Chapter XIV: Part I: The Primary Varieties of the Human Species (11)

It has been stated above that the Iroquois are, at present, encompassed (or nearly encompassed) by Algonkins; so as to have become isolate in respect to the other classes of Indians, and cut off from contact with them. This, and more than this, is the case. Portions of the Iroquois family are cut off from each other, so that in coming to the details we shall expect to hear of the Northern division of the Iroquois, and of the Southern division of the Iroquois. At present it is sufficient to state that such a division exists, and that the localities for the Northern Iroquois are the parts about Lake Huron; for the Southern, North Carolina. In the latter locality alone are they in contact with tribes other than the Algonkin.

_Area._--Discontinuous.

_Divisions._--_a._ Northern Iroquois. _b._ Southern Iroquois.

_Sub-divisions._--_a._ Northern Iroquois. 1. The Five
Nations=The Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagoes, the Senecas,
and the Cayugas. 2. The Confederacy (?) of the Hurons (or
Wyandots), the Erigas, the Andastes, and the Attiondarons, the
Tionontates, the Anies(?), &c.

_b._ Southern Iroquois.--The Tutelo, Nottoway, Meherrin, and
Tuscaroras.

_Localities._--_a._ For the Northern Iroquois the parts about
and between Lakes Huron, Ontario, and Erie. _b._ For the
Southern Iroquois.--North Carolina. Separation effected by
tribes of the Algonkin division, especially the Delawares.

The Iroquois and Algonkins exhibit in the most typical form the characteristics of the North American Indians as exhibited in the earliest descriptions, and are the two families upon which the current notions respecting the physiognomy, habits, and moral and intellectual powers of the so-called Red Race are chiefly founded.

THE SIOUX.

_Area._--Central North America, between the Mississippi and
the Rocky Mountains, east and west. Between Lake Winebago and
the Arkansas, north and south. The valley of the Missouri.
The water-system of Lake Winebago. One division east of the
Mississippi.

_Divisions._--1. Winnebagoes, Hochungohrah=_Trout Nation_.
2. Dakotas, Sioux, or Nadowessiou. 3. Assineboins, or Stone
Indians. 4. Upsaroka, or Crows. 5. Mandans. 6. Minetari. 7.
Osage.

_Sub-divisions._--_a._ Of the Dahcota--1. Yanktons. 2.
Yanktoanans(?) 3. Tetons. 4. Proper Sioux.

_b._ Of the Osage.--1. Konzas. 2. Missouris. 3. Ottos. 4.
Omahaws. 5. Puncas. 6. Ioways. 7. Quappas. 8. Osage Proper.

The Sioux is the third great division of the North American Indians, and it is the division which comprises the tribes of the interior, of the Far West in opposition to the sea-coast, of the prairie country in opposition to the tracts that are or have been forest, and of the foot of the Rocky Mountains. The country of the buffalo is shared between them and the Western Algonkins.

Broadly speaking, we may say between these three nations the basins of all the feeders of the Upper Mississippi are distributed: the exceptions being insignificant. This they have and more; since the Canadian population is, in great part, Algonkin.

The Sioux tribes are essentially inland or continental.

CATAWBA.

_Locality._--The Santee, or Catawba River, in North Carolina.

WOCCOON.

_Locality._--North Carolina. Extinct.

The Catawba and Woccoon languages, which are allied to each
other, probably represent those aboriginal languages of North
Carolina, which were _not_ of the Algonkin class.

Besides these, however, there occur the following names, concerning which we only know that they belonged to North Carolina. The extent to which they spoke mutually unintelligible dialects is uncertain. 1. Cheraws; 2. Waterees; 3. Congarees; 4. Enoes;(?)[127] 5. Sewees; 6. Santees; 7. Wyniaws; 8. Waxsaws; 9. Esaws; 10. Toteros; 11. Keyauwees; 12. Sissispahaws; 13. Machapanga; 14. Connamox; 15. Coramines; 16. Chowans; 17. Wyanokes; 18. Sawara.

Add to these for South Carolina:--1. The Saluda; 2. Stonoes; 3. Edistoes; 4. Westoes; 5. Yamassees.

This indicates a new branch of research, viz.: the ethnology of the extinct tribes; and the extent to which it may be carried in the way of _minute_ investigation is shown by the length of the list of the divisions or sub-divisions of the population of the Carolinas alone. It is nearly as long for the original colony of Virginia, where the first settlers mention amongst others--

1. _Kecoughtans._--At the mouth of James River. A colony of this people was transplanted by Powhattan in 1608 to the banks of the Montgomery.

2. _Paspaheghes._--James River, just above the Kecoughtans.

3. _Arrohatecks._--James River, just above the Paspaheghes.

4, 5, 6, 7, 8.--_Appamatucks_, _Quiyoughcohanocks_, _Warraskoyacks_, _Nandsamunds_, _Chesapeaks_.--All on the south-east side of James River. On York River we find the names of Youghtamund and Mattapament; but whether these be the names of districts, or of tribes, is uncertain.

9. _The Bocootawwonaukes._--So called by the Powhattans, situated to the north-east of the Falls, and said to smelt copper and other metals.

10, 11, 12.--_Indians of the Rappahannock._--In the high-country at its head-waters the Mannahoacks, the Cuttatawoman(?), the Nandtaughtacund; these last numbering 150 men.

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.--_Indians of the Potomack._--The Wighcocomoco with 100 fighting men; the Cekakawwon with 30; the Onawmament with 100; the Satawomeck with 160; the Taxenent with 40; the Potapoco with 20; the Pamacoack with 60; the Moyoones with 100; and, lastly, Nacothtank with 80.

22, 23, 24.--_Indians of the Pawtuxunt._--The Aquintanacsuck, the Pawtuxunt, and Mattapament. Number of fighting men about 200.

Besides the following are mentioned as surrounding the Powhattan's territories--

1. The _Chawonocks_, bounded on the north by

2. The _Mangoangs_.

3. The _Mannohocks_ conterminous with the Mannoacks.

4. The _Acquanachuk_.

5. The _Tockwoghs_.

6. The _Nuskarawaok_.

Of all these there is the special evidence of Strachey, from Captain Smith, that none understand each other except by interpreters; an observation which applies to the Monacans and Susquehannas as well.

Besides these names we collect from the map the additional ones of the (1) _Massawomecks_, and (2) _Kuskarawaoks_.

Some of these spread northward, and represented part of the population of the Northern States (which, however, was chiefly Minsi), just as some of the Carolina tribes reached into Florida. Still, the great number of sub-divisions, for comparatively small areas, constitutes one of the difficulties of American ethnology. For none of these lost families do we possess vocabularies; so that, although from external evidence we are sometimes able to give them an ethnological position, the evidence is not conclusive. That conclusive evidence is necessary, and that we can by no means at once assume any given tribe to be Algonkin, simply because it is within the Algonkin area, is well known to every investigator for these parts.

Again, not only have whole tribes become extinct since the settlement of Europeans, but at the very beginning of the American historical period, tribes were found mutually exterminating each other. The empire of Powhattan was founded upon the annihilation of some tribes, and the incorporation of others. The Huron Iroquois were nearly extinguished by the Five Nations. The Mandans, within the last decennium, after being thinned and weakened by the small-pox, were, as a separate tribe, destroyed by the Sioux, who incorporated with themselves those who were not killed in the attack.

The Catawbas and Waxas are said to have flattened the head.

THE CHEROKEES.

_Locality._--Valley of the Tennessee River.

_Conterminous_ with the Southern Algonkins, the Southern
Iroquois, the Catawbas, and the Choctahs.

The Cherokee is one of the few so-called savage nations which is _increasing_, and not _de_creasing, in numbers. It is, also, the most industrial of all the American families; the Cherokee landholder having, in some cases, as much as five hundred acres under tillage, and possessing slaves as well. Lastly, a native Cherokee has reduced the language to writing--the alphabet (which will be noticed in the sequel) being syllabic.

THE CHOCTAHS.

_Area._--Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, parts of Louisiana,
Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

_Bounded_ by the Mississippi, the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic,
the Catawba, the Cherokee, and the South Algonkin areas.

_Divisions._--_a._ Choctahs _b._ Muscogulges, Muskohges, or
Creeks.

_Sub-divisions._--_a._ Of the Choctahs, the Chikkasahs. _b._ Of
the Creeks, the Hitchittee and Seminoles.

The Choctahs flatten the head.

The Choctah civilization is partially industrial, differing but little from that of the Cherokee.

The Choctah family has, probably, been a family of _encroaching_ area, the population which it displaced being represented by--

THE UCHÉ.

_Locality._--The Coosa River.

_Synonym._--Probably the Apalaches of De Soto.

_Language._--as known from a single vocabulary, peculiar.

Also by--

THE COOSADA.

_Conterminous_ with the Uché, and said to speak a peculiar
language, but which is not known from any vocabulary.

Also by--

THE ALIBAMONS.

_Conterminous_ with the Uché, and said to speak a peculiar
language; but which is not known from any vocabulary.

We now see that a separate group of tribes or families, aboriginal to Florida, but now replaced by Creeks, has existed within a recent period.

We also see that these groups may have been as many as three in number; since it by no means follows that, because the Uché, Coosadas, and Alibamons are different from the Choctahs, they must be allied to each other.

Again,--one or more of the extinct tribes of South Carolina may have been an element (and a fresh one too) in the population of Florida. That such was the case with the Yamassis is almost certain, since they were destroyed by the Seminoles during the last century.

Hence, when we hear that the Creek confederacy was formed upon either the extermination or incorporation of fifteen families, we have a measure of the multiform character of the ethnology of Florida and Alabama.

CADDOS.

_Locality._--Between the rivers Mississippi and Sabine.

_Language._--Known by a vocabulary. Not closely connected with
any other. Most like the Cherokee.

The provisional character of all these groups has been noticed. This is so great that scarcely two inquirers would give the same answer to the question, "What is the difference between a member of (say) the Algonkin and one of (say) the Cherokee, Choctah, or Iroquois class?" The most extreme opinions are, perhaps, those of Gallatin, as expressed in the Synopsis, and the present writer. According to the former, the Algonkin, Iroquois, Sioux, Catawba, Cherokee, Choctah, and Caddo, and Uché languages differ from one another, as the English and Turkish, or the Greek and Lapplandic, i.e. as languages reducible to no common class, a view which makes divisions so large as the Algonkin, and so small as the Uché, equally equivalent to the great class denominated Indo-European--a doctrine by no means improbable in itself, since it differs in degree rather than in kind, from the similar juxtaposition of large and small, simple and sub-divided classes, which we find in Europe; where the isolated Basque and Albanian are, in the present state of our knowledge, co-extensive in the way of classification with the wide and varied Indo-European, Semitic, and Ugrian groups.

The present writer allows a value, equal to that expressed by the term _Indo-European_ to three groups only, the first of which contains the Algonkin, which is apparently more different from the others than they are from each other; the second, the Uché, which, although it has several miscellaneous affinities, is not at present subordinated to any other class; and the third, the remainder, _i.e._ the Iroquois, Sioux, Catawba, Cherokee, Choctah, and Caddo, or (probably) the Iroquois, Sioux, and Cherokee, as primary divisions, to the last of which the Catawba, Choctah, and Caddo are subordinate. This is the very utmost he would do, in the way of recognising differences. He will, however, hereafter give reasons for doing less. At present the notification of fresh divisions of the population is continued.

THE NATCHEZ.

_Locality._--Banks of the Mississippi, in the parts about the
present city of the same name. Extinct, or incorporated. The
last remnant of the Natchez occupied a small village on the
River Talipoosa, in Alabama.

_Language._--Known through a single vocabulary. Not closely
connected with any other; but with miscellaneous affinities.

Great prominence in Indian history has been given to the Natchez from the destruction, at their hands, of the first French colony planted within their territory, in 1729, followed by an almost exterminating revenge on the part of the French, in the following year.

And great prominence is no more than is required for them in Indian ethnology.

They flattened the head.--There is evidence to this in the account of Du Pratz; and there is evidence to it in the fact of the disinterred skulls from the Natchez area, examined by Morton, bearing marks of compression. This, however, is what we have already seen, to the east of them, _i.e._ amongst the Choctahs.

They practised human sacrifices on the death of their chief.

They not only worshipped the sun, but (like the ancient Romans) kept burning an eternal fire.

Their religion so far acted upon their social or political constitution, as to develop a sort of _caste_-system, the principal chief being the _Great Sun_, and his children, _suns_; whilst the portion of the tribe not supposed to be so descended, were destitute of civil power.

Their nobility was transmitted through the _female_.

Such is a brief notice of the customs of the Natchez, which more or less differentiate them from the neighbouring tribes, with which (the Chetimachas excepted) they are said to have had but little intercourse.

Competent investigators consider that more than one of these peculiarities point to a Mexican origin, a view which is considered to be confirmed by the Natchez traditions doing the same; these being to the effect that their nation migrated from Mexico at two different periods.

TAENSAS (TENSAWS?).

_Locality._--Originally conterminous with the Natchez. If the
same as the _Tensaws_, they are, at present, on the _west_ of
the Mississippi. Special evidence to their temples being of the
same kind with those of the Natchez in A. D. 1682.--Gallatin's
Synopsis, p. 115.

PASCAGOULAS.

_Locality._--Red River of Louisiana; originally on the River
Pascagoula. If the same as the Bayagoulas, there is special
evidence to their worship of the sun and fire.--Gallatin's
Synopsis, p. 114.

COLAPISSAS.

_Locality._--In 1721 near the present site of New Orleans.
Extinct or incorporated.

BILUXI.

_Present locality._--Below Natchitoches. Originally east of the
Mississippi. Probably in the same class with the two preceding.

The notion that the Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colapissas, and Biluxi, belong to the Natchez family, is favoured by certain facts and traversed by none. This is not the case with--

THE CHETIMACHAS.

_Conterminous._--with the Natchez, from whom they differed in
language, and (probably) in customs as well, but with whom they
were united in the way of political confederation. Extinct or
incorporated.

_Language._--Known through a single vocabulary. Not closely
connected with any other, but with miscellaneous affinities.

Of two skulls exhumed from a cemetery within the Chetimacha area, and examined by Morton, neither gives evidence of artificial compression.

HUMAS.

_Original locality._--East of the Mississippi, above
New Orleans, "of whom a few are said to remain below
Manchac, and others to be found in the vicinity of the
Attacapas."--Gallatin, p. 115.

TUNICAS.

_Original locality._--Opposite the mouth of the Red River.

_Present locality._--Avoyelle, on the Red River.

PACANAS.

_Present locality._--West of the Mississippi.

_Original locality._--West Florida.

There is the special evidence of Dr. Sibley, the chief authority for the Indians west of the Mississippi, that the Humas, Tunicas, Biluxas, and Pascagoulas, each speak (or spoke) a different language.

The tribes which now follow are considered by Dr. Sibley to be _indigenous_ to the country west of the Mississippi; those last-mentioned having moved thither from the present states of Mississippi, Alabama, and West Florida, within the memory of man, or at least within the period of authentic history.

They chiefly lie to the east of the River Sabine; (_i.e._ between that river and the Mississippi), so as to belong to the original area of the United States, rather than to Texas, a distinction of importance; inasmuch as, whilst the ethnology of the parts which belonged to the United States in A. D. 1836,[128] is, comparatively speaking, well understood, that of Texas is still fragmentary and imperfect.

As far, however, as the Sabine, Dr. Sibley is the chief first-hand authority.

NATCHITOCHES.

_Divisions._--1. Natchitoches. 2. Yatassis.

_Numbers._--In 1836, about 150, together.

_Language._--Stated by Dr. Sibley to be different from any
other.--Gallatin, p. 116.

ADAHI.

_Conterminous_ with the Natchitoches and Yatassis.

_Language._--Known by a vocabulary. With no particular, but
with miscellaneous affinities.--Gallatin's Synopsis.

_Numbers._--In 1836, about fifty.

APELUSAS.

_Numbers._--In 1836, about 40. Said by Dr. Sibley to speak a
distinct language.

_Locality._--The district so called.

ATTACAPAS.

_Numbers._--In 1836, about 50. Said to have been cannibals and
flat-heads.

_Language._--Known by a vocabulary. With no special but with
miscellaneous affinities.

_Divisions._--1, Attacapas; 2, Carankuas. At least this latter
tribe, according to Dr. Sibley, speaks the same language with
the Attacapas.--Gallatin, 116.

Now if the Karanchuhuas of Texas be the Carankua Attacapas, the extension of that family is remarkable, since the locality of the Karanchuhuas is sea-coast about Matagorda Bay. Again,--the Cokes are a branch (extinct or nearly so) of the Karanchuhuas.

Having reached the River Sabine, we may look both west and east. Eastward the question lies as to the extent to which the present list has been exhaustive--if not of individual tribes, at least of families and groups. Now the Creeks and Choctahs have been tribes of an _encroaching_ area; whilst as special fact, we find that in A.D. 1763, the Colooses retreated before the Creeks: first to the extremity of Florida, and afterwards to the Havannah. Upon good grounds, then, it has been believed that the natives of Florida, anterior to the spread of the Creeks, were other than Creek or Choctah. Into how many divisions this Floridian population fell, and amongst what known families (if any) it was divided, is unascertained. It might be one. It might be distributable amongst many--Uché, Catawba, Natchez, &c. It might, too, be represented by a wholly extinct family. Probably it was Uché on the south-west, and Catawba on the north. The Yamassis may have been the latter, the Colooses the former. Still the question is wholly open.

Westward we come to Texas. Now the imperfect and fragmentary character of our information makes the consideration of the Texian Indians (known by little beyond their names) most conveniently follow the enumeration of the tribes to the north and west of them--besides which, four unplaced families have still to be enumerated as belonging to, and interrupting the great Algonkin and Sioux areas.

THE AHNENIN.

_Synonym._--Arrapahoes(?)--Fall Indians, from their locality.

_Locality._--The Falls of the River Saskatchewan.

_Language._--Peculiar.

ARRAPAHOES.

A tribe of this name is placed in Mr. Catlin's map, in California, on one of the eastern feeders of the Colorado, in the latitude of Santa Fé.

The Arrapahoes, again, according to Gallatin, are a detached tribe of the Ahnenin, who have wandered as far south as the Platte and Arkansas Rivers.

The identity, when ascertained, of name, is _primâ facie_ of this. Still it is not much more. On the other hand the fact is by no means improbable. A vocabulary of the southern Arrapahoes has yet to be collected.

RICCAREES.

_Locality._--The Missouri, about 150 miles below the Mandans.

The Riccarees have been classed in the section next following. The scanty vocabulary, however, of the two languages, by no means justifies us in making this affinity a very close one. On the other hand, they are kept distinct in the present work, provisionally.

PAWNEES (PANIS).

_Locality._---Valley of River Platte, extending as far west as
its sources, and as far south as the Arkansas.

_Divisions._--_a._ The Loup Pawnees. _b._ The Republican
Pawnees.

The Towiatch[129] of Texas are also called Pawnees; probably improperly.

* * * * *

Conterminous with the Pawnees are the Paducas. Paduca is a name given to a division of the Indians, but imperfectly known, and concerning which the information found in Prichard seems to be chiefly from Pike. It is the name given, collectively, to those tribes who, on the almost unexplored parts about the head waters of the River Platte, succeed the Sioux on the south, and the Pawnees on the west. That they are conterminous with this last-named family is inferred from the name; Paduca, being no native designation, but the one given by the Pawnees.

As great extension is now given to the tribes represented by those of the parts in question, the word will be used as a general name of a class.

The most important fact, however, connected with the Paducas, is their distribution, or the configuration of the area which they occupy. The inland projection of the Gulf of Mexico so narrows the southern part of North America, that the phenomenon of a family extending, like the Eskimo and Athabaskans, _across_ the continent, may now be expected.

Farthermore, a family thus spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific, would be of greater ethnological significance than even the similarly extended Athabaskans and Eskimo; since from its central position (_central_ in respect to its north and south relations) it would disconnect the northern and southern populations.

Still more remarkable would be the distribution if the parts thus separated geographically, were also separated by marked contrasts in the way of language, manners, or civilization.

Now all this is the case with the great Paduca area. Spreading from the Pacific to the Atlantic, it has to the north developments like those of the Oregon and the valley of the Mississippi: to the south those of Mexico, Guatimala, and Yucatan.

The physical geography of the northern part of the Paduca area is as remarkable as is its ethnology; since it is a table-land from which four great rivers rise, to run their course in four opposite directions. There, within a small distance of each other, are the sources of the Saptin, a feeder of the Columbia running in a _north_-westernly direction, of the Colorado running _south_-west, of the Yellow-Stone branch of the Missouri, and of the Rio del Norte of Texas. This latter running in an elevated narrow valley, from about 41° N. L., through the whole of New Mexico, is preeminently the river of the Cumanch tribes; tribes of which the exact east and west direction is not ascertained, but of which the north and south area is one of the longest in America.

PADUCAS.

_Direction of the Paduca area._--Oblique; _i.e._ from N.W. to
S.E., or _vice versâ_.

_Longitudinal Extension._--From the Pacific to the Gulf of
Mexico; from the water-system of the River Columbia to that of
the River Sabine; from north of 45° N.L. to south of 25° S.L.

_Conterminous._--_a._ On the north with the Tototune(?),
Shasti(?), Palaiks(?), Lutuami, Molele(?) Wailatpu, Sahaptins,
Sioux (chiefly Upsarokas), Pawnees, Sioux (chiefly Osages),
Towiach, and the _non_-Paduca Indians of Texas. _b._ On the
south, with the _non_-Paduca Indians of California and Mexico.

_Divisions._--Value undetermined.--Wihinast, Bonaks, Diggers,
Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias(?), Keneways(?),
Bald-heads(?), Cumanches, Navahos, Apaches, Carisos.

_Wihinast._--Called by Mr. Hales, Western Shoshonis, and unequivocally members of that division. Locality 45° N.L. 117° W.L., on the southern bank of the Snake or Lewis River, and conterminous with the Wailatpu. Of the Northern Paducas, these are the nearest to the Pacific, from which they are separated by the Lutuami, Umkwa and Saintskla. The evidence that the Wihinast are Shoshoni is derived from a vocabulary of their language.--_Philology of the U.S.E.E._

_Bonaks._--Classed with the Shoshonis on the strength of external evidence only.--Between them and the Wihinast.

_Diggers._--Classed with the Shoshonis on the strength of external evidence only.--They are a poverty-stricken tribe of the Californian Desert, who live by _digging_ for roots.

_Utahs._--Classed with the Shoshonis, &c.--Occupants of the parts about the Utah Lake.

_Sampiches._--Classed with, &c.--South of the Utahs. Manner of life like that of the Diggers.

_Shoshonis._--These are the Paducas which are at once the most northern and the most eastern of the group. They also are remarkable for occupying both sides of the Rocky Mountains, and are bounded on the north by the Sahaptin, and on the east by the Sioux, west by the Bonaks and Wihinast, and south by the Proper Paducas of Pike.

_Kiaways_, _Kaskaias_, _Keneways_, _Bald-heads_.--Of these I know little, except that they seem to fill up the area between the Shoshonis and the--

_Cumanches._--The chief Indians of Texas.--It is the ethnological position of the Cumanches that determines the extent of the Paduca group. That the Kiaways, &c., are Cumanche is believed on external evidence, and on the _a priori_ probability. That the Cumanche are Shoshoni is believed upon external evidence by those Americans who have had means of forming an opinion, and also upon the evidence of a short MS. vocabulary of the Cumanche, with which the present writer was favoured by Mr. Bollaert, compared with an equally short one of the Shoshoni in Gallatin's Synopsis. This was in 1844;[130] since which time, although the _data_ for the Shoshoni have greatly increased, those of the Cumanche are as imperfect as ever. Still the author has but little doubt as to the truth of the opinion of the Shoshoni affinity with the Cumanche, or (changing the expression) of the common Paduca character of the two.

_Navahos._--Considered Paduca, because they are stated to be akin to the--

_Apaches._--who are stated to be akin to the Cumanche, and who are widely spread both westward and southward of the area of the Proper Cumanche, between the River Puercos and the Rio Del Norte. In Chihuahua, and Cohuahuila (especially in the Bolson de Mapimi), we find tribes under the names of Apaches Farones, and Apaches Mescaleros, extending--in their incursions at least--as far as the interior of Durango. Of the Apaches, the--

_Carisos._--are said to be a branch.

Such are the members of the great Paduca family, to which it is safest, in the present imperfect state of our knowledge, to give an ethnological position, subject to correction from future investigations; which, necessary in most departments of the science, are preeminently necessary here.

How far the prominence thus given to a section of the American population, which is generally disposed of in a short notice, is necessary, is to be found in its geographical relations to Mexico and California on the one hand, and to the Indians of Oregon and the Mississippi on the other.

The Cumanches are the chief Indians of Texas; hence, from the north and west of that state they form an ethnological boundary. The names (all that the author can give) of the Texian tribes not already included in the several extensions of the Cumanche, Pawnee, Sioux, Cherokee, Choctah, Natchez, and other smaller families, are--

COSHATTAS.

Knowing of no vocabulary of the Coshatta language, I am unable to say what it is or is not. The tribe is a member of the Creek confederacy. It is not indigenous to its present locality, having immigrated from the east of the Mississippi. In a notice of the earlier Creek confederation we find mention of _Cussetahs_, and in connection with the Alibamons, _Coosadas_ on the River _Coosa_. The former of these facts suggests a Creek, the latter a Uché, affinity. Still, it gives nothing more than a suggestion.

TOWIACHS.

_Divisions._--1. Towiach; 2. Tawakenoes; 3. Towecas(?); 4.
Wacos.

_Localities._--1. Of the Towiach,--two villages, Nitehata and
Towahach, on the Red River; 2. Of the Tawakenoes,--200 miles
of Nacogdoches, south of the Red River. Said by Dr. Sibley to
speak the same language as the Towiachs; 3, 4. The Towecas and
Wacos are in villages north of Red River.

The Towiachs of Texas are sometimes called Pawnees,[131] probably improperly. Perhaps they form a branch of the Paducas rather than a separate substantive family; since there is the express statement of Kennedy, that the Texian _Towacanis_, or _Tahuacanos_, are Cumanche; and that the Wacos on the upper River Brazos, are the same.

LIPANS (SIPANS).

_Locality._--Between the River Aransas and River Grande.

_Numbers._--In 1845 about 500.

ALICHE.

_Synonym._--Eyeish.

_Locality._--Near Nacogdoches. Name only known. Enumerated in
the Mithridates.

ACCOCESAWS.

_Locality._--West of the Red River, 200 miles from Nacogdoches.
Name only known. Enumerated in the Mithridates.

NAVAOSOS(?).

Of the Navaosos, I only know that they are said to be a branch of the Lipans. If so, and if also they are _Navahos_, we are enabled to fix the Lipans as Paduca. They are extinct in Texas.

MAYES.

_Locality._--St. Bernard's Bay. Name only known. Enumerated in
the Mithridates.

CANCES.

_Locality._--Ditto, ditto.

TONCAHUAS.

The Toncahuas, or Tonkeways, are mentioned by Kennedy as being, like the Lipans, the hereditary enemies of the Cumanches, and as retreating before them from the hunting grounds of the upper country.

On the other hand, I find that Mr. Bollaert makes them an offset of the Cumanches. In 1845 they numbered about 300 souls.

TUHUKTUKIS (TAHOOKATUKES).

The Tuhuktukis are members of the Cherokee confederacy; within, but not considered indigenous to, Texas.

UNATAQUAS.

_Synonym._--Anadarcos.

The Unataquas are members of the Cherokee confederacy; within, but not indigenous to, Texas.

MASCOVIE.

IAWANIS (_Ionis_).

Each of these divisions (of which the value is unascertained) are members of the Cherokee confederacy.

WICO(?)[132]

_Locality.-_-Head waters of the upper Red River, conterminous
with the Kioways and Cumanch.

AVOYELLES.

WASHITAS.

_Original Locality._--West of the Mississippi. Extinct or
incorporated.

KETCHIES.

XARAMENES.

CAICACHES.

Extinct.

BIDIAS.

_Locality._--Middle part of Trinity River. _Numbers._--In 1845,
ten families only.

A MS. of Mr. Bollaert's, and the work of Kennedy, on Texas, have been the chief authorities for the previous. The notes of interrogation show the extent to which it may be amended. _Data_ for doing this are probably more abundant in America than here.

For the whole area between the three oceans--(Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic)--and the break formed by the Paducas, the chief groups have now been enumerated--perhaps exhaustively, or nearly so.

Not, however, finally. Although the details of even the wider groups have been so numerous as to make the present notice of them _classificational_ rather than _descriptive_, there are still a certain series of facts which, from having a significance beyond that of their mere occurrence, require notice.

Whatever has an important bearing upon the following two great problems comes under this category--

1. The unity or non-unity of the American populations, one amongst another.

2. The unity or non-unity of the American populations as compared with those of the Old World.

1. The unity or non-unity of the American populations one amongst another--a short history of the different opinions upon this point will give two things at once--_a_, the history itself, and, _b_, the chief facts by which changes in it were brought about.

The broad differences between the American Indians, as a body, when compared with even the most anomalous of the tribes of the Old World, were such as would naturally engender on the part of the earliest investigators--those of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries--an opinion in favour of a general fundamental unity amongst the several sections of them. This was the effect of the natural tendency of the human mind to connect with each other those things which disagree with certain others rather than the result of any definite series of comparisons. The Brazilian and the Mohawk equally agreed in disagreeing with the Laplander, or Negro; and this common difference was enough to bring them within the same class.

The observed facts which first had a tendency to disturb this notion, were, most probably, those connected with the languages. These really differ from each other to a very remarkable extent--an extent which to any partial investigator seems unparalleled; but an extent which the general philologist finds to be no greater than that which occurs in Caucasus, in the Indo-Chinese frontier, and in many parts of Africa.

The phænomena, however, which the multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues spoken within limited areas exhibited, were first made known in the case of the languages of America; and, as new facts, they were not likely to be undervalued. On the contrary, another natural tendency of the human mind, viz., a readiness to exaggerate difference in cases where similarity had been expected, was allowed full play; and not only were the really remarkable phænomena of philological diversity overstated, but the inferences from them rather exceeded than fell short of their legitimate compass. A measure of the extent to which this was carried may be collected from the following extract from Prichard,--"We owe the earliest information respecting the languages of America to the missionaries sent from time to time by the kings of Spain at the instigation of the Pope, with the view of converting the native inhabitants to the Christian religion. Many of these persons devoted immense labour to the acquisition of the idioms of various tribes, with the intention of qualifying themselves for the effectual performance of their duties. They represent the number of distinct languages spoken in the New World as very great. Abbé Gilii, who wrote a history of the Orinoco and collected specimens of the languages spoken in different districts with which he was acquainted, says that if a catalogue were formed of all the idioms of the continent, they would be found to be 'non molte moltissime,' but 'infinite, innumerabili.' Abbé Clavigero declares that he had cognisance of thirty-five different idioms spoken by races within the jurisdiction of Mexico. Father Kircher, a celebrated philologer of his time, after consulting the Jesuits assembled in Rome on the occasion of a general congregation of the order in 1676, informs us that those missionaries who had been in the New World supposed the number of languages, of which they had some notices in South America, to be five hundred. But the Abbé Royo, who had made diligent inquiries about the language of Peru, where he had dwelt, asserts that the whole people of America spoke not less than two thousand languages. The learned Francisco Lopez, a native of South America, who had extensive knowledge of that country as well as of the northern continent, a great part of which was traversed by the Jesuits, thought it no rash assertion to say that the idioms, 'notabilmente diversi,' of the whole country were not less than fifteen hundred."

It is difficult to say what would have been the natural growth, in the way of opinion from these strong (and not much overstated) phænomena, as to the apparently radical differences between the languages in question if they had come down to the present generation of scholars in an unmodified and unqualified form. This, however, was not the case. A most important disturbing element was soon indicated, which I follow Prichard in ascribing to Vater.

It was this--viz.: that different as may be the languages of America from each other, the discrepancy _extends to words or roots only, the general internal or grammatical structure being the same for all_.

Of course this grammatical structure must, in and of itself, be stamped with some very remarkable characteristics. It must differ from those of the whole world. Its verbs must be different from other verbs, its substantives other than the substantives of Europe, its adjectives unlike the adjectives of Asia. It must be this, or something like this--otherwise its identity of character goes for nothing; inasmuch as a common grammatical structure in respect to common grammatical elements is nothing more than what occurs all the world over.

At present it is enough to say, that such either was or appeared to be the case. "In Greenland,"[133] writes Vater, "as well as in Peru, on the Hudson river, in Massachusetts as well as in Mexico, and as far as the banks of the Orinoco, languages are spoken, displaying forms more artfully distinguished and more numerous than almost any other idioms in the world possess." "When we consider these artfully and laboriously contrived languages, which, though existing at points separated from each other by so many hundreds of miles, have assumed a character not less remarkably similar among themselves than different from the principles of all other languages, it is certainly the most natural conclusion that these common methods of construction have their origin from a single point; that there has been one general source from which the culture of languages in America has been diffused, and which has been the common centre of its diversified idioms."

"In America," says Humboldt,[133] "from the country of the Eskimo to the banks of the Oronoco, and again, from these torrid banks to the frozen climate of the Straits of Magellan, mother-tongues, entirely different with regard to their roots, have, if we may use the expression, the same physiognomy. Striking analogies of grammatical construction are acknowledged, not only in the more perfect languages, as that of the Incas, the Aymara, the Guarani, the Mexican, and the Cora, but also in languages extremely rude. Idioms, the roots of which do not resemble each other more than the roots of the Sclavonian and Biscayan, have those resemblances of internal mechanism which are found in the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the German languages. Almost everywhere in the New World we recognise a multiplicity of forms and tenses in the verb, an industrious artifice to indicate beforehand, either by inflection of the personal pronouns which form the terminations of the verb, or by an intercalated suffix, the nature and the relation of its object and its subject, and to distinguish whether the object be animate or inanimate, of the masculine or the feminine gender, simple or complex in number. It is on account of this general analogy of structure; it is because American languages, which have no words in common, the Mexican for instance, and the Quichua, resemble each other by their organisation, and form complete contrasts with the languages of Latin Europe, that the Indians of the missions familiarise themselves more easily with other American idioms than with the language of the mistress country."

Lastly, definitude was given to these and similar somewhat too general expressions as to the _difference_ in grammatical structure on the part of the American languages from those of the Old World, and their likeness to each other by the analytical investigations of Du Ponceau,[134] whose term _polysynthetic_, as descriptive of the _characteristic and peculiar complicated_ grammar of the American idioms from Greenland to Cape Horn, has been generally received.

We now see in a general way (and this is as much as in a work like the present can be shown), the meaning of a statement made in a former page,[135] viz.: that "where the American languages differ from each other they differ in a manner to which Asia supplies no parallel," whilst when they "agree with each they agree in a way to which Asia supplies no parallel"--_i. e._, whilst they agree grammatically they differ glossarially; so exhibiting what may be called a philological paradox.

At present we are neither doubting the reality nor measuring the amount of this paradox; we are only asking in which of two ways it has been interpreted. What has been the effect of the antagonism between the philologico-grammatical and the philologico-glossarial test? Which has told most? the difference or the likeness? Has the first determined investigators to separate what the latter unites, or has the latter united what the former separates?

The answer to this is--that the likeness in the grammars has been generally considered to over-ride the difference in the vocabularies; so that the American languages are considered to supply an argument in favour of the unity of the American population stronger than the one which they suggest against it.

The evidence of language, then, is in favour of the unity of all the American populations--the Eskimo _not_ excepted.

The evidence, however, of language, forms but a fraction of the argument; indeed, it is only one part of the great division which contains the _moral_ elements of ethnological difference or likeness in opposition to the _physical_. The complementary question as to the unity or non-unity of the general social or mental development of the aboriginal American still stands over.

What are the facts which chiefly influence opinion here?

In which direction is their influence?

The facts are of two kinds--

1. Those which disconnect the Eskimo--

2. Those which disconnect the Mexicans and Peruvians from the other Americans--the former on the strength of an inferior, the latter on the score of a superior civilizational development. What is their value? This will be best ascertained when _all_ the sections of the American population involved in the question have been noticed. At present the Eskimo only have been dealt with; the Mexicans and Peruvians still remaining to be described. Enough, however, has been said to show that the question has taken a complication; since the evidence of the _non_-philological moral and mental phænomena is _against_ the unity of the American population--the Mexicans and Peruvians on one side, and the Eskimo on the other being isolated.

The evidence, however, of the moral and mental phænomena (philological and _non_-philological combined), is but one division of the argument. The complementary question as to the unity or non-unity of the physical conformation of the aboriginal American still stands over. What are the facts which chiefly influence opinion here?

_Mutatis mutandis_, the statements which have just been made may _very nearly_ be made here. The test of physical conformation is considered to exclude the Eskimo; and the test of physical conformation is considered to exclude, if not the Mexican, at least the Peruvian.

* * * * *

Notwithstanding the convenience of deferring the more general discussion of the question until the Peruvians--indeed, until the whole of the American tribes have been considered--the present is, nevertheless, a convenient time for taking in, by means of a retrospect, some of the more material facts connected with the social and civilizational capacity of the Indians which have last been described--_i.e._ the _non_-Eskimo tribes of the parts between the Rocky Mountains and the Paducas. This is to be measured by what is called the Indian biography of their men of mark like Thyandeeeya (Brandt), Tecumseh, or Powhattan, by the history of the Indian wars and confederations, and, better still, by an exponent which, because it has a special application upon the problems last indicated, will find a place amongst our present investigations--their architectural archæology.

The Trustees of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge have broken ground with the publication of a careful, elaborate, and critical description of the ancient monuments of the Mississippi Valley, the result of original surveys and explorations, by Mr. Squier and Dr. Davis; and it is only the contemporary publication of the Ethnology and Philology of the United States Exploring Expedition, that makes this the _second_ of the great contributions to ethnological science, which have been supplied by the same country within the same year.

And first, as to the area over which these remains are spread.--West of the Rocky Mountains,[136] the most that has hitherto been found is a few mounds, _tumuli_, or barrows. They will be called _mounds_. North, too, of the Great Lakes, the remains are but few, and imperfectly described. On Lake Pepin, on Lake Travers (in 46° N.L.), we find notices of them; so we do for the Missouri, as much as 1000 miles above its junction with the Mississippi. Eastward, they decrease as we approach the Atlantic; _i.e._ on the Atlantic aspects of Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia, they become scarcer. They become scarce, too, on the other side of the River Sabine; not that they are wanting in Texas, but that they either fall off in number or change in character as we approach Mexico.

The great centre of their development is the vast valley of the Mississippi, and amongst the valleys of its feeders--that of the Ohio preeminently. Here the accumulation is at its _maximum_. In Ross country alone, 100 enclosures and 500 mounds have been noticed; whilst the whole amount for the state of Ohio has been reckoned at 10,000 of the former, and 1,000 or 1,500 of the latter.

This indicates their locality and distribution. It has also indicated their nature and character. Oftener earthworks than buildings of stone, they are generally (but not exclusively) either raised mounds or embankments forming enclosures,--mounds in some cases 70 feet in height, and 1000 in circumference at the base, and embankments (with ditches corresponding) enclosing spaces of 300 acres. Such are some of the greatest measurements.

In form both the mound and embankment are very varied. The enclosure may be a square, a circle, a parallelogram, an ellipse, a polygon, or a wholly irregular outline, following the inequalities of the soil or the configuration of the country in which it occurs. The ditch may be either exterior or interior to it; the entrance simple or complex. Sometimes the square and circle are combined; so that a round inclosure leads into a quadrangle, or _vice versâ_. Sometimes a quadrangle is enclosed with a square.

The mounds are sometimes simple cones; sometimes (an important difference) truncated pyramids; often simple slopes; often terraced. More remarkable, however, than any others, is "a succession of remains, entirely singular in their forms, and presenting but slight analogy to any others of which we have an account, in any portion of the globe. The larger proportion of these are structures of earth, bearing the forms of beasts, birds, reptiles, and even of men; they are frequently of gigantic dimensions, constituting huge _basso-relievos_ upon the face of the country. They are very numerous, and in most cases occur in long and apparently dependent ranges. In connection with them are found many conical mounds and occasional short lines of embankment, in rare instances forming enclosures."[137]

The reader anticipates the object for which these works were undertaken--the purposes of war and the purposes of religion. This is the most general way of stating it; those for the latter purposes falling in the divisions of sepulchral and sacrificial.

Besides the usual human remains which are found in the sepulchral mounds, works in stone, earthenware, and metal are frequent; relics which, taken along with the vast and numerous works which contain them, give us the elements of the ante-historical civilization of the northern section of the North American Indians.

The prevalence of works of a certain type varies with the area. The animal bas-reliefs are chiefly characteristic of Wisconsin, the truncated pyramids of the southern States, the simple mound and enclosure of Ohio, and the midland parts.

It should now be added, that where a square is attempted, it is truly rectangular, and that the circles are generally perfect; also that, in several cases, either the sides or the entrances accurately coincide with the east, west, north, and south points of the compass.

Other customs, such as the Indian council of war, the Indian calumet of peace, the stoic fortitude of the Indian warrior, the patient bearing of the Indian squaw, their scalpings during war, their probationary tortures during peace, preeminently interesting objects of description, have a subordinate value in ethnology. Value, however, they have. The list of them is a long one, and out of it may be selected numerous characteristics of a twofold import.

1. American, or general characteristics, viz.: those which (without being universal) are general in the new world, whilst (without being absolutely non-existent) they are rare in the old.

2. Sectional characteristics, or those which distinguish one American tribe from another.

Of the first series, there are two divisions, the positive and the negative. In respect to the positively characteristic practices of America, the use of the scalping-knife is, perhaps, the most typical. Horrible modes of mutilation are common in Asia and Africa (in Africa most especially); but the exact method in question I have not found except in America. Next to this, the habit of artificially flattening the head deserves notice. It is not, however, wholly unknown in the old world; since in Arakan we find traces of it.

The negative characteristics are, perhaps, more important than the positive ones--preeminent amongst these being the utter absence (with the exception of a partial approach to it in the care bestowed by the Peruvians upon the llama and vicugna) of the true pastoral state throughout the whole length and breadth of America. Agriculture there is, and hunting there is,--the former developing an approach to an industrial development, and the latter determining a semi-nomadic form of life--but the absence of a true pastoral state wherein horses are used for riding, oxen for draught, and cows, ewes, or mares, for milking, is a remarkable negative characteristic which distinguishes the aboriginal American from the Arctic Sea to Cape Horn.

That the appreciation of _differentiæ_ of this kind is wholly incapable of being arrived at _à priori_, but that it must be the result of a special induction by which we historically determine how one (or more) of certain undoubtedly allied divisions of the human species may want characteristics which occur in the others (and _vice versâ_) is a truth which requires a fuller recognition than it has found; since it is far easier for a writer to show in what customs two great sections of a population differ from one another, than to ascertain what that discrepancy imports. Whilst one, therefore, makes it a difference _in kind_, another considers it as one _in degree only_. The present writer, who _has_ bestowed some pains on the special question of _valuation_ or _appreciation_, generally speaking puts them low.

As the criticism respecting the _general_ characteristics, has its bearing upon the relations of the American aborigines to those of the world at large, so that of the _sectional_ ones determines our views as to their unity or non-unity among themselves. It is the same in both cases. It is an easy matter to say that the Athabaskans (for instance) burn their dead to ashes, whilst the Peruvians desiccate them into mummies; that the Nehannis treat their women with respect, whilst servitude, on the part of the female, is the rule elsewhere; or that (enterprise and industry being exceptional phænomena in the western hemisphere), the Waraws are navigators, and the Haidah islanders tradesmen; and easier still is it to discover that in populations which live on fishing, we miss certain elements of the social state of the hunter or agriculturist. The real difficulty is to take the exact measure of their value. Failing the _data_ for doing this, the parallel statement of the points of agreement becomes a duty on the part of the ethnologist.

Now, in this respect, the phenomenon which has been noticed in Australia, reappears in America, viz.: a habit or custom, which shall not be found in more than one or two tribes in the neighbourhood of each other, shall appear, as if wholly independent of mutual imitation, at some other (perhaps some distant) part of the island. Such, in Australia, was the case of similar family names; and such in America is the remarkable distribution of the habits of flattening the head, and burying on elevated platforms; to say nothing of the two parallel forms of semicivilization in Mexico and Peru, so concordant on the whole, yet differing in so many details, and, evidently, separate and independent developments rather than the results of an extension of either one or the other as the original.

The same reasons which prevent us, in the present state of our knowledge, from drawing any inferences into the higher problems of ethnology from those manners and customs of the American Indians, which in the mere way of simple description give so much interest to the writings of the adventurous traveller, save us the necessity of exhibiting them in detail. No such economy, however, of time and paper is allowed in respect to a question which has already been more than once alluded to, viz.: the peculiarities of the American languages; peculiarities which are as remarkable in respect to the points wherein they agree, as they are in respect to the points wherein they differ--peculiarities, however, which, remarkable as they are, may easily be over-rated.

No preliminary is more necessary for this question than the distinction between _a_, the American languages as considered in respect to their roots or words, and _b_, the American languages as considered in respect to their grammatical structure. The clear perception of this is required on the part of the reader. On the other hand, the writer must remember that he is composing a work not on philology in general, but only upon such points of that science as illustrate ethnography. Hence the peculiarities of the American languages will not be considered in full; but all that will be done with them will consist in the selection of those phænomena which explain what has already been called the philological paradox of the American grammars being alike, whilst the American vocabularies differ.

1. And first in respect to the facts which account for the difference between the vocabularies. Here arise two questions--the determination of the extent to which such a difference really takes place, and the reasons for its reaching that extent whatever it is ascertained to be.

What follows, is a table representing the degree in which languages lying within so small a geographical area as the Uché, Natchez, and Adahi, may differ in their vocabularies.

ENGLISH. UCHÉ. NATCHEZ. ADAHI.

Man cohwita tomkuhpena haasing.
Woman wauhnehung tahmahl quaechuke.
Father chitung abishnisha kewanick.
Mother kitchunghaing kwalneshoo amanie.
Son tesunung (my) akwalnesuta tallehennie.
Daughter teyunung (my) mahnoonoo quolasinic.
Head ptseotan tomne apoo tochake.
Hair ptsasong etene calatuck.
Ear cohchipah ipok calat.
Eye cohchee oktool analca.
Nose cohtemee shamats weecoocat.
Mouth teaishhee heche wacatcholak.
Tongue cootincah itsuk tenanat.
Tooth tekeing int awat (pl.)
Hand keanthah ispeshe secut
Feet tetethah hatpeshé (sing.) nocat (sing.)
Blood wace itsh pchack.
Sky houpoung nasookta ganick.
Sun ptso wah (fire) naleen.
Moon shafah kwasip nachaoat.
Star yung tookul otat.
Day uckkah wit nestach.
Night pahto toowa arestenet.
Fire yachtah wah nang.
Water tsach koon holcut.
Rain chaāh nasnayobik ganic.
Snow stahae kowa towat.
Earth ptsah wihih caput.
River tauh wōl gawichat.
Tree yah tshoo tanaek.
Meat colahntha wintsé hosing.
Bear ptsaka tso kohp solang.
Bird psenna shankolt washang.
Fish potshoo henn aesut.
White quecah hahap testaga.
Black ishpe tsokokop hatoua.
Red tshulhuh pahkop pechasat.
He coheetha akoonikia (this here) nassicon.
One sāh witahu nancas.
Two nowāh ahwetie nass.
Three nokah nayetie colle.
Four taltlah ganooetie tacache.
Five chwanhah shpedee seppacan.
Six chtoo lahono pacanancus.
Seven latchoo ukwoh pacaness.
Eight peefah upkutepish pacalcon.
Nine 'tah'thkah wedipkatepish sickinish.
Ten 'tthklahpee ōkwah neusne.