Chapter V: Part 5

[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,[26] are now in or near one of their early abodes. Dr. Sibley[27] 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 Kädo hadatco,[28] of Le Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti[29] and La Harpe[30] 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.]

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

A. Pawnee.
Grand Pawnee.
Tappas.
Republican Pawnee.
Skidi.

B. Arikara.

C. Wichita.
(Ki-¢i´-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe,
Ki-dhi´-chash or Ki-ri´-chash).

D. Kichai.

E. Caddo (Kä´-do).

_Population._--The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of 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

CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.

= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep., I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).

= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers
language different from any of its neighbors).

< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).

< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).

Derivation unknown.

Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:

The language of the Chimakum “differs materially from either that of 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.”[31] 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.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

The following tribes are recognized:

Chimakum.
Quile-ute.

CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.

= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 474, 1877. Gatschet
in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).

According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-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.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Chimariko.
Chimalakwe.

CHIMMESYAN FAMILY.

= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 154, 1848 (between
53° 30' and 55° 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.

Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok,
Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc.
Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp.
Phil., 401, 1862.

= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of
tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).

= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list
but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269,
1869 (published in 1870). Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 39, 40, 1877
(probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races, III, 564,
607, 1882.

= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.

= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of
family).

X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841
(includes Chimmesyans).

X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 220, 1841 (same
as his Northern family).

< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848
(including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853.

= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).

< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and
Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).

= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present
family).

Derivation: From the Chimsian ts’em, “on;” kcian, “main river:” “On 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.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:[32]

A. Nasqa´:
Nasqa´.
Gyitksa´n.

B. Tsimshian proper:
Ts’emsia´n.
Gyits’umrä´lon.
Gyits’ala´ser.
Gyitqā´tla.
Gyitg·ā´ata.
Gyidesdzo´.

[Footnote 32: B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of
Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.]

_Population._--The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total 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.

CHINOOKAN FAMILY.

> Chinooks, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134,
306, 1836 (a single tribe at mouth of Columbia).

= Chinooks, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 198, 1846. Gallatin, after
Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 15, 1848 (or Tsinuk).

= Tshinuk, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 562, 569, 1846 (contains
Watlala or Upper Chinook, including Watlala, Nihaloitih, or Echeloots;
and Tshinuk, including Tshinuk, Tlatsap, Wakaikam).

= Tsinuk, Gallatin, after Hale, in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
15, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

> Cheenook, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 236, 1848. Latham,
Opuscula, 253, 1860.

> Chinuk, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 317, 1850 (same as Tshinúk; includes
Chinúks proper, Klatsops, Kathlamut, Wakáikam, Watlala, Nihaloitih).
Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of
family name). Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Buschmann. Spuren der
aztek. Sprache, 616-619, 1859.

= Tschinuk, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (mere mention of family name).
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 402, 1862 (cites
a short vocabulary of Watlala).

= Tshinook, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(Chinooks, Clatsops, and Watlala). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs.
Brit. Col., 51, 61, 1884.

> Tshinuk, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 616, 1859 (same as
his Chinuk).

= T’sinūk, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (mere
mention of family).

= Chinook, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 167, 1877 (names and gives
habitats of tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 442, 1877.

< Chinooks, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (includes Skilloots, Watlalas, Lower Chinooks, Wakiakurns,
Cathlamets, Clatsops, Calapooyas, Clackamas, Killamooks, Yamkally,
Chimook Jargon; of these Calapooyas and Yamkally are Kalapooian,
Killamooks are Salishan).

> Chinook, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 626-628, 1882 (enumerates
Chinook, Wakiakum, Cathlamet, Clatsop, Multnomah, Skilloot, Watlala).

X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224,
1841 (includes Cheenooks, and Cathlascons of present family).

X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 234 (same as his Nootka-Columbian family
above).

The vocabulary of the Chinook tribe, upon which the family name 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.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Lower Chinook:
Chinook.
Clatsop.

Upper Chinook:
Cathlamet.
Cathlapotle.
Chilluckquittequaw.
Clackama.
Cooniac.
Echeloot.
Multnoma.
Wahkiacum.
Wasco.

_Population._--There are two hundred and eighty-eight Wasco on the 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.

CHITIMACHAN FAMILY.

= Chitimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 114,
117, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 407, 1847.

= Chetimachas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham,
Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III,
402, 1853.

= Chetimacha, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846.
Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.

= Chetemachas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848
(same as Chitimachas).

= Shetimasha, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 44, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 29, 1887.

Derivation: From Choctaw words tchúti, “cooking vessels,” másha, “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.

CHUMASHAN FAMILY.

> Santa Barbara, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 85, 1856
(includes Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, San Luis Obispo languages).
Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 531, 535, 538, 602, 1859.
Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860. Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 550, 567,
1877 (Kasuá, Santa Inez, Id. of Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara). Gatschet
in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 419, 1879 (cites La Purísima,
Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, Kasuá, Mugu, Santa Cruz Id.).

X Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (Santa Inez,
Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Id., San Luis Obispo, San Antonio).

Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa Islanders.

The several dialects of this family have long been known under the 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 Iñez, Purísima, 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.

COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.

= Coahuilteco, Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las Lenguas de México,
map, 1864.

= Tejano ó Coahuilteco, Pimentel, Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de
las Lenguas Indígenas de México, II, 409, 1865. (A preliminary notice
with example from the language derived from Garcia’s Manual, 1760.)

Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila.

This family appears to have included numerous tribes in southwestern Texas and in Mexico. They are chiefly known through the record of the Rev. Father Bartolomé 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 Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 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.[33] 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: Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 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 Pakawá tribe who live at La Volsa, near Reynosa, Tamaulipas, on the Rio Grande, and who are said to speak their own language.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Alasapa. Pajalate.
Cachopostate. Pakawá.
Casa chiquita. Pamaque.
Chayopine. Pampopa.
Comecrudo. Pastancoya.
Cotoname. Patacale.
Mano de perro. Pausane.
Mescal. Payseya.
Miakan. Sanipao.
Orejone. Tâcame.
Pacuâche. Venado.

COPEHAN FAMILY.

> Cop-eh, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853 (mentioned
as a dialect).

= Copeh, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 79, 1856 (of Upper
Sacramento; cites vocabs. from Gallatin and Schoolcraft). Latham,
Opuscula, 345, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 412, 1862.

= Wintoons, Powers in Overland Monthly, 530, June, 1874 (Upper
Sacramento and Upper Trinity). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 160, 1877
(defines habitat and names tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind.
Miscellany, 434, 1877.

= Win-tún, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 518-534, 1877 (vocabularies
of Wintun, Sacramento River, Trinity Indians). Gatschet in U.S. Geog.
Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 418, 1879 (defines area occupied by family).

X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475,
1878 (cited as including Copahs, Patawats, Wintoons). Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Copah).

> Napa, Keane, ibid., 476, 524, 1878 (includes Myacomas, Calayomanes,
Caymus, Ulucas, Suscols). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 567, 1882
(includes Napa, Myacoma, Calayomane, Caymus, Uluca, Suscol).

This name was proposed by Latham with evident hesitation. He says of it: “How far this will eventually turn out to be a convenient name for 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.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

A. Patwin: B. Wintu:
Chenposel. Daupom.
Gruilito. Nomlaki.
Korusi. Nommuk.
Liwaito. Norelmuk.
Lolsel. Normuk.
Makhelchel. Waikenmuk.
Malaka. Wailaki.
Napa.
Olelato.
Olposel.
Suisun.
Todetabi.
Topaidisel.
Waikosel.
Wailaksel.

COSTANOAN FAMILY.

= Costano, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 82, 1856 (includes
the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos, Romonans, Tulornos, Altatmos).
Latham, Opuscula, 348, 1860.

< Mutsun, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (includes Ahwastes,
Olhones, Altahmos, Romonans, Tulomos). Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III,
535, 1877 (includes under this family vocabs. of Costano, Mutsun,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz).

Derivation: From the Spanish costano, “coast-men.”

Under this group name Latham included five tribes, given above, 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,[34] 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.[35] 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.]

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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.

ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

> Eskimaux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 9, 305,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848.
Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853.

= Eskimo, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 288, 1850 (general remarks on origin and
habitat). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 689, 1859. Latham, El.
Comp. Phil., 385, 1862. Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 574, 1882.

> Esquimaux, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 367-371, 1847 (follows
Gallatin). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 182-191, 1848. Latham,
Opuscula, 266-274, 1860.

> Eskimo, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869 (treats of Alaskan Eskimo
and Tuski only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (excludes the
Aleutian).

> Eskimos, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878
(excludes Aleutian).

> Ounángan, Veniamínoff, Zapíski ob ostrovaχ Unaláshkinskago otdailo,
II, 1, 1840 (Aleutians only).

> Ūnŭǵŭn, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 22, 1877 (Aleuts a division of
his Orarian group).

> Unangan, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.

X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841
(includes Ugalentzes of present family).

X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224, 1841 (same as his Northern family).

> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(lat. 60°, between Prince Williams Sound and Mount St. Elias, perhaps
Athapascas).

Aleuten, Holmberg, Ethnog. Skizzen d. Völker Russ. Am., 1855.

> Aleutians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 266, 1869. Dall, Alaska and
Resources, 374, 1870 (in both places a division of his Orarian
family).

> Aleuts, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 1878
(consist of Unalaskans of mainland and of Fox and Shumagin Ids., with
Akkhas of rest of Aleutian Arch.).

> Aleut, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562, 1882 (two dialects, Unalaska
and Atkha).

> Konjagen, Holmberg, Ethnograph. Skizzen Volker Russ. Am., 1855
(Island of Koniag or Kadiak).

= Orarians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 265, 1869 (group name; includes
Innuit, Aleutians, Tuski). Dall, Alaska and Resources, 374, 1870. Dall
in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 8, 9, 1877.

X Tinneb, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (includes “Ugalense”).

> Innuit, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 9, 1877 (“Major group” of
Orarians: treats of Alaska Innuit only). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map
73, 1887 (excludes the Aleutians).

Derivation: From an Algonkin word eskimantik, “eaters of raw flesh.”

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The geographic boundaries of this family were set forth by 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[36] 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.[37]

[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.

ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Gioloco?, Ruslen, Soledad, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, and San Miguel,
cited as including Eslen). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.

As afterwards mentioned under the Salinan family, the present family 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 Pérouse, 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,[38] 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 año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.]

Galiano supplies Esselen and Runsien vocabularies of thirty-one words, most of which agree with the earlier vocabulary of Lamanon. These 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.

IROQUOIAN FAMILY.

> Iroquois, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 21, 23, 305, 1836
(excludes Cherokee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 381, 1847
(follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix,
77, 1848 (as in 1836). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401,
1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 463, 1862.

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

X Irokesen, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887 (includes Kataba and
said to be derived from Dakota).

> Huron-Iroquois, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., III, 243, 1840.

> Wyandot-Iroquois, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
460, 468, 1878.

> Cherokees, Gallatin in Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 89, 306, 1836 (kept
apart from Iroquois though probable affinity asserted). Bancroft,
Hist. U.S., III, 246, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 401,
1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848.
Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (a separate group
perhaps to be classed with Iroquois and Sioux). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 401, 1853. Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860.
Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 472, 1878 (same
as Chelekees or Tsalagi--“apparently entirely distinct from all other
American tongues”).

> Tschirokies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848.

> Chelekees, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (or Cherokees).

> Cheroki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 413, April 29, 1887.

= Huron-Cherokee, Hale in Am. Antiq., 20, Jan., 1883 (proposed as a
family name instead of Huron-Iroquois; relationship to Iroquois
affirmed).

Derivation: French, adaptation of the Iroquois word hiro, used to conclude a speech, and koué, 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.[39] Mr. Hewitt[39] suggests the Algonkin words īrīn, 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[41] compared the Cheroki language with that of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a connection between them. Gallatin, in the Archæologia 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.”[42]

[Footnote 41: New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of
America. Phila., 1798.]

[Footnote 42: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.]

Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois.[43] 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.]

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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 Gaspé, 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,[44] but about one-half of this tract, forming the present Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree.[45] In 1755 they sold a second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree),[46] 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.[48] In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha,[47] 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,[49] 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.[50] 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.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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.

[Footnote 44: Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]

[Footnote 45: Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4,
p. 163.]

[Footnote 46: Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]

[Footnote 47: Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp.
155-159.]

[Footnote 48: Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.]

[Footnote 49: Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of
Pontiac, app.]

[Footnote 50: Bancroft, Hist. U.S.]

[Footnote 51: Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.]

[Footnote 52: Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.]

[Footnote 53: Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4,
p. 336.]

The whole region of West Virginia, Kentucky, and the Cumberland River region of Tennessee was claimed by the Iroquois and Cherokee, but the Iroquois never occupied any of it and the Cherokee could not be said to occupy any beyond the Cumberland Mountains. The Cumberland River was originally held by the Shawnee, and the rest was occupied, so far as it was occupied at all, by the Shawnee, Delaware, and occasionally by the Wyandot and Mingo (Iroquoian), who made regular excursions southward across the Ohio every year to hunt and to make salt at the licks. Most of the temporary camps or villages in Kentucky and West Virginia were built by the Shawnee and Delaware. The Shawnee and Delaware were the principal barrier to the settlement of Kentucky and West Virginia for a period of 20 years, while in all that time neither the Cherokee nor the Iroquois offered any resistance or checked the opposition of the Ohio tribes.

The Cherokee bounds in Virginia should be extended along the mountain region as far at least as the James River, as they claim to have lived at the Peaks of Otter,[54] and seem to be identical with the Rickohockan or Rechahecrian of the early Virginia writers, who lived in the mountains beyond the Monacan, and in 1656 ravaged the lowland country as far as the site of Richmond and defeated the English and the Powhatan Indians in a pitched battle at that place.[55]

[Footnote 54: Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.]

[Footnote 55: Bancroft, Hist. U.S.]

The language of the Tuscarora, formerly of northeastern North Carolina, connect them directly with the northern Iroquois. The Chowanoc and Nottoway and other cognate tribes adjoining the Tuscarora may have been offshoots from that tribe.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Cayuga.
Cherokee.
Conestoga.
Erie.
Mohawk.
Neuter.
Nottoway.
Oneida.
Onondaga.
Seneca.
Tionontate.
Tuscarora.
Wyandot.

_Population._--The present number of the Iroquoian stock is about 43,000, of whom over 34,000 (including the Cherokees) are in the United States while nearly 9,000 are in Canada. Below is given the population of the different tribes, compiled chiefly from the Canadian Indian Report for 1888, and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890:

Cherokee:
Cherokee and Choctaw Nations, Indian Territory
(exclusive of adopted Indians, negroes, and whites) 25,557
Eastern Band, Qualla Reservation, Cheowah, etc., North Carolina
(exclusive of those practically white) 1,500?
Lawrence school, Kansas 6
------
27,063
Caughnawaga:
Caughnawaga, Quebec 1,673

Cayuga:
Grand River, Ontario 972?
With Seneca, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255) 128?
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 165
Other Reserves in New York 36
------
1,301?
“Iroquois”:
Of Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec, mainly Mohawk
(with Algonquin) 345
With Algonquin at Gibson, Ontario (total 131) 31?
------
376?
Mohawk:
Quinte Bay, Ontario 1,050
Grand River, Ontario 1,302
Tonawanda, Onondaga, and Cattaraugus Reserves, New York 6
------
2,358
Oneida:
Oneida and other Reserves, New York 295
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin (“including homeless Indians”) 1,716
Carlisle and Hampton schools 104
Thames River, Ontario 778
Grand River, Ontario 236
------
3,129
Onondaga:
Onondaga Reserve, New York 380
Allegany Reserve, New York 77
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 38
Tuscarora (41) and Tonawanda (4) Reserves, New York 45
Carlisle and Hampton schools 4
Grand River, Ontario 346
------
890
Seneca:
With Cayuga, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255) 127?
Allegany Reserve, New York 862
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York 1,318
Tonawanda Reserve, New York 517
Tusarora and Onondaga Reserves, New York 12
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 13
Grand River, Ontario 206
------
3,055?
St. Regis:
St. Regis Reserve, New York 1,053
Onondaga and other Reserves, New York 17
St. Regis Reserve, Quebec 1,179
------
2,249
Tuscarora:
Tuscarora Reserve, New York 398
Cattaraugus and Tonawanda Reserves, New York 6
Grand River, Ontario 329
------
733
Wyandot:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory 288
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools 18
“Hurons” of Lorette, Quebec 279
“Wyandots” of Anderdon, Ontario 98
------
683

The Iroquois of St. Regis, Caughnawaga, Lake of Two Mountains (Oka), and Gibson speak a dialect mainly Mohawk and Oneida, but are a mixture of all the tribes of the original Five Nations.

KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 335, 1841
(includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon
languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599,
617, 1859, (follows Scouler).

= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet
Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., I pt. 1, c, 17,
77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in
Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog.
Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859.
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877.
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.

> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 639, 1883.

X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474,
1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).

> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain
relationship to Calapooya).

Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooiah, inhabiting “the fertile Willamat plains” and the Yamkallie, who live “more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.” Scouler adds that the Umpqua “appear to belong to this Family, although their language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than the Yamkallie is.” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascan family. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascon tribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan.

The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to the headwaters of that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River, being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently were not met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat were derived solely from natives.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES

_Ahántchuyuk_
(Pudding River Indians).
Atfálati.
Calapooya.
Chelamela.
Lákmiut.
Santiam.
Yámil.

_Population._--So far as known the surviving Indians of this family are all at the Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon.

The following is a census for 1890:

Atfálati 28
Calapooya 22
Lákmiut 29
Mary’s River 28
Santiam 27
Yámil 30
Yonkalla 7
---
Total 171

KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus, XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary
of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 9, 1887.

The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). In 1804 this author, upon hearsay evidence, stated their number to be 500 men.[56] In several places in the paper cited it is explicitly stated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa was a coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered.