= 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, asabove 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.109The 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.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.Gibbs110mentions 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.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 Clarke111Youikcones and Youkone.112The 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,113who 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.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.IIIof 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, andXVIII, 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) Latham114speaks 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.IIIof 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.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 thisis 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 fullysubstantiated. 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 andtheir 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, doesnot 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 thesemanticcontent 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.FOOTNOTES1.Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.2.Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.3.Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.4.Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.5.Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.6.Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.7.Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.8.Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.9.Cruise of theCorwin, 1887.10.Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.I, 1855, p. 428.11.Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.12.Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.13.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.14.Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.15.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.16.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.17.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.18.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.19.Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.20.Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.21.Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.22.Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.23.Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.24.Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.25.Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.26.In 1719,fideMargry,VI, 289, “the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”27.1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.28.Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.29.1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.30.1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.31.Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the peninsula between Hood’s Canal and Port Townsend.32.B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.33.Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.34.Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.35.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.36.Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.37.Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.38.Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.39.Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.40.American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.41.New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.42.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.43.Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.44.Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.45.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, p. 163.46.Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.47.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp. 155-159.48.Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.49.Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of Pontiac, app.50.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.51.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.52.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.53.Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 336.54.Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.55.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.56.Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.57.Summer pueblos only.58.Includes Acomita and Pueblito.59.Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia, Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.60.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol.II, p. 133.61.Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.62.Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810, pt. 3, p. 9.63.Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1887.64.Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.65.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.66.Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.67.Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.68.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.69.On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.70.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.71.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.72.D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.73.U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.74.Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.75.Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.76.According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.77.U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, p. 631.78.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 1836.79.Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.80.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.81.Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.82.Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.83.Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16, 1810.84.Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.85.Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.86.See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.87.Marquette’s Autograph Map.88.Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.89.See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp. 124, 5481-5489.90.Lewis and Clarke, Trav., Lond., 1807, p. 25. Lewis and Clarke, Expl., 1874, vol. 2, p. 390. A. L. Riggs, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1876 or 1877. Dorsey, Ponka tradition: “The Black Hills belong to the Crows.” That the Dakotas were not there till this century see Corbusier’s Dakota Winter Counts, in 4th Rept. Bur. Eth., p. 130, where it is also said that the Crow were the original owners of the Black Hills.91.Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.92.Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194. Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.93.Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.94.Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860, p. 384.95.Archæologia Americana, 1836,II, pp. 15, 306.96.See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.97.Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.98.President’s message, February 19, 1806.99.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 21-22, 1884.100.Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793,II, 84-7.101.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, p. 20.102.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.103.Archæologia Americana,II, p. 15.104.Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, p. 77.105.U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.106.Savage Life, 312.107.U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.108.Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.109.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.110.Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.111.Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.112.Ibid., p. 118.113.U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.114.Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.
= 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, asabove 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.109The 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.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.Gibbs110mentions 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.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 Clarke111Youikcones and Youkone.112The 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,113who 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.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.IIIof 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, andXVIII, 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) Latham114speaks 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.IIIof 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.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 thisis 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 fullysubstantiated. 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 andtheir 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, doesnot 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 thesemanticcontent 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.FOOTNOTES1.Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.2.Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.3.Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.4.Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.5.Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.6.Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.7.Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.8.Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.9.Cruise of theCorwin, 1887.10.Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.I, 1855, p. 428.11.Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.12.Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.13.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.14.Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.15.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.16.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.17.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.18.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.19.Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.20.Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.21.Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.22.Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.23.Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.24.Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.25.Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.26.In 1719,fideMargry,VI, 289, “the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”27.1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.28.Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.29.1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.30.1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.31.Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the peninsula between Hood’s Canal and Port Townsend.32.B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.33.Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.34.Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.35.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.36.Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.37.Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.38.Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.39.Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.40.American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.41.New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.42.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.43.Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.44.Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.45.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, p. 163.46.Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.47.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp. 155-159.48.Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.49.Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of Pontiac, app.50.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.51.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.52.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.53.Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 336.54.Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.55.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.56.Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.57.Summer pueblos only.58.Includes Acomita and Pueblito.59.Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia, Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.60.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol.II, p. 133.61.Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.62.Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810, pt. 3, p. 9.63.Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1887.64.Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.65.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.66.Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.67.Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.68.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.69.On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.70.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.71.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.72.D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.73.U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.74.Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.75.Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.76.According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.77.U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, p. 631.78.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 1836.79.Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.80.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.81.Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.82.Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.83.Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16, 1810.84.Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.85.Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.86.See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.87.Marquette’s Autograph Map.88.Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.89.See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp. 124, 5481-5489.90.Lewis and Clarke, Trav., Lond., 1807, p. 25. Lewis and Clarke, Expl., 1874, vol. 2, p. 390. A. L. Riggs, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1876 or 1877. Dorsey, Ponka tradition: “The Black Hills belong to the Crows.” That the Dakotas were not there till this century see Corbusier’s Dakota Winter Counts, in 4th Rept. Bur. Eth., p. 130, where it is also said that the Crow were the original owners of the Black Hills.91.Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.92.Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194. Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.93.Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.94.Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860, p. 384.95.Archæologia Americana, 1836,II, pp. 15, 306.96.See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.97.Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.98.President’s message, February 19, 1806.99.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 21-22, 1884.100.Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793,II, 84-7.101.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, p. 20.102.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.103.Archæologia Americana,II, p. 15.104.Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, p. 77.105.U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.106.Savage Life, 312.107.U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.108.Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.109.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.110.Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.111.Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.112.Ibid., p. 118.113.U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.114.Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.
= 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.)
= 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.
= 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).
= 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, asabove 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.
For our knowledge of the range of the tribes of this family we are chiefly indebted to Stephen Powers.109The 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.
> 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).
> 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.
Gibbs110mentions 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
> 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 Clarke111Youikcones and Youkone.112
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,113who 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.
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.
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.
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.
= 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).
= 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.
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.
= 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).
= 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.IIIof 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.
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.
> 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, andXVIII, 115, 1886.
> 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, andXVIII, 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) Latham114speaks 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.IIIof 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.
The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least thisis 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.
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.
= 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.
= 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 fullysubstantiated. 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.
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.
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 andtheir 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, doesnot 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 thesemanticcontent 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.
1.Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.2.Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.3.Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.4.Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.5.Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.6.Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.7.Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.8.Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.9.Cruise of theCorwin, 1887.10.Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.I, 1855, p. 428.11.Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.12.Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.13.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.14.Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.15.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.16.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.17.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.18.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.19.Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.20.Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.21.Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.22.Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.23.Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.24.Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.25.Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.26.In 1719,fideMargry,VI, 289, “the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”27.1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.28.Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.29.1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.30.1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.31.Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the peninsula between Hood’s Canal and Port Townsend.32.B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.33.Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.34.Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.35.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.36.Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.37.Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.38.Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.39.Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.40.American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.41.New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.42.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.43.Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.44.Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.45.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, p. 163.46.Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.47.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp. 155-159.48.Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.49.Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of Pontiac, app.50.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.51.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.52.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.53.Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 336.54.Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.55.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.56.Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.57.Summer pueblos only.58.Includes Acomita and Pueblito.59.Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia, Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.60.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol.II, p. 133.61.Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.62.Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810, pt. 3, p. 9.63.Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1887.64.Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.65.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.66.Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.67.Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.68.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.69.On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.70.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.71.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.72.D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.73.U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.74.Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.75.Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.76.According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.77.U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, p. 631.78.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 1836.79.Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.80.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.81.Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.82.Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.83.Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16, 1810.84.Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.85.Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.86.See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.87.Marquette’s Autograph Map.88.Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.89.See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp. 124, 5481-5489.90.Lewis and Clarke, Trav., Lond., 1807, p. 25. Lewis and Clarke, Expl., 1874, vol. 2, p. 390. A. L. Riggs, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1876 or 1877. Dorsey, Ponka tradition: “The Black Hills belong to the Crows.” That the Dakotas were not there till this century see Corbusier’s Dakota Winter Counts, in 4th Rept. Bur. Eth., p. 130, where it is also said that the Crow were the original owners of the Black Hills.91.Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.92.Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194. Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.93.Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.94.Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860, p. 384.95.Archæologia Americana, 1836,II, pp. 15, 306.96.See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.97.Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.98.President’s message, February 19, 1806.99.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 21-22, 1884.100.Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793,II, 84-7.101.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, p. 20.102.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.103.Archæologia Americana,II, p. 15.104.Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, p. 77.105.U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.106.Savage Life, 312.107.U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.108.Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.109.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.110.Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.111.Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.112.Ibid., p. 118.113.U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.114.Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.
1.Proc. Am. Ass. Adv. Science, 1877, vol. 26.
2.Adventures on the Columbia River, 1849, p. 117.
3.Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 117.
4.Hist. of Am. Ind., 1775, p. 282.
5.Powers, Cont. N.A. Eth. 1877, vol. 3, p. 109: Dawson, Queen Charlotte Islands, 1880, p. 117.
6.Travels of Lewis and Clarke, London, 1809, p. 189.
7.Dall, Map Alaska, 1877.
8.Fide Nelson in Dall’s address, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1885, p. 13.
9.Cruise of theCorwin, 1887.
10.Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.I, 1855, p. 428.
11.Lewis and Clarke, Exp., 1814, vol. 2, p. 382.
12.Gatschet and Dorsey, MS., 1883-’84.
13.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.
14.Hamilton, MS., Haynarger Vocab., B.E.; Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 65.
15.Dorsey, MS., map, 1884, B.E.
16.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, pp. 72, 73.
17.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 114.
18.Powers, Contr. N.A. Ethn., 1877, vol. 3, p. 122.
19.Cortez in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1856, vol. 3, pt. 3, pp. 118, 119.
20.Bartlett, Pers. Narr., 1854; Orozco y Berra, Geog., 1864.
21.Lewis, Travels of Lewis and Clarke, 15, 1809.
22.Dorsey in Am. Naturalist, March, 1886, p. 215.
23.Dorsey, Omaha map of Nebraska.
24.Dorsey in Am. Nat., March, 1886, p. 215.
25.Carte de la Louisiane, 1718.
26.In 1719,fideMargry,VI, 289, “the Ousita village is on the southwest branch of the Arkansas River.”
27.1805, in Lewis and Clarke, Discov., 1806, p. 66.
28.Second Mass, Hist. Coll., vol. 2, 1814, p. 23.
29.1690, in French, Hist. Coll. La., vol. 1, p. 72.
30.1719, in Margry, vol. 6, p. 264.
31.Dr. Boas was informed in 1889, by a surviving Chimakum woman and several Clallam, that the tribe was confined to the peninsula between Hood’s Canal and Port Townsend.
32.B.A.A.S. Fifth Rep. of Committee on NW. Tribes of Canada. Newcastle-upon-Tyne meeting, 1889, pp. 8-9.
33.Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
34.Mag. Am. Hist., 1877, p. 157.
35.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 535.
36.Dobbs (Arthur). An account of the Countries adjoining to Hudson’s Bay. London, 1744.
37.Sixth Ann. Rep. Bu. Eth., 426, 1888.
38.Relacion del viage hecho por las Goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792. Madrid, 1802, p. 172.
39.Iroquois Book of Rites, 1883, app., p. 173.
40.American Anthropologist, 1888, vol. 1, p. 188.
41.New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America. Phila., 1798.
42.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 92.
43.Am. Antiq., 1883, vol. 5, p. 20.
44.Cession No. 1, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
45.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, p. 163.
46.Cession 2, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
47.Howe in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1854, vol. 4, pp. 155-159.
48.Cession 4, on Royce’s Cherokee map, 1884.
49.Sir William Johnson in Parkman’s Conspiracy of Pontiac, app.
50.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.
51.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.
52.Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, 1853.
53.Blount (1792) in Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 336.
54.Schoolcraft, Notes on Iroquois, 1847.
55.Bancroft, Hist. U.S.
56.Am. State Papers, 1832, vol. 4, p. 722.
57.Summer pueblos only.
58.Includes Acomita and Pueblito.
59.Includes Hasatch, Paguate, Punyeestye, Punyekia, Pusityitcho, Seemunah, Wapuchuseamma, and Ziamma.
60.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol.II, p. 133.
61.Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 16.
62.Pike, Exp. to sources of the Mississippi, App., 1810, pt. 3, p. 9.
63.Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1887.
64.Petroff, Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska, 1884, p. 33.
65.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, p, 221.
66.Allen Ed., 1814, vol. 2, p. 118.
67.Nat. Hist. Man, 1850, p. 325.
68.U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.
69.On p. 119, Archæologia Americana.
70.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, 1884, vol. 1, p. 62.
71.Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.
72.D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.
73.U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.
74.Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.
75.Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.
76.According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.
77.U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, p. 631.
78.Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 1836.
79.Allen ed., Philadelphia, 1814, vol. 1, p. 418.
80.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1869, p. 289.
81.Stevens in Pac. R. R. Rep., 1855, vol. 1, p. 329.
82.Lewis and Clarke, Allen ed., 1814, vol. 1, p. 34.
83.Pike, Expl. to sources of the Miss., app. pt. 3, 16, 1810.
84.Ives, Colorado River, 1861, p. 54.
85.Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 369.
86.See treaty of Prairie du Chien, 1825.
87.Marquette’s Autograph Map.
88.Disc. of Miss. Valley, p. 170, note.
89.See Cheyenne treaty, in Indian Treaties, 1873, pp. 124, 5481-5489.
90.Lewis and Clarke, Trav., Lond., 1807, p. 25. Lewis and Clarke, Expl., 1874, vol. 2, p. 390. A. L. Riggs, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1876 or 1877. Dorsey, Ponka tradition: “The Black Hills belong to the Crows.” That the Dakotas were not there till this century see Corbusier’s Dakota Winter Counts, in 4th Rept. Bur. Eth., p. 130, where it is also said that the Crow were the original owners of the Black Hills.
91.Margry, Découvertes, vol. 4, p. 195.
92.Batts in Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1853, vol. 3, p. 194. Harrison, MS. letter to Dorsey, 1886.
93.Doc. Col. Hist. N.Y., 1854, vol. 4. p. 488.
94.Lawson, Hist. Carolina, 1714; reprint of 1860, p. 384.
95.Archæologia Americana, 1836,II, pp. 15, 306.
96.See Petroff map of Alaska, 1880-’81.
97.Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, 1855, vol. 5, p. 689.
98.President’s message, February 19, 1806.
99.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 21-22, 1884.
100.Discovery, etc., of Kentucky, 1793,II, 84-7.
101.Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, p. 20.
102.U.S. Ind. Aff., 1889.
103.Archæologia Americana,II, p. 15.
104.Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, p. 77.
105.U.S. Expl. Expd., vol. 6, p. 220.
106.Savage Life, 312.
107.U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.
108.Canada Ind. Aff. Rep. for 1888.
109.Cont. N.A. Eth., 1877, vol. 3, p. 44.
110.Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, 1853, vol. 3, p. 422.
111.Allen, ed. 1814, vol. 2, p. 473.
112.Ibid., p. 118.
113.U. S. Ind. Aff. Rept., 1857, p. 359.
114.Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.