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to the south”--a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon,[12] whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille River southward to the California line, including, among others, the Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tûnnĕ, and other “Rogue River” or “Tou-touten bands,” Chasta Costa, Galice Creek, Naltunne tûnnĕ and Chetco villages;[13] the Athapascan villages formerly on Smith River and tributaries, California;[14] those villages extending southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of Klamath River;[15] the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on Lower Trinity River, California;[16] the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as follows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and Larrabie Creeks;”[17] and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue of land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen’s Fork.”[18]

[Footnote 10: Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep. I, 1855, p. 428.]

[Footnote 11: Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.]

[Footnote 12: Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.]

[Footnote 13: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]

[Footnote 14: Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers,
Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.]

[Footnote 15: Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.]

[Footnote 16: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.]

[Footnote 17: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.]

[Footnote 18: Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.]

_Southern group_.--Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer José Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in 1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north and south from 29° N. to 36° N., and east and west from 99° W. to 114° W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande.[19] More recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.[20]

[Footnote 19: Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3,
pp. 118, 119.]

[Footnote 20: Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog.,
1864.]

The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean tribes.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

A. Northern group: B. Pacific group: C. Southern group:

Ah-tena. Ătaăkût. Arivaipa.
Kaiyuh-khotana. Chasta Costa. Chiricahua.
Kcaltana. Chetco. Coyotero.
K’naia-khotana. Dakube tede Faraone.
Koyukukhotana. (on Applegate Creek). Gileño.
Kutchin. Euchre Creek. Jicarilla.
Montagnais. Hupâ. Lipan.
Montagnards. Kălts’erea tûnnĕ. Llanero.
Nagailer. Kenesti or Wailakki. Mescalero.
Slave. Kwalhioqua. Mimbreño.
Sluacus-tinneh. Kwaʇami. Mogollon.
Taculli. Micikqwûtme tûnnĕ. Na-isha.
Tahl-tan (1). Mikono tûnnĕ. Navajo.
Unakhotana. Owilapsh. Pinal Coyotero.
Qwinctûnnetûn. Tchĕkûn.
Saiaz. Tchishi.
Taltûctun tûde.
(on Galice Creek).
Tcêmê (Joshuas).
Tcĕtlĕstcan tûnnĕ.
Terwar.
Tlatscanai.
Tolowa.
Tutu tûnnĕ.

_Population._--The present number of the Athapascan family is about 32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409, belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.

Northern group.--This may be said to consist of the following:
Ah-tena (1877) 364?
Ai-yan (1888) 250
Al-ta-tin (Sicannie) estimated (1888) 500
of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887) 73
of whom there are at Fort Liard (1887) 78
Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib
at Fort Resolution 469
Dog Rib at Fort Norman 133
Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae 657
Hare at Fort Good Hope 364
Hare at Fort Norman 103
Kai-yuh-kho-tána (1877), Koyukukhotána (1877),
and Unakhotána (1877) 2,000?
K’nai-a Khotána (1880) 250?
Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope 95
Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre’s House 337
Kutchin on the Yukon (six tribes) 842
Nahanie at Fort Good Hope 8
Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde,
Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians) 332
Nahanie at Fort Liard 38
Nahanie at Fort Norman 43
---
421
Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island
(Hudson Bay Company’s Territory) 87
Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island
(Hudson Bay Company’s Territory) 658
Slave at Fort Liard 281
Slave at Fort Norman 84
Tenán Kutchin (1877) 700?
-----
8,595?

To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following:
Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California 468
Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 47
Siletz Reservation, Oregon
(about one-half the Indians thereon) 300?
Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon 80
---
895?

Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo:
Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania 142
Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama 356
Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation) 733?
Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado) 808
Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory 15?
Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico) 513
Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation,
Indian Territory) 326
Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona
and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania) 17,208
San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 1,352?
White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona) 36
White Mountain Apache
(under military at Camp Apache, Arizona) 1,920
------
23,409?

ATTACAPAN FAMILY.

= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II. pt. 1, xcix, 77,
1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and
Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.

= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846.
Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham
in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293,
1860.

= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to
as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).

= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.

Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning “man-eater.”

Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas,” who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10 miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of their brethren farther to the east.

The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.

BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to
be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.

= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885.
Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a
distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.

Derivation: Beothuk signifies “Indian” or “red Indian.”

The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland must be considered to be doubtful.

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

Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor quality is the material sufficient to permit final and satisfactory deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other American tongue.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.

Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz., the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.

CADDOAN FAMILY.

> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116, 306,
1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406,
1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1858 [gives as
languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].

> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 406,
1847.

> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846
(indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo
only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.).
Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the
Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101,
1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds
resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der
aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.

> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and
Riccari).

> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 128, 306,
1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees).
Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat.
Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees).
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (gives as
languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden,
Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes
Pawnees and Arikaras).

> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 117, 128,
1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated
as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847
(supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa).
Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from
Pawnee family).

> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see
Pawnee above).

> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.

> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856
(Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).

= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478,
1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas;
Caddoes).

= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik.
Atlas, map 72, 1887.

> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V,
407, 1847.

> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach,
Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).

> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.

> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any
other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist.
Mankind, V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).

> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not
classified).

> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 116,
1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any
other; referred to as a family).

> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from
Pawnee family).

> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856.
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous
opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).

> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).

Derivation: From the Caddo term ka´-ede, signifying “chief” (Gatschet).

The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family, were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and accordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as family designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has priority by a few pages preference is given to it.

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

Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper Missouri in latitude 46° 30'. The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups, Northern, Middle, and Southern.

_Northern group_.--This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas,” who had been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in three villages, nearer their present location.[21]

[Footnote 21: Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.]

According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River.[22] Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest corner of North Dakota.

[Footnote 22: Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.]

_Middle group_.--This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee, the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: “The original hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara,” in Nebraska, “south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed.” In modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork.[23] The Pawnee were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village on a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they rejoined the Grand Pawnee.” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition,[24] formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to this day. De L’Isle[25] gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.