Chapter VIII: Part 8

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

In 1739 a portion of the Yuchi left their old seats and settled among the Lower Creek on the Chatahoochee River; there they established three colony villages in the neighborhood, and later on a Yuchi settlement is mentioned on Lower Tallapoosa River, among the Upper Creek.[99] Filson[100] gives a list of thirty Indian tribes and a statement concerning Yuchi towns, which he must have obtained from a much earlier source: “Uchees occupy four different places of residence--at the head of St. John’s, the fork of St. Mary’s, the head of Cannouchee, and the head of St. Tillis” (Satilla), etc.[101]

[Footnote 99: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 21-22, 1884.]

[Footnote 100: Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793, II, 84-7.]

[Footnote 101: Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, p. 20.]

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

WAIILATPUAN.

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

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

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

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

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

> Cayús?, Latham, ibid.

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

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Cayuse.
Molále.

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

[Footnote 102: U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.]

WAKASHAN FAMILY.

> Wakash, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 15, 306,
1836 (of Nootka Sound; gives Jewitt’s vocab.). Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (based on Newittee). Berghaus (1851),
Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,
III, 402, 1853 (includes Newittee and Nootka Sound). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (of Quadra and Vancouver’s Island).
Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 403, 1862
(Tlaoquatsh and Wakash proper; Nutka and congeners also referred
here).

X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301. 1850 (includes Naspatle, proper
Nutkans, Tlaoquatsh, Nittenat, Klasset, Klallems; the last named is
Salishan).

X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc., XI, 221, 1841
(includes Quadra and Vancouver Island, Haeeltzuk, Billechoola,
Tlaoquatch, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish, Cheenooks). Prichard,
Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 435, 1847 (follows Scouler). Latham in Jour.
Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 162, 1848 (remarks upon Scouler’s group of this
name). Latham, Opuscula, 257, 1860 (the same).

< Nootka, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, 220, 569, 1846 (proposes family
to include tribes of Vancouver Island and tribes on south side of Fuca
Strait).

> Nutka, Buschmann, Neu-Mexico, 329, 1858.

> Nootka, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (mentions only Makah,
and Classet tribes of Cape Flattery). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc.,
446. 1877.

X Nootkahs, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473,
1878 (includes Muchlahts, Nitinahts, Ohyahts, Manosahts, and
Quoquoulths of present family, together with a number of Salishan
tribes).

X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 607, 1882 (a heterogeneous
group, largely Salishan, with Wakashan, Skittagetan, and other
families represented).

> Straits of Fuca, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II,
134, 306, 1836 (vocabulary of, referred here with doubt; considered
distinct by Gallatin).

X Southern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc., XI, 224, 1841 (same as
his Noctka-Columbian above).

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

X Haeltzuk, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., I, 155, 1848 (cities
Tolmie’s vocab. Spoken from 50°30' to 53°30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula,
251, 1860 (the same).

> Haeeltsuk and Hailtsa, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes
Hyshalla, Hyhysh, Esleytuk, Weekenoch, Nalatsenoch, Quagheuil,
Tlatla-Shequilla, Lequeeltoch).

> Hailtsa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Buschmann,
Neu-Mexico, 322, 1858. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, El. Comp.
Phil., 401, 1862 (includes coast dialects between Hawkesbury Island,
Broughton’s Archipelago, and northern part of Vancouver Island).

> Ha-eelb-zuk, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, V, 487, 1855. Kane, Wand. of
an Artist, app., 1859 (or Ballabola; a census of N.W. tribes
classified by language).

> Ha-ilt´-zŭkh, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., I, 144, 1877
(vocabularies of Bel-bella of Milbank Sound and of Kwákiūtl’).

< Nass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt 1, c, 1848.

< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 77, 1848
(includes Hailstla, Haceltzuk, Billechola, Chimeysan). Gallatin in
Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (includes Huitsla).

X Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Hailtza of
present family).

> Aht, Sproat, Savage Life, app., 312, 1868 (name suggested for family
instead of Nootka-Columbian).

> Aht, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 1884 (vocab. of
Kaiookwāht).

X Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
460, 474, 1878.

X Hydahs, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878
(includes Hailtzas of the present family).

> Kwakiool, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 27-48, 1884 (vocabs. of
Haishilla, Hailtzuk, Kwiha, Likwiltoh, Septs; also map showing family
domain).

> Kwā´kiūṯḻ, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (general
account of family with list of tribes).

Derivation: Waukash, waukash, is the Nootka word “good” “good.” When heard by Cook at Friendly Cove, Nootka Sound, it was supposed to be the name of the tribe.

Until recently the languages spoken by the Aht of the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Makah of Cape Flattery, congeneric tribes, and the Haeltzuk and Kwakiutl peoples of the east coast of Vancouver Island and the opposite mainland of British Columbia, have been regarded as representing two distinct families. Recently Dr. Boas has made an extended study of these languages, has collected excellent vocabularies of the supposed families, and as a result of his study it is now possible to unite them on the basis of radical affinity. The main body of the vocabularies of the two languages is remarkably distinct, though a considerable number of important words are shown to be common to the two.

Dr. Boas, however, points out that in both languages suffixes only are used in forming words, and a long list of these shows remarkable similarity.

The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, “inhabit the island on which Nootka Sound is situated.” The short vocabulary given was collected by Jewitt. Gallatin states[103] that this language is the one “in that quarter, which, by various vocabularies, is best known to us.” In 1848[104] Gallatin repeats his Wakash family, and again gives the vocabulary of Jewitt. There would thus seem to be no doubt of his intention to give it formal rank as a family.

[Footnote 103: Archæologia Americana, II, p. 15.]

[Footnote 104: Trans. Am. Eth. Soc. II, p. 77.]

The term “Wakash” for this group of languages has since been generally ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been adopted. “Nootka-Columbian” was employed by Scouler in 1841 for a group of languages, extending from the mouth of Salmon River to the south of the Columbia River, now known to belong to several distinct families. “Nootka family” was also employed by Hale[105] in 1846, who proposed the name for the tribes of Vancouver Island and those along the south side of the Straits of Fuca.

[Footnote 105: U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.]

The term “Nootka-Columbian” is strongly condemned by Sproat.[106] For the group of related tribes on the west side of Vancouver Island this author suggests Aht, “house, tribe, people,” as a much more appropriate family appellation.

[Footnote 106: Savage Life, 312.]

Though by no means as appropriate a designation as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority and must be retained.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

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

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

PRINCIPAL AHT TRIBES.

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

_Population._--There are 457 Makah at the Neah Bay Agency, Washington.[107] The total population of the tribes of this family under the West Coast Agency, British Columbia, is 3,160.[108] The grand total for this division of the family is thus 3,617.

[Footnote 107: U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.]

[Footnote 108: Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.]

PRINCIPAL HAELTZUK TRIBES.

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

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

WASHOAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

WEITSPEKAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

[Footnote 109: Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.]

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

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

WISHOSKAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibbs[110] mentions Wee-yot and Wish-osk as dialects of a general language extending “from Cape Mendocino to Mad River and as far back into the interior as the foot of the first range of mountains,” but does not distinguish the language by a family name.

[Footnote 110: Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.]

Latham considered Weyot and Wishosk to be mere dialects of the same language, i.e., the Weitspek, from which, however, they appeared to him to differ much more than they do from each other. Both Powell and Gatschet have treated the language represented by these dialects as quite distinct from any other, and both have employed the same name.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

TRIBES.

Patawat, Lower Mad River and Humboldt Bay as far south as Arcata.
Weeyot, mouth of Eel River.
Wishosk, near mouth of Mad River and north part of Humboldt Bay.

YAKONAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Yakwina was the leading tribe of this family. It must have been of importance in early days, as it occupied fifty-six villages along Yaquina River, from the site of Elk City down to the ocean. Only a few survive, and they are with the Alsea on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon. They were classed by mistake with the Tillamook or “Killamucks” by Lewis and Clarke. They are called by Lewis and Clarke[111] Youikcones and Youkone.[112]

[Footnote 111: Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.]

[Footnote 112: Ibid., p. 118.]

The Alsea formerly dwelt in villages along both sides of Alsea River, Oregon, and on the adjacent coast. They are now on the Siletz Reservation, Oregon. Perhaps a few are on the Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon.

The Siuslaw used to inhabit villages on the Siuslaw River, Oregon. There may be a few pure Siuslaw on the Siletz Reservation, but Mr. Dorsey did not see any of them. They are mentioned by Drew,[113] who includes them among the “Kat-la-wot-sett” bands. At that time, they were still on the Siuslaw River. The Ku-itc or Lower Umpqua villages were on both sides of the lower part of Umpqua River, Oregon, from its mouth upward for about 30 miles. Above them were the Upper Umpqua villages, of the Athapascan stock. A few members of the Ku-itc still reside on the Siletz Reservation, Oregon.

[Footnote 113: U.S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.]

This is a family based by Hale upon a single tribe, numbering six or seven hundred, who live on the coast, north of the Nsietshawus, from whom they differ merely in language. Hale calls the tribe Iakon or Yakones or Southern Killamuks.

The Sayúsklan language has usually been assumed to be distinct from all others, and the comments of Latham and others all tend in this direction. Mr. Gatschet, as above quoted, finally classed it as a distinct stock, at the same time finding certain strong coincidences with the Yakonan family. Recently Mr. Dorsey has collected extensive vocabularies of the Yakonan, Sayúskla, and Lower Umpqua languages and finds unquestioned evidence of relationship.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

TRIBES.

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

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

YANAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

YUKIAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

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

YUMAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three years previously (1853) Latham[114] speaks of the Dieguno language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego, Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems to consider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that he believes them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formal family division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear to render his position with respect to their exact status as precise as is to be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to make Diegueño a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856 he includes both the Diegueño and the other above mentioned tribes in the Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusion to having previously established a family name for the same group of languages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that the term Diegueño as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. It thus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the above authors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of Pacific Railroad Reports, in which Turner’s article is published, is dated 1855, it appears from a foot-note (p. 84) that his paper was not handed to Mr. Whipple till January, 1856, the date of title page of volume, and that his proof was going through the press during the month of May, which is the month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before the Philological Society. The fact that Latham’s article was not read until May 9 enables us to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with a reasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable period elapsed between the presentation of Latham’s paper to the society and its final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yuma of Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubted application. Pimentel makes Yuma a part of Piman stock.

[Footnote 114: Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.]

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

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

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

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

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

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

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

Havasupai, 214 in Cosnino Cañon, Arizona.

Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.

Diegueño, 555 under the Mission Agency, California.

Maricopa, 315 at the Pima Agency, Arizona.

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

ZUÑIAN FAMILY.

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

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

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

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

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

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

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

_Population._--The present population is 1,613.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *
* * * *

Errata for Linguistic Families:

“Lewis and Clarke”
“Zuñi” (with tilde)
[_these spellings are standard throughout the text_]

(“obvious typographical error”) (“evident misprint”)
[_this and similar notations are from original text_]

Table of Contents:

Chimmesyan family / Principal tribes or villages
[_main text has “Principal Tribes” only_]
Tonkawan family / Geographic distribution 126 [125]
Waiilatpuan family [unchanged]
[_main text has “Waiilatpuan” only_]
Weitspekan family / Tribes
[_main text has “Principal Tribes”_]

slight differences have been [heen]
... kinship system, with mother-right as its chief factor
[mother-rite]
that passes by Bayau Pierre [_spelling unchanged_]
“more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.”
[_“w” invisible_]
(includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)). [_one ) missing_]
There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on the Klamath Reservation
[Klamaht Reservation]
Hawhaw’s band of Aplaches [_spelling unchanged: may be right_]
Vallee de los Tulares [_spelling unchanged_]
Tshokoyem vocabulary [vobabulary]
especially in that of the Ruslen.” [_close quote invisible_]
= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs.
[_open parenthesis missing_]
A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,”
[_close quote missing_]
Waukash, waukash, is the Nootka word “good” “good.”
[_both repetitions in original_]
Humboldt Bay as far south as Arcata
[_text unchanged: Arcata is at the extreme north end of
Humboldt Bay_]
a change in the semantic content or meaning of words [sematic]

* * * * *
* * * *
* * * * *

THE MIDĒ´WIWIN OR “GRAND MEDICINE SOCIETY”

of

THE OJIBWA.

by

W. J. HOFFMAN.

* * * * *

[Transcriber’s Note:

The music is available in two forms, collected in the “music” directory associated with the .html version of this text.

--simplified lilypond files (extension .ly), with lyrics and dynamic
markings omitted.
--MIDI (playable sound) files for each song.

Each [Music] tag includes a page number for cross-reference.]

CONTENTS.
Page
Introduction 149
Shamans 156
Midē´wiwin 164
Midē´wigân 187
First degree 189
Preparatory instruction 189
Midē´ therapeutics 197
Imploration for clear weather 207
Initiation of candidate 210
Descriptive notes 220
Second degree 224
Preparation of candidate 224
Initiation of candidate 231
Descriptive notes 236
Third degree 240
Preparation of candidate 241
Initiation of candidate 243
Descriptive notes 251
Fourth degree 255
Preparation of candidate 257
Initiation of candidate 258
Descriptive notes 274
Dzhibai´ Midē´wigân 278
Initiation by substitution 281
Supplementary notes 286
Pictography 286
Music 289
Dress and ornaments 298
Future of the society 299

ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page
Plate II. Map showing present distribution of Ojibwa 150
III. Red Lake and Leech Lake records 166
IV. Sikas´sige’s record 170
V. Origin of Âníshinâ´bēg 172
VI. Facial decoration 174
VII. Facial decoration 178
VIII. Ojibwa’s record 182
IX. Mnemonic songs 193
X. Mnemonic songs 202
XI. Sacred objects 220
XII. Invitation sticks 236
XIII. Mnemonic songs 238
XIV. Mnemonic songs 288
XV. Sacred posts 240
XVI. Mnemonic songs 244
XVII. Mnemonic songs 266
XVIII. Jĕs´sakkīd´ removing disease 278
XIX. Birch-bark records 286
XX. Sacred bark scroll and contents 288
XXI. Midē´ relics from Leech Lake 390
XXII. Mnemonic songs 392
XXIII. Midē´ dancing garters 298

Fig. 1. Herbalist preparing medicine and treating patient 159
2. Sikas´sigĕ’s combined charts,
showing descent of Mī´nabō´zho 174
3. Origin of ginseng 175
4. Peep-hole post 178
5. Migration of Âníshinâ´bēg 179
6. Birch-bark record, from White Earth 185
7. Birch-bark record, from Bed Lake 186
8. Birch-bark record, from Red Lake 186
9. Eshgibō´ga 187
10. Diagram of Midē´wigân of the first degree 188
11. Interior of Midē´wigân 188
12. Ojibwa drums 190
13. Midē´ rattle 191
14. Midē´ rattle 191
15. Shooting the Mīgis 192
16. Wooden beads 205
17. Wooden effigy 205
18. Wooden effigy 205
19. Hawk-leg fetish 220
20. Hunter’s medicine 222
21. Hunter’s medicine 222
22. Wâbĕnō´ drum 223
23. Diagram of Midē´wigân of the second degree 224
24. Midē´ destroying an enemy 238
25. Diagram of Midē´wigân of the third degree 240
26. Jĕs´sakkân´, or juggler’s lodge 252
27. Jĕs´sakkân´, or juggler’s lodge 252
28. Jĕs´sakkân´, or juggler’s lodge 252
29. Jĕs´sakkân´, or juggler’s lodge 252
30. Jĕs´sakkân´, or juggler’s lodge 252
31. Jĕs´sakkīd´ curing woman 255
32. Jĕs´sakkīd´ curing man 255
33. Diagram of Midē´wigân of the fourth degree 255
34. General view of Midē´wigân 256
35. Indian diagram of ghost lodge 279
36. Leech Lake Midē´ song 295
37. Leech Lake Midē´ song 296
38. Leech Lake Midē´ song 297
39. Leech Lake Midē´ song 297

* * * * *

THE MIDĒ´WIWIN OR “GRAND MEDICINE SOCIETY”
OF THE OJIBWAY.

By W. J. HOFFMAN.

* * * * *

INTRODUCTION.

The Ojibwa is one of the largest tribes of the United States, and it is scattered over a considerable area, from the Province of Ontario, on the east, to the Red River of the North, on the west, and from Manitoba southward through the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This tribe is, strictly speaking, a timber people, and in its westward migration or dispersion has never passed beyond the limit of the timber growth which so remarkably divides the State of Minnesota into two parts possessing distinct physical features. The western portion of this State is a gently undulating prairie which sweeps away to the Rocky Mountains, while the eastern portion is heavily timbered. The dividing line, at or near the meridian of 95° 50' west longitude, extends due north and south, and at a point about 75 miles south of the northern boundary the timber line trends toward the northwest, crossing the State line, 49° north latitude, at about 97° 10' west longitude.

Minnesota contains many thousand lakes of various sizes, some of which are connected by fine water courses, while others are entirely isolated. The wooded country is undulating, the elevated portions being covered chiefly with pine, fir, spruce, and other coniferous trees, and the lowest depressions being occupied by lakes, ponds, or marshes, around which occur the tamarack, willow, and other trees which thrive in moist ground, while the regions between these extremes are covered with oak, poplar, ash, birch, maple, and many other varieties of trees and shrubs.

Wild fowl, game, and fish are still abundant, and until recently have furnished to the Indians the chief source of subsistence.

Tribal organization according to the totemic system is practically broken up, as the Indians are generally located upon or near the several reservations set apart for them by the General Government, where they have been under more or less restraint by the United States Indian agents and the missionaries. Representatives of various totems or gentes may therefore be found upon a single reservation, where they continue to adhere to traditional customs and beliefs, thus presenting an interesting field for ethnologic research.

The present distribution of the Ojibwa in Minnesota and Wisconsin is indicated upon the accompanying map, Pl. II. In the southern portion many of these people have adopted civilized pursuits, but throughout the northern and northwestern part many bands continue to adhere to their primitive methods and are commonly designated “wild Indians.” The habitations of many of the latter are rude and primitive. The bands on the northeast shore of Red Lake, as well as a few others farther east, have occupied these isolated sites for an uninterrupted period of about three centuries, as is affirmed by the chief men of the several villages and corroborated by other traditional evidence.

Father Claude Alloüez, upon his arrival in 1666 at Shagawaumikong, or La Pointe, found the Ojibwa preparing to attack the Sioux. The settlement at this point was an extensive one, and in traditions pertaining to the “Grand Medicine Society” frequent allusion is made to the fact that at this place the rites were practiced in their greatest purity.

Mr. Warren, in his History of the Ojibwa Indians,[1] bases his belief upon traditional evidence that the Ojibwa first had knowledge of the whites in 1612. Early in the seventeenth century the French missionaries met with various tribes of the Algonkian linguistic stock, as well as with bands or subtribes of the Ojibwa Indians. One of the latter, inhabiting the vicinity of Sault Ste. Marie, is frequently mentioned in the Jesuit Relations as the Saulteurs. This term was applied to all those people who lived at the Falls, but from other statements it is clear that the Ojibwa formed the most important body in that vicinity. La Hontan speaks of the “Outchepoues, alias Sauteurs,” as good warriors. The name Saulteur survives at this day and is applied to a division of the tribe.

[Footnote 1: Coll. Minn. Hist. Soc., 1885, vol. 5, p. 130.]

According to statements made by numerous Ojibwa chiefs of importance the tribe began its westward dispersion from La Pointe and Fond du Lac at least two hundred and fifty years ago, some of the bands penetrating the swampy country of northern Minnesota, while others went westward and southwestward. According to a statement[2] of the location of the tribes of Lake Superior, made at Mackinaw in 1736, the Sioux then occupied the southern and northern extremities of that lake. It is possible, however, that the northern bands of the Ojibwa may have penetrated the region adjacent to the Pigeon River and passed west to near their present location, thus avoiding their enemies who occupied the lake shore south of them.

[Footnote 2: Reproduced from the ninth volume of the New York
Colonial Documents, pp. 1054, 1055.]

I Red Lake. II White Earth. III Winnibigoshish. IV Cass Lake. V Leech
Lake. VI Deer Creek. VII Bois Forte. VIII Vermillion Lake. IX Fond du
Lac. X Mille Lacs. XI Lac Court Oreílle. XII La Pointe. XIII Lac de
Flanibeau. XIV Red Cliff. XV Grand Portage.]

From recent investigations among a number of tribes of the Algonkian linguistic division it is found that the traditions and practices pertaining to the Midē´wiwin, Society of the Midē´ or Shamans, popularly designated as the “Grand Medicine Society,” prevailed generally, and the rites are still practiced at irregular intervals, though in slightly different forms in various localities.