Chapter VI: Part 6

[Footnote 56: Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.]

The vocabulary is unsatisfactory, not only because of its meagerness, but because most of the terms are unimportant for comparison. Nevertheless, such as it is, it represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as the linguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the language provisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than to accept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially as we know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed his statement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language.

A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivors of this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe has been discovered and it is probable that not one is now living.

KERESAN FAMILY.

> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856
(includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).

= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San
Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate,
Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 417,
1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.

= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and
gives linguistic literature).

= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479,
1878.

= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855
(includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana,
Cochite, Sille).

= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479,
1878 (misprint; follows Lane).

= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 689, 1855 (same
as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.
Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).

Derivation unknown. The name is pronounced with an explosive initial sound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris.

Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies of Kiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma.

The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande.

VILLAGES.

Acoma.
Acomita.[57]
Cochití.
Hasatch.
Laguna.
Paguate.
Pueblito.[57]
Punyeestye.
Punyekia.
Pusityitcho.
San Felipe.
Santa Ana.
Santo Domingo.
Seemunah.
Sia.
Wapuchuseamma.
Ziamma.

[Footnote 57: Summer pueblos only.]

_Population._--According to the census of 1890 the total population of the villages of the family is 3,560, distributed as follows:

Acoma[58] 566
Cochití 268
Laguna[59] 1,143
Santa Ana 253
San Felipe 554
Santo Domingo 670
Sia 106

[Footnote 58: Includes Acomita and Pueblito.]

[Footnote 59: Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia,
Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.]

KIOWAN FAMILY.

= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (on
upper waters Arkansas).

= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based
on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache,
432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than
aught else”).

= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics
of).

Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning “Káyowe man.” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat.”

The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the loss of Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas and Kaskaias languages were harsh, guttural, and extremely difficult.”[60] Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieut. Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe.

[Footnote 60: Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. II,
p. 133.]

So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comanches were assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, both resigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims and rights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of the eastern boundary of New Mexico.

The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership of territory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined the Comanche on the northwest. In fact Pope[61] definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned them upon the map.[62] This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne and Arapaho of Algonquian stock.

[Footnote 61: Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.]

[Footnote 62: Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810,
pt. 3, p. 9.]

_Population._--According to the United States census for 1890 there are 1,140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.

KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the
forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham,
Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52°
and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag.
Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).

= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).

= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).

= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).

= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.

= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).

= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with
Kitunaha).

= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area
occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat.
Races, III, 565, 1882.

= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary
of Upper Kootenuha).

= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).
Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after
Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El.
Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170,
1877.

= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).

This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha, Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River, a branch of the Columbia in Oregon.

Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of the language spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southern portions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are not sufficient to definitely settle the question.

The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between the northern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along the Cootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied by these tribes is in British Columbia.

TRIBES.

The principal divisions or tribes are Cootenai, or Upper Cootenai; Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai; Klanoh-Klatklam, or Flathead Cootenai; Yaketahnoklatakmakanay, or Tobacco Plains Cootenai.

_Population._--There are about 425 Cootenai at Flathead Agency, Montana, and 539 at Kootenay Agency, British Columbia; total, 964.

KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 14,
1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).

= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 306,
1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848,
(Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).

< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50, 1846
(tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc.
Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham,
Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.

= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 433, 1847 (follows
Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 231, 1848.

< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a
subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s
Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas,
Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as
“doubtful Kolúches”).

= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid.,
1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus,
Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.

= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family
with short vocabulary).

= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and
population).

X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 218, 1841
(includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).

X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).

= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 489, 1855.

= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of
N.W. coast tribes classified by language).

= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann,
676, 1859).

= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into
Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).

= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 36, 1877 (divided into
Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).

= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460,
462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes,
Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas,
Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 562,
579, 1882.

= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of
Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus,
Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.

= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and
gives population).

Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning “dish,” the allusion being to the dish-shaped lip ornaments.

This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacent coast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude.”

In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies to the Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as the Kinai, are more marked than in any other.

The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially in accordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southern boundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by the census agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farther north than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Prince of Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal, indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouth of Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have been supposed to be exclusively an insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawson has made the interesting discovery[63] that the Tagish, a tribe living inland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto been supposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family. This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, which for the most part limits the extension of this people inland and confines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanent foothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboring Athapascan tribes.

[Footnote 63: Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada,
1887.]

TRIBES.

Auk.
Chilcat.
Hanega.
Hoodsunu.
Hunah.
Kek.
Sitka.
Stahkin.
Tagish.
Taku.
Tongas.
Yakutat.

_Population._--The following figures are from the census of 1880.[64] The total population of the tribes of this family, exclusive of the Tagish, is 6,437, distributed as follows:

Auk 640
Chilcat 988
Hanega (including Kouyon
and Klanak) 587
Hoodsunu 666
Hunah 908
Kek 568
Sitka 721
Stahkin 317
Taku 269
Tongas 273
Yakutat 500

[Footnote 64: Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and
Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.]

KULANAPAN FAMILY.

X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 431, 1853 (the
name of one of the Clear Lake bands).

> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name
suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu
languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410,
1863 (as above).

> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly, IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general
description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III,
146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro,
Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana,
Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am.
Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family).
Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto,
Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos,
Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).

< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah,
Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios,
Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju.
Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).

The name applied to this family was first employed by Gibbs in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is the “name of one of the Clear Lake bands,” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupying the large valley.” The distinctness of the language is now generally admitted.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on the north by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of this family, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located in the valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, and on the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow strip to the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the main body by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north by the warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language and many of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to have extensively intermarried with them.

TRIBES.

Balló Kaì Pomo, “Oat Valley People.”
Batemdikáyi.
Búldam Pomo (Rio Grande or Big River).
Chawishek.
Choam Chadila Pomo (Capello).
Chwachamajù.
Dápishul Pomo (Redwood Cañon).
Eastern People (Clear Lake about Lakeport).
Erío (mouth of Russian River).
Erússi (Fort Ross).
Gallinoméro (Russian River Valley below Cloverdale
and in Dry Creek Valley).
Grualála (northwest corner of Sonoma County).
Kabinapek (western part of Clear Lake basin).
Kaimé (above Healdsburgh).
Kai Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).
Kastel Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).
Kato Pomo, “Lake People.”
Komácho (Anderson and Rancheria Valleys).
Kulá Kai Pomo (Sherwood Valley).
Kulanapo.
Láma (Russian River Valley).
Misálamagūn or Musakakūn (above Healdsburgh).
Mitoám Kai Pomo, “Wooded Valley People” (Little Lake).
Poam Pomo.
Senel (Russian River Valley).
Shódo Kaí Pomo (Coyote Valley).
Síako (Russian River Valley).
Sokóa (Russian River Valley).
Yokáya Pomo, “Lower Valley People” (Ukiah City).
Yusâl (or Kámalel) Pomo, “Ocean People”
(on coast and along Yusal Creek).

KUSAN FAMILY.

= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.

Derivation: Milhau, in a manuscript letter to Gibbs (Bureau of Ethnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to mean lake, lagoon or inland bay.”

The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet.[65] Lewis and Clarke[66] also mention them in the same location as the Cookkoo-oose. The tribe was referred to also under the name Kaus by Latham,[67] who did not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for the purpose.

[Footnote 65: U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.]

[Footnote 66: Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.]

[Footnote 67: Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.]

Mr. Gatschet, as above, distinguishes the language as forming a distinct stock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River and Bay, and at the mouth of Coquille River, Oregon.

TRIBES.

Anasitch.
Melukitz.
Mulluk or Lower Coquille.
Nacu?.

_Population._--Most of the survivors of this family are gathered upon the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated as the agency returns are not given by tribes.

LUTUAMIAN FAMILY.

= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters
Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850
(headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854. Latham in
Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310,
1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.

= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).

= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).

= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of
Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.

= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of
Lutuami).

= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach.
Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general
remarks upon family).

< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475,
1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in
addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs,
Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots,
Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel
River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct
families). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami
or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan
family).

= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,
II, pt. 1, XXXIII, 1890.

Derivation: From a Pit River word meaning “lake.”

The tribes of this family appear from time immemorial to have occupied Little and Upper Klamath Lakes, Klamath Marsh, and Sprague River, Oregon. Some of the Modoc have been removed to the Indian Territory, where 84 now reside; others are in Sprague River Valley.

The language is a homogeneous one and, according to Mr. Gatschet who has made a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions of the family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language.

The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people.” The Modoc are termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people.”

TRIBES.

Klamath.
Modoc.

_Population._--There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on the Klamath Reservation in 1889. Since then they have slightly decreased.

MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons
language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El.
Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).

= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid.,
570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s
River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).

= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches,
Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in
Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.

Derivation: A Spanish word meaning “butterfly,” applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name.

Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. On the north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of its junction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeast corner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on the west by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middle of the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on the south, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along the foothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shore of Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from the southeast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of the Sierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On the east the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposan boundary.

In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the eastern bank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of the Mariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the San Joaquin turns to the west before entering Suisun Bay.

TRIBES.

Ayapaì (Tule River).
Chainímaini (lower King’s River).
Chukaímina (Squaw Valley).
Chūk’chansi (San Joaquin River above Millerton).
Ćhunut (Kaweah River at the lake).
Coconūn´ (Merced River).
Ititcha (King’s River).
Kassovo (Day Creek).
Kau-í-a (Kaweah River; foothills).
Kiawétni (Tule River at Porterville).
Mayáyu (Tule River, south fork).
Notoánaiti (on the lake).
Ochíngita (Tule River).
Pitkachì (extinct; San Joaquin River below Millerton).
Pohállin Tinleh (near Kern lake).
Sawákhtu (Tule River, south fork).
Táchi (Kingston).
Télumni (Kaweah River below Visalia).
Tínlinneh (Fort Tejon).
Tisèchu (upper King’s River).
Wíchikik (King’s River).
Wikchúmni (Kaweah River; foothills).
Wíksachi (upper Kaweah Valley).
Yúkol (Kaweah River plains).

_Population._--There are 145 of the Indians of this family now attached to the Mission Agency, California.

MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853
(mentioned as a band and dialect).

> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856
(includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi,
Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band of
Aplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyem vocabulary, Cocouyem and
Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters
for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras,
Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco).
Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same
as above).

= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general
account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am.
Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in
Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.

= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).

< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of
Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke).
Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of
family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.

X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel,
Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches,
Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).

Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County, California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is Wakalumitoh.

The Talatui mentioned by Hale[68] as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an incomplete vocabulary.

[Footnote 68: U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.]

It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the next group, especially in that of the Ruslen.” He adds: “Nevertheless, for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be distinct.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Miwok division: Olamentke division:
Awani. Olowidok. Bollanos.
Chauchila. Olowit. Chokuyem.
Chumidok. Olowiya. Guimen.
Chumtiwa. Sakaiakumni. Likatuit.
Chumuch. Seroushamne. Nicassias.
Chumwit. Talatui. Numpali.
Hettitoya. Tamoleka. Olamentke.
Kani. Tumidok. Olumpali.
Lopolatimne. Tumun. Sonomi.
Machemni. Walakumni. Tamal.
Mokelumni. Yuloni. Tulare.
Newichumni. Utchium.

_Population._--Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive, and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate census has not been taken.

In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a woman.

MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 94,
306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard,
Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles,
Hitchittees).

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

> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws,
Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).

= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 50, 1884 (general account
of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta).
Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.

> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II,
119, 1836.

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

= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with
reference to migration).

> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 100, 306,
1836 (or Choctaws).

> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs
or Flatheads).

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

> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs,
Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856.
Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.

> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.

> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or
Choktahs).

> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).

> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above
New Orleans).

Derivation: From the name of the principal tribe of the Creek Confederacy.

In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, who lived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula of Florida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies, that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under this family. In fact, he called[69] the family Choctaw Muskhogee. In deference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were kept separate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to be fully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in 1836, and calls the family the Chocta-Muskhog.

[Footnote 69: On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.]

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The area occupied by this family was very extensive. It may be described in a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlantic west to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to the Tennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribes except the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some small settlements of Shawni.

Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creek claimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasi are believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.[70] The territorial line between the Muskhogean family and the Catawba tribe in South Carolina can only be conjectured.

[Footnote 70: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.]

It seems probable that the whole peninsula of Florida was at one time held by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when the Apalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also were forced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasi were the only Indians that held possession of the Floridian peninsula.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Alibamu.
Apalachi.
Chicasa.
Choctaw.
Creek or Maskoki proper.
Koasáti.
Seminole.
Yamacraw.
Yamasi.

_Population._--There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory, an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.

So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at 9,996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539; of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.

There are four families of Koasáti, about twenty-five individuals, near the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are known to survive.

NATCHESAN FAMILY.

> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 95, 806,
1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 402, 403, 1847.

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

> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat.
Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas,
Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp.
(Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the
Utchees).

> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in
Science, 414, April 29, 1887.

> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am.
Antiq., IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 33, 1884.
Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).

The Na’htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago.[71] The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na’htchi was the principal.

[Footnote 71: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.]

Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.

The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the “Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in 1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic isolation of the language.

Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward.[72] The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.

[Footnote 72: D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885,
pp. 109-114.]

D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, the missionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na’htchi.

The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Na’htchi.
Taensa.

_Population._--There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.

PALAIHNIHAN FAMILY.

= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in
family sense).

= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast
of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1,
18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of
Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in
Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham
in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities).
Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.

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

= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853
(obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).

= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three
principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or
Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat;
quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.

= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs. of
A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of
tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa,
Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).

< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475,
1878 (includes Palaiks).

< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of
present family).

Derivation: From the Klamath word _p’laikni_, signifying “mountaineers” or “uplanders” (Gatschet).

In two places[73] Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the shorter form of the name.

[Footnote 73: U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.]

Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,” * * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simple languages of the Sacramento.” He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related to the Sastean languages.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami (Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round Valley Reservation, California.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the following principal tribal divisions:[74]

Achomâ´wi.
Atua´mih.
Chumâ´wa.
Estake´wach.
Hante´wa.
Humâ´whi.
Ilmâ´wi.
Pakamalli?

[Footnote 74: Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.]

PIMAN FAMILY.

= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from
the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R.
R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve,
Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427,
1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui,
Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877
(includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429,
1877 (defines area and gives habitat).

Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and Sinaloa.

The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological Society Journal, vol. XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol. III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was collected by Lieut. Whipple.

Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly continuous to the Gila River.

According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated.[75]

[Footnote 75: Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der
Koloschen, pp. 321-432.]

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Northern group:
Opata.
Papago.
Pima.

Southern group:
Cahita.
Cora.
Tarahumara.
Tepeguana.

_Population._--Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,[76] are Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.

[Footnote 76: According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.]

PUJUNAN FAMILY.

> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains
Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham,
Opuscula, 346, 1860.

> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.

= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and
tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.

> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 282, 1877 (same as
Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586
(vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,”
Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).

> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers
this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).

> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 313, 1877
(distinguishes them from Maidu family).

X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne,
Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).

The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.[77] This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but language.”

[Footnote 77: U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, p. 631.]

Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled later.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming them in in this direction.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Bayu. Olla.
Boka. Otaki.
Eskin. Paupákan.
Hélto. Pusúna.
Hoak. Taitchida.
Hoankut. Tíshum.
Hololúpai. Toámtcha.
Koloma. Tosikoyo.
Konkau. Toto.
Kū´lmeh. Ustóma.
Kulomum. Wapúmni.
Kwatóa. Wima.
Nakum. Yuba.

QUORATEAN FAMILY.

> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 422, 1853
(proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).

> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 423, 1853 (given as
name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).

> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of
Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.

= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath
and Salmon Rivers).

= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.

= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid.,
447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).

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

Derivation: Name of a band at mouth of Salmon River, California. Etymology unknown.

This family name is equivalent to the Cahroc or Karok of Powers and later authorities.

In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remark that it is “The name of a band at the mouth of the Salmon, or Quoratem river.” He adds that “This latter name may perhaps be considered as proper to give to the family, should it be held one.” He defines the territory occupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluff creek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty or forty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point to point.”

The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficiently formal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated by Gibbs.

In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band, locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti and Lutuami areas.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, though the main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line.

TRIBES.

Ehnek.
Karok.
Pehtsik.

_Population._--According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in the region in 1889, the Indians of this family number about 600.

SALINAN FAMILY.

< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes
Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San
Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.

> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary
of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).

< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as
containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,
VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).

X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).

Derivation: From river of same name.

The language formerly spoken at the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtful position. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from each other, but from all other languages. Others have held that they represent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group of languages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearly that the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wise related to any other family.

The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is a heterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than four distinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to this group, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco,” really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to the Mendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoan family mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslen and Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio, and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong within the drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied to them, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name.

_Population._--Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably never very populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, when first established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively 1,400 and 1,300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these converts were gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belonged to this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he was able to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of this family, and not all of these could speak their own language.

SALISHAN FAMILY.

> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134, 306, 1836 (or
Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., II, 31-50,
1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).

X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474,
1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi,
Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).

= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 618, 1882.

> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab.
of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884
(vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).

> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 403, 1853
(obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).

= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and
tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.

< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877
(includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).

> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846
(includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale,
Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,
II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas,
map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper,
Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish,
Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl,
Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).

> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 134, 135, 306, 1836
(on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 427, 1847 (on
Fraser River).

> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856
(Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).

X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond., XI, 224,
1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum,
Squallyamish of present family).

X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).

X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).

X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).

> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 154, 1848 (assigns
Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives
Tolmie’s vocabulary).

> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon
River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same).
Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.

> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas
only; specimen vocabulary).

> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of
Noothlākimish).

> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions
Sātsq, Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).

X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848
(cited as including Billechola).

> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of
Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap,
Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits,
Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).

X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including
Klallems).

X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460,
474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).

X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).

X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums,
Kwantlums, Teets of present family).

X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 1882 (contains the following
Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish,
Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo,
Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).

< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually,
Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums,
Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last
being Salishan).

> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).

> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of
Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).

> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.

> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or
Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).

The extent of the Salish or Flathead family was unknown to Gallatin, as indeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which he gives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribe is stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the Columbia River, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s River or the most northern branch of Lewis’s River.” The former supposition was correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a single tribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, were considered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible as the family name; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few words from the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given by Gallatin in Archæologia Americana, II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong under this family.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.