> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 16, 305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,” 281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on linguistic evidence).> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853. (Evident misprint.)> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be Athapascan.)> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis, Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856. Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs, Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 161, 1848 (Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 305, 1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family, though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 440-448, 1847 (follows Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 32-34, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862 (referred to Esquimaux stock).> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 441, 1847 (same as his Kinai above).> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to Athapaskan).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841. (Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847 (same as Athapascas above).> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846 (“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi, Loucheux, ibid. 1852.> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the Saintskla).> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (“perhaps Athapascas”).> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 72, 1854 (a single tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (tribe on Lower Trinity, California).> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be Athapascan).= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S.,XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races,III, 562, 583, 603, 1882.= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877. Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to Lacombe, “place of hay and reeds.”As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30'.The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be Athapascan.The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbia and of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom they were cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northern family in North America.Since Gallatin’s time the history of this family has been further elucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolated branches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, and along the southern border of the United States.The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are best given under three primary groups—Northern, Pacific, and Southern.Northern group.—This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo of Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimmesyan families.The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family. Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to somewhat below Shageluk Island,7and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite to Kolmakoff Redoubt.8Upon the two latter they reach quite to their heads.9A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan tribes reach the coast—the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and the Ahtena, of Copper River.Pacific group.—Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following: Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower Chinook;10Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the northwest side of Wapatoo Island.11Gibbs was informed by an old Indian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to thesouth”—a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon,12whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille River southward to the California line, including, among others, the Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tûnnĕ, and other “Rogue River” or “Tou-touten bands,” Chasta Costa, Galice Creek, Naltunne tûnnĕ and Chetco villages;13the Athapascan villages formerly on Smith River and tributaries, California;14those villages extending southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of Klamath River;15the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on Lower Trinity River, California;16the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as follows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and Larrabie Creeks;”17and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue of land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen’s Fork.”18Southern group.—Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer José Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in 1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north and south from 29° N. to 36° N., and east and west from 99° W. to 114° W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande.19More recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.20The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean tribes.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.A. Northern group:Ah-tena.Kaiyuh-khotana.Kcaltana.K’naia-khotana.Koyukukhotana.Kutchin.Montagnais.Montagnards.Nagailer.Slave.Sluacus-tinneh.Taculli.Tahl-tan (1).Unakhotana.B. Pacific group:Ătaăkût.Chasta Costa.Chetco.Dakube tede (on Applegate Creek).Euchre Creek.Hupâ.Kălts’erea tûnnĕ.Kenesti or Wailakki.Kwalhioqua.Kwaʇami.Micikqwûtme tûnnĕ.Mikono tûnnĕ.Owilapsh.Qwinctûnnetûn.Saiaz.Taltûctun tûde (on Galice Creek).Tcêmê (Joshuas).Tcĕtlĕstcan tûnnĕ.Terwar.Tlatscanai.Tolowa.Tutu tûnnĕ.C. Southern group:Arivaipa.Chiricahua.Coyotero.Faraone.Gileño.Jicarilla.Lipan.Llanero.Mescalero.Mimbreño.Mogollon.Na-isha.Navajo.Pinal Coyotero.Tchĕkûn.Tchishi.Population.—The present number of the Athapascan family is about 32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409, belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.Northern group.—This may be said to consist of the following:Ah-tena (1877)364?Ai-yan (1888)250Al-ta-tin (Sicannie) estimated (1888)500of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887)73of whom there are at Fort Liard (1887)78Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib at Fort Resolution469Dog Rib at Fort Norman133Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae657Hare at Fort Good Hope364Hare at Fort Norman103Kai-yuh-kho-tána (1877), Koyukukhotána (1877), and Unakhotána (1877)2,000?K’nai-a Khotána (1880)250?Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope95Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre’s House337Kutchin on the Yukon (six tribes)842Nahanie at Fort Good Hope8Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde, Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians)332Nahanie at Fort Liard38Nahanie at Fort Norman43421Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)87Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)658Slave at Fort Liard281Slave at Fort Norman84Tenán Kutchin (1877)700?8,595?To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following:Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California468Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon47Siletz Reservation, Oregon (about one-half the Indians thereon)300?Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon80895?Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo:Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania142Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama356Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation)733?Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado)808Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory15?Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico)513Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory)326Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania)17,208San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)1,352?White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)36White Mountain Apache (under military at Camp Apache, Arizona)1,92023,409?ATTACAPAN FAMILY.= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II. pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning “man-eater.”Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas,” who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10 miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of their brethren farther to the east.The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885. Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.Derivation: Beothuk signifies “Indian” or “red Indian.”The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland must be considered to be doubtful.In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to the somewhat ambiguous statement that the language “was akin to those of the ordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; further investigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it was Algonkin rather than aught else.”Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor quality is the material sufficient to permit final andsatisfactory deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other American tongue.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians.In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz., the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.CADDOAN FAMILY.> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1858 [gives as languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847.> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.). Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101, 1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and Riccari).> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 128, 306, 1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (gives as languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes Pawnees and Arikaras).> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 117, 128, 1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847 (supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from Pawnee family).> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see Pawnee above).> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856 (Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas; Caddoes).= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847.> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach, Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not classified).> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any other; referred to as a family).> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from Pawnee family).> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).Derivation: From the Caddo term ka´-ede, signifying “chief” (Gatschet).The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family, were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and accordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as family designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has priority by a few pages preference is given to it.Gallatin states “that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red River but have now moved to a branch of Red River.” He refers to the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialects of the Caddo language.Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper Missouri in latitude 46° 30'.The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups, Northern, Middle, and Southern.Northern group.—This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas,” who had been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in three villages, nearer their present location.21According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River.22Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest corner of North Dakota.Middle group.—This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee, the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: “The original hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara,” in Nebraska, “south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed.” In modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork.23The Pawnee were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village on a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they rejoined the Grand Pawnee.” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition,24formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to this day. De L’Isle25gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.Southern group.—This includes the Caddo, Wichita, Kichai, and other tribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indian Territory.The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscan habitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names (Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and the statement of La Harpe,26are now in or near one of their early abodes. Dr. Sibley27locates the Caddo habitat 35 miles west of the main branch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and they formerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell’s Atlas (1870) places Caddo Lake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It also gives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red River of Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichita migrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to the Indian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (as above) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, loni, Nabadache, and Eyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kädo hadatco,28of Le Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti29and La Harpe30about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita, and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon the following as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southern group of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that part of Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowa and Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of the Choctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to the headwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thence through Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river to its mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine River near Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to Tawakonay Creek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following that stream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the North Fork of Red River; and thence to the beginning.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.A. Pawnee.Grand Pawnee.Tappas.Republican Pawnee.Skidi.B. Arikara.C. Wichita.(Ki-¢i´-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe,Ki-dhi´-chash or Ki-ri´-chash).D. Kichai.E. Caddo (Kä´-do).Population.—The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of whom 447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest in the Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation, the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the Indian Report for 1889:Arikara448Pawnee824Wichita176Towakarehu145Waco64385Kichai63Caddo539Total2,259CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.,I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers language different from any of its neighbors).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).Derivation unknown.Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:The language of the Chimakum “differs materially from either that of the Clallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of their neighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. To what family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided.”Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of its neighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language family rank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison of vocabularies and finds the language to be quite distinct from any other, gives it the above name.The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteen small lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs “their territory seems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow.”31In 1884 there were, according toMr. Myron Eells, about twenty individuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend, Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at the southern end of Hood’s Canal.The Quile-ute, of whom in 1889 there were 252 living on the Pacific south of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe of the latter, number 71 and are under the Puyallup Agency.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.The following tribes are recognized:Chimakum.Quile-ute.CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 474, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left. In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundred words from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of that tribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko man seventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two living survivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and much valuable information relative to the former habitat and history of the tribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of words having correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet the greater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latter family, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed as distinct.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Chimariko.Chimalakwe.CHIMMESYAN FAMILY.= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (between 53° 30' and 55° 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok, Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 401, 1862.= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (published in 1870).Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 39, 40, 1877 (probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 607, 1882.= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of family).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (includes Chimmesyans).X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (same as his Northern family).< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848 (including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present family).Derivation: From the Chimsian ts’em, “on;” kcian, “main river:” “On the main (Skeena) river.”This name appears in a paper of Latham’s published in 1848. To it is referred a vocabulary of Tolmie’s. The area where it is spoken is said by Latham to be 50° 30' and 55° 30'. The name has become established by long usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been given preference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter name was given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be not related, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billechola belongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin’s of 1836.Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply to Chimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of Chimsian Indians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk, which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from the Chimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favor of Chimmesyan of the same date.For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmie and Dawson, in 1884, is followed.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:32A. Nasqa´:Nasqa´.Gyitksa´n.B. Tsimshian proper:Ts’emsia´n.Gyits’umrä´lon.Gyits’ala´ser.Gyitqā´tla.Gyitg·ā´ata.Gyidesdzo´.Population.—The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total for all the tribes of this family of 5,000. In the fall of 1887 about 1,000 of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removedto Annette Island, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, near Port Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called New Metlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schools established, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkable progress in civilization.CHINOOKAN FAMILY.
> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 16, 305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,” 281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on linguistic evidence).> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853. (Evident misprint.)> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be Athapascan.)> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis, Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856. Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs, Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 161, 1848 (Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 305, 1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family, though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 440-448, 1847 (follows Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 32-34, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862 (referred to Esquimaux stock).> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 441, 1847 (same as his Kinai above).> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to Athapaskan).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841. (Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847 (same as Athapascas above).> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846 (“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi, Loucheux, ibid. 1852.> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the Saintskla).> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (“perhaps Athapascas”).> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 72, 1854 (a single tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (tribe on Lower Trinity, California).> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be Athapascan).= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S.,XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races,III, 562, 583, 603, 1882.= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877. Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to Lacombe, “place of hay and reeds.”As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30'.The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be Athapascan.The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbia and of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom they were cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northern family in North America.Since Gallatin’s time the history of this family has been further elucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolated branches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, and along the southern border of the United States.The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are best given under three primary groups—Northern, Pacific, and Southern.Northern group.—This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo of Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimmesyan families.The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family. Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to somewhat below Shageluk Island,7and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite to Kolmakoff Redoubt.8Upon the two latter they reach quite to their heads.9A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan tribes reach the coast—the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and the Ahtena, of Copper River.Pacific group.—Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following: Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower Chinook;10Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the northwest side of Wapatoo Island.11Gibbs was informed by an old Indian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to thesouth”—a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon,12whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille River southward to the California line, including, among others, the Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tûnnĕ, and other “Rogue River” or “Tou-touten bands,” Chasta Costa, Galice Creek, Naltunne tûnnĕ and Chetco villages;13the Athapascan villages formerly on Smith River and tributaries, California;14those villages extending southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of Klamath River;15the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on Lower Trinity River, California;16the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as follows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and Larrabie Creeks;”17and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue of land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen’s Fork.”18Southern group.—Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer José Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in 1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north and south from 29° N. to 36° N., and east and west from 99° W. to 114° W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande.19More recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.20The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean tribes.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.A. Northern group:Ah-tena.Kaiyuh-khotana.Kcaltana.K’naia-khotana.Koyukukhotana.Kutchin.Montagnais.Montagnards.Nagailer.Slave.Sluacus-tinneh.Taculli.Tahl-tan (1).Unakhotana.B. Pacific group:Ătaăkût.Chasta Costa.Chetco.Dakube tede (on Applegate Creek).Euchre Creek.Hupâ.Kălts’erea tûnnĕ.Kenesti or Wailakki.Kwalhioqua.Kwaʇami.Micikqwûtme tûnnĕ.Mikono tûnnĕ.Owilapsh.Qwinctûnnetûn.Saiaz.Taltûctun tûde (on Galice Creek).Tcêmê (Joshuas).Tcĕtlĕstcan tûnnĕ.Terwar.Tlatscanai.Tolowa.Tutu tûnnĕ.C. Southern group:Arivaipa.Chiricahua.Coyotero.Faraone.Gileño.Jicarilla.Lipan.Llanero.Mescalero.Mimbreño.Mogollon.Na-isha.Navajo.Pinal Coyotero.Tchĕkûn.Tchishi.Population.—The present number of the Athapascan family is about 32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409, belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.Northern group.—This may be said to consist of the following:Ah-tena (1877)364?Ai-yan (1888)250Al-ta-tin (Sicannie) estimated (1888)500of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887)73of whom there are at Fort Liard (1887)78Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib at Fort Resolution469Dog Rib at Fort Norman133Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae657Hare at Fort Good Hope364Hare at Fort Norman103Kai-yuh-kho-tána (1877), Koyukukhotána (1877), and Unakhotána (1877)2,000?K’nai-a Khotána (1880)250?Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope95Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre’s House337Kutchin on the Yukon (six tribes)842Nahanie at Fort Good Hope8Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde, Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians)332Nahanie at Fort Liard38Nahanie at Fort Norman43421Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)87Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)658Slave at Fort Liard281Slave at Fort Norman84Tenán Kutchin (1877)700?8,595?To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following:Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California468Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon47Siletz Reservation, Oregon (about one-half the Indians thereon)300?Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon80895?Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo:Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania142Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama356Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation)733?Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado)808Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory15?Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico)513Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory)326Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania)17,208San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)1,352?White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)36White Mountain Apache (under military at Camp Apache, Arizona)1,92023,409?ATTACAPAN FAMILY.= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II. pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning “man-eater.”Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas,” who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10 miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of their brethren farther to the east.The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885. Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.Derivation: Beothuk signifies “Indian” or “red Indian.”The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland must be considered to be doubtful.In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to the somewhat ambiguous statement that the language “was akin to those of the ordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; further investigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it was Algonkin rather than aught else.”Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor quality is the material sufficient to permit final andsatisfactory deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other American tongue.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians.In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz., the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.CADDOAN FAMILY.> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1858 [gives as languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847.> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.). Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101, 1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and Riccari).> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 128, 306, 1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (gives as languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes Pawnees and Arikaras).> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 117, 128, 1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847 (supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from Pawnee family).> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see Pawnee above).> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856 (Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas; Caddoes).= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847.> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach, Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not classified).> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any other; referred to as a family).> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from Pawnee family).> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).Derivation: From the Caddo term ka´-ede, signifying “chief” (Gatschet).The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family, were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and accordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as family designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has priority by a few pages preference is given to it.Gallatin states “that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red River but have now moved to a branch of Red River.” He refers to the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialects of the Caddo language.Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper Missouri in latitude 46° 30'.The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups, Northern, Middle, and Southern.Northern group.—This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas,” who had been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in three villages, nearer their present location.21According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River.22Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest corner of North Dakota.Middle group.—This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee, the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: “The original hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara,” in Nebraska, “south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed.” In modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork.23The Pawnee were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village on a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they rejoined the Grand Pawnee.” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition,24formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to this day. De L’Isle25gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.Southern group.—This includes the Caddo, Wichita, Kichai, and other tribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indian Territory.The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscan habitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names (Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and the statement of La Harpe,26are now in or near one of their early abodes. Dr. Sibley27locates the Caddo habitat 35 miles west of the main branch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and they formerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell’s Atlas (1870) places Caddo Lake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It also gives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red River of Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichita migrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to the Indian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (as above) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, loni, Nabadache, and Eyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kädo hadatco,28of Le Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti29and La Harpe30about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita, and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon the following as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southern group of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that part of Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowa and Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of the Choctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to the headwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thence through Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river to its mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine River near Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to Tawakonay Creek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following that stream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the North Fork of Red River; and thence to the beginning.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.A. Pawnee.Grand Pawnee.Tappas.Republican Pawnee.Skidi.B. Arikara.C. Wichita.(Ki-¢i´-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe,Ki-dhi´-chash or Ki-ri´-chash).D. Kichai.E. Caddo (Kä´-do).Population.—The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of whom 447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest in the Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation, the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the Indian Report for 1889:Arikara448Pawnee824Wichita176Towakarehu145Waco64385Kichai63Caddo539Total2,259CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.,I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers language different from any of its neighbors).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).Derivation unknown.Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:The language of the Chimakum “differs materially from either that of the Clallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of their neighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. To what family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided.”Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of its neighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language family rank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison of vocabularies and finds the language to be quite distinct from any other, gives it the above name.The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteen small lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs “their territory seems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow.”31In 1884 there were, according toMr. Myron Eells, about twenty individuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend, Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at the southern end of Hood’s Canal.The Quile-ute, of whom in 1889 there were 252 living on the Pacific south of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe of the latter, number 71 and are under the Puyallup Agency.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.The following tribes are recognized:Chimakum.Quile-ute.CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 474, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left. In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundred words from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of that tribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko man seventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two living survivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and much valuable information relative to the former habitat and history of the tribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of words having correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet the greater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latter family, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed as distinct.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Chimariko.Chimalakwe.CHIMMESYAN FAMILY.= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (between 53° 30' and 55° 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok, Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 401, 1862.= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (published in 1870).Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 39, 40, 1877 (probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 607, 1882.= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of family).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (includes Chimmesyans).X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (same as his Northern family).< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848 (including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present family).Derivation: From the Chimsian ts’em, “on;” kcian, “main river:” “On the main (Skeena) river.”This name appears in a paper of Latham’s published in 1848. To it is referred a vocabulary of Tolmie’s. The area where it is spoken is said by Latham to be 50° 30' and 55° 30'. The name has become established by long usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been given preference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter name was given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be not related, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billechola belongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin’s of 1836.Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply to Chimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of Chimsian Indians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk, which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from the Chimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favor of Chimmesyan of the same date.For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmie and Dawson, in 1884, is followed.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:32A. Nasqa´:Nasqa´.Gyitksa´n.B. Tsimshian proper:Ts’emsia´n.Gyits’umrä´lon.Gyits’ala´ser.Gyitqā´tla.Gyitg·ā´ata.Gyidesdzo´.Population.—The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total for all the tribes of this family of 5,000. In the fall of 1887 about 1,000 of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removedto Annette Island, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, near Port Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called New Metlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schools established, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkable progress in civilization.CHINOOKAN FAMILY.
> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 16, 305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,” 281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on linguistic evidence).> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853. (Evident misprint.)> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be Athapascan.)> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis, Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856. Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs, Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 161, 1848 (Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 305, 1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family, though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 440-448, 1847 (follows Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 32-34, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862 (referred to Esquimaux stock).> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 441, 1847 (same as his Kinai above).> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to Athapaskan).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841. (Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847 (same as Athapascas above).> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846 (“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi, Loucheux, ibid. 1852.> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the Saintskla).> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (“perhaps Athapascas”).> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 72, 1854 (a single tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (tribe on Lower Trinity, California).> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be Athapascan).= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S.,XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races,III, 562, 583, 603, 1882.= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877. Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)
> Athapascas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 16, 305, 1836. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Turner in “Literary World,” 281, April 17, 1852 (refers Apache and Navajo to this family on linguistic evidence).
> Athapaccas, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853. (Evident misprint.)
> Athapascan, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 84, 1856. (Mere mention of family; Apaches and congeners belong to this family, as shown by him in “Literary World.” Hoopah also asserted to be Athapascan.)
> Athabaskans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 302, 1850. (Under Northern Athabaskans, includes Chippewyans Proper, Beaver Indians, Daho-dinnis, Strong Bows, Hare Indians, Dog-ribs, Yellow Knives, Carriers. Under Southern Athabaskans, includes (p. 308) Kwalioqwa, Tlatskanai, Umkwa.)
= Athabaskan, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 65, 96, 1856. Buschmann (1854), Der athapaskische Sprachstamm, 250, 1856 (Hoopahs, Apaches, and Navajoes included). Latham, Opuscula, 333, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 388, 1862. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates the coalescence of Athabascan family with Esquimaux). Latham (1844), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 161, 1848 (Nagail and Taculli referred to Athabascan). Scouler (1846), in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 230, 1848. Latham, Opuscula, 257, 259, 276, 1860. Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.
> Kinai, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 305, 1836 (Kinai and Ugaljachmutzi; considered to form a distinct family, though affirmed to have affinities with western Esquimaux and with Athapascas). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 440-448, 1847 (follows Gallatin; also affirms a relationship to Aztec). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848.
> Kenay, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 32-34, 1846. Latham, Opuscula, 275, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 389, 1862 (referred to Esquimaux stock).
> Kinætzi, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 441, 1847 (same as his Kinai above).
> Kenai, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, xcix, 1848 (see Kinai above). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 695, 1856 (refers it to Athapaskan).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841. (Includes Atnas, Kolchans, and Kenáïes of present family.)
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as his Northern family).
> Chepeyans, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 375, 1847 (same as Athapascas above).
> Tahkali-Umkwa, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 198, 201, 569, 1846 (“a branch of the great Chippewyan, or Athapascan, stock;” includes Carriers, Qualioguas, Tlatskanies, Umguas). Gallatin, after Hale in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 9, 1848.
> Digothi, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Digothi, Loucheux, ibid. 1852.
> Lipans, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (Lipans (Sipans) between Rio Arkansas and Rio Grande).
> Tototune, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (seacoast south of the Saintskla).
> Ugaljachmutzi, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (“perhaps Athapascas”).
> Umkwa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 72, 1854 (a single tribe). Latham, Opuscula, 300, 1860.
> Tahlewah. Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (a single tribe). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (a single tribe). Latham. Opuscula, 342, 1860.
> Tolewa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 163, 1877 (vocab. from Smith River, Oregon; affirmed to be distinct from any neighboring tongue). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Miscellany, 438, 1877.
> Hoo-pah, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (tribe on Lower Trinity, California).
> Hoopa, Powers in Overland Monthly, 135, August, 1872.
> Hú-pâ, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 72, 1877 (affirmed to be Athapascan).
= Tinneh, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass. A. S.,XVIII, 269, 1869 (chiefly Alaskan tribes). Dall, Alaska and its Resources, 428, 1870. Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 24, 1877. Bancroft, Native Races,III, 562, 583, 603, 1882.
= Tinné, Gatschet in Mag. Am, Hist., 165, 1877 (special mention of Hoopa, Rogue River, Umpqua.) Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 440, 1877. Gatschet in Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 406, 1879. Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Tinney, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 463, 1878.
X Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878; or Lutuami, (Lototens and Tolewahs of his list belong here.)
Derivation: From the lake of the same name; signifying, according to Lacombe, “place of hay and reeds.”
As defined by Gallatin, the area occupied by this great family is included in a line drawn from the mouth of the Churchill or Missinippi River to its source; thence along the ridge which separates the north branch of the Saskatchewan from those of the Athapascas to the Rocky Mountains; and thence northwardly till within a hundred miles of the Pacific Ocean, in latitude 52° 30'.
The only tribe within the above area excepted by Gallatin as of probably a different stock was the Quarrelers or Loucheux, living at the mouth of Mackenzie River. This tribe, however, has since been ascertained to be Athapascan.
The Athapascan family thus occupied almost the whole of British Columbia and of Alaska, and was, with the exception of the Eskimo, by whom they were cut off on nearly all sides from the ocean, the most northern family in North America.
Since Gallatin’s time the history of this family has been further elucidated by the discovery on the part of Hale and Turner that isolated branches of the stock have become established in Oregon, California, and along the southern border of the United States.
The boundaries of the Athapascan family, as now understood, are best given under three primary groups—Northern, Pacific, and Southern.
Northern group.—This includes all the Athapascan tribes of British North America and Alaska. In the former region the Athapascans occupy most of the western interior, being bounded on the north by the Arctic Eskimo, who inhabit a narrow strip of coast; on the east by the Eskimo of Hudson’s Bay as far south as Churchill River, south of which river the country is occupied by Algonquian tribes. On the south the Athapascan tribes extended to the main ridge between the Athapasca and Saskatchewan Rivers, where they met Algonquian tribes; west of this area they were bounded on the south by Salishan tribes, the limits of whose territory on Fraser River and its tributaries appear on Tolmie and Dawson’s map of 1884. On the west, in British Columbia, the Athapascan tribes nowhere reach the coast, being cut off by the Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimmesyan families.
The interior of Alaska is chiefly occupied by tribes of this family. Eskimo tribes have encroached somewhat upon the interior along the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Kowak, and Noatak Rivers, reaching on the Yukon to somewhat below Shageluk Island,7and on the Kuskokwim nearly or quite to Kolmakoff Redoubt.8Upon the two latter they reach quite to their heads.9A few Kutchin tribes are (or have been) north of the Porcupine and Yukon Rivers, but until recently it has not been known that they extended north beyond the Yukon and Romanzoff Mountains. Explorations of Lieutenant Stoney, in 1885, establish the fact that the region to the north of those mountains is occupied by Athapascan tribes, and the map is colored accordingly. Only in two places in Alaska do the Athapascan tribes reach the coast—the K’naia-khotana, on Cook’s Inlet, and the Ahtena, of Copper River.
Pacific group.—Unlike the tribes of the Northern group, most of those of the Pacific group have removed from their priscan habitats since the advent of the white race. The Pacific group embraces the following: Kwalhioqua, formerly on Willopah River, Washington, near the Lower Chinook;10Owilapsh, formerly between Shoalwater Bay and the heads of the Chehalis River, Washington, the territory of these two tribes being practically continuous; Tlatscanai, formerly on a small stream on the northwest side of Wapatoo Island.11Gibbs was informed by an old Indian that this tribe “formerly owned the prairies on the Tsihalis at the mouth of the Skukumchuck, but, on the failure of game, left the country, crossed the Columbia River, and occupied the mountains to thesouth”—a statement of too uncertain character to be depended upon; the Athapascan tribes now on the Grande Ronde and Siletz Reservations, Oregon,12whose villages on and near the coast extended from Coquille River southward to the California line, including, among others, the Upper Coquille, Sixes, Euchre, Creek, Joshua, Tutu tûnnĕ, and other “Rogue River” or “Tou-touten bands,” Chasta Costa, Galice Creek, Naltunne tûnnĕ and Chetco villages;13the Athapascan villages formerly on Smith River and tributaries, California;14those villages extending southward from Smith River along the California coast to the mouth of Klamath River;15the Hupâ villages or “clans” formerly on Lower Trinity River, California;16the Kenesti or Wailakki (2), located as follows: “They live along the western slope of the Shasta Mountains, from North Eel River, above Round Valley, to Hay Fork; along Eel and Mad Rivers, extending down the latter about to Low Gap; also on Dobbins and Larrabie Creeks;”17and Saiaz, who “formerly occupied the tongue of land jutting down between Eel River and Van Dusen’s Fork.”18
Southern group.—Includes the Navajo, Apache, and Lipan. Engineer José Cortez, one of the earliest authorities on these tribes, writing in 1799, defines the boundaries of the Lipan and Apache as extending north and south from 29° N. to 36° N., and east and west from 99° W. to 114° W.; in other words from central Texas nearly to the Colorado River in Arizona, where they met tribes of the Yuman stock. The Lipan occupied the eastern part of the above territory, extending in Texas from the Comanche country (about Red River) south to the Rio Grande.19More recently both Lipan and Apache have gradually moved southward into Mexico where they extend as far as Durango.20
The Navajo, since first known to history, have occupied the country on and south of the San Juan River in northern New Mexico and Arizona and extending into Colorado and Utah. They were surrounded on all sides by the cognate Apache except upon the north, where they meet Shoshonean tribes.
Dakube tede (on Applegate Creek).
Taltûctun tûde (on Galice Creek).
Population.—The present number of the Athapascan family is about 32,899, of whom about 8,595, constituting the Northern group, are in Alaska and British North America, according to Dall, Dawson, and the Canadian Indian-Report for 1888; about 895, comprising the Pacific group, are in Washington, Oregon, and California; and about 23,409, belonging to the Southern group, are in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Indian Territory. Besides these are the Lipan and some refugee Apache, who are in Mexico. These have not been included in the above enumeration, as there are no means of ascertaining their number.
Northern group.—This may be said to consist of the following:
of whom there are at Fort Halkett (1887)
Chippewyan, Yellow Knives, with a few Slave and Dog Rib at Fort Resolution
Dog Rib, Slave, and Yellow Knives at Fort Rae
Kai-yuh-kho-tána (1877), Koyukukhotána (1877), and Unakhotána (1877)
Kutchin and Bastard Loucheux at Fort Good Hope
Kutchin at Peel River and La Pierre’s House
Nahanie at Fort Halkett (including Mauvais Monde, Bastard Nahanie, and Mountain Indians)
Nahanie at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)
Slave, Dog Rib, and Hare at Fort Simpson and Big Island (Hudson Bay Company’s Territory)
To the Pacific Group may be assigned the following:
Hupa Indians, on Hoopa Valley Reservation, California
Rogue River Indians at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon
Siletz Reservation, Oregon (about one-half the Indians thereon)
Umpqua at Grande Ronde Reservation, Oregon
Southern Group, consisting of Apache, Lipan, and Navajo:
Apache children at Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Apache prisoners at Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama
Coyotero Apache (San Carlos Reservation)
Jicarilla Apache (Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado)
Lipan with Tonkaway on Oakland Reserve, Indian Territory
Mescalero Apache (Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico)
Na-isha Apache (Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory)
Navajo (most on Navajo Reservation, Arizona and New Mexico; 4 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania)
San Carlos Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)
White Mountain Apache (San Carlos Reservation, Arizona)
White Mountain Apache (under military at Camp Apache, Arizona)
= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II. pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.
= Attacapas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II. pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 343, 1850 (includes Attacapas and Carankuas). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 1859.
= Attacapa, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (or “Men eaters”). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 105, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 293, 1860.
= Attakapa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 477, 1862 (referred to as one of the two most isolated languages of N.A.).
= Atákapa, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Leg., I, 45, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, Apr. 29, 1887.
Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning “man-eater.”
Little is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was reduced to 50 men. According to Dr. Sibley the Attacapa language was spoken also by another tribe, the “Carankouas,” who lived on the coast of Texas, and who conversed in their own language besides. In 1885 Mr. Gatschet visited the section formerly inhabited by the Attacapa and after much search discovered one man and two women at Lake Charles, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and another woman living 10 miles to the south; he also heard of five other women then scattered in western Texas; these are thought to be the only survivors of the tribe. Mr. Gatschet collected some two thousand words and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and published by Gallatin, and indicates that the language of the western branch of the tribe was dialectically distinct from that of their brethren farther to the east.
The above material seems to show that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except possibly the Chitimachan.
= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885. Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.
= Bethuck, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (stated to be “Algonkin rather than aught else”). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 453, 1862.
= Beothuk, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Philosoph. Soc., 408, Oct., 1885. Gatschet, ibid., 411, July, 1886 (language affirmed to represent a distinct linguistic family). Gatschet, ibid., 1, Jan-June, 1890.
Derivation: Beothuk signifies “Indian” or “red Indian.”
The position of the language spoken by the aborigines of Newfoundland must be considered to be doubtful.
In 1846 Latham examined the material then accessible, and was led to the somewhat ambiguous statement that the language “was akin to those of the ordinary American Indians rather than to the Eskimo; further investigation showing that, of the ordinary American languages, it was Algonkin rather than aught else.”
Since then Mr. Gatschet has been able to examine a much larger and more satisfactory body of material, and although neither in amount nor quality is the material sufficient to permit final andsatisfactory deductions, yet so far as it goes it shows that the language is quite distinct from any of the Algonquian dialects, and in fact from any other American tongue.
It seems highly probable that the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its discovery by Cabot in 1497 was inhabited by Beothuk Indians.
In 1534 Cartier met with Indians inhabiting the southeastern part of the island, who, very likely, were of this people, though the description is too vague to permit certain identification. A century later the southern portion of the island appears to have been abandoned by these Indians, whoever they were, on account of European settlements, and only the northern and eastern parts of the island were occupied by them. About the beginning of the eighteenth century western Newfoundland was colonized by the Micmac from Nova Scotia. As a consequence of the persistent warfare which followed the advent of the latter and which was also waged against the Beothuk by the Europeans, especially the French, the Beothuk rapidly wasted in numbers. Their main territory was soon confined to the neighborhood of the Exploits River. The tribe was finally lost sight of about 1827, having become extinct, or possibly the few survivors having crossed to the Labrador coast and joined the Nascapi with whom the tribe had always been on friendly terms.
Upon the map only the small portion of the island is given to the Beothuk which is known definitely to have been occupied by them, viz., the neighborhood of the Exploits River, though, as stated above, it seems probable that the entire island was once in their possession.
> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1858 [gives as languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847.> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.). Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101, 1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and Riccari).> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 128, 306, 1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (gives as languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes Pawnees and Arikaras).> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 117, 128, 1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847 (supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from Pawnee family).> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see Pawnee above).> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856 (Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas; Caddoes).= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847.> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach, Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not classified).> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any other; referred to as a family).> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from Pawnee family).> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).
> Caddoes, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 306, 1836 (based on Caddoes alone). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1858 [gives as languages Caddo, Red River, (Nandakoes, Tachies, Nabedaches)].
> Caddokies, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (same as his Caddoes). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847.
> Caddo, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (indicates affinities with Iroquois, Muskoge, Catawba, Pawnee). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848, (Caddo only). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848 (Caddos, etc.). Ibid., 1852. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 338, 1850 (between the Mississippi and Sabine). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 101, 1856. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 70, 1856 (finds resemblances to Pawnee but keeps them separate). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 426, 448, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 290, 366, 1860.
> Caddo, Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 470, 1862 (includes Pawni and Riccari).
> Pawnees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 128, 306, 1836 (two nations: Pawnees proper and Ricaras or Black Pawnees). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (or Panis; includes Loup and Republican Pawnees). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (gives as languages: Pawnees, Ricaras, Tawakeroes, Towekas, Wachos?). Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Indians, 232, 345, 1863 (includes Pawnees and Arikaras).
> Panis, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 117, 128, 1836 (of Red River of Texas; mention of villages; doubtfully indicated as of Pawnee family). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847 (supposed from name to be of same race with Pawnees of the Arkansa). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (Pawnees or). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (here kept separate from Pawnee family).
> Pawnies, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (see Pawnee above).
> Pahnies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Pawnee(?), Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 65, 1856 (Kichai and Hueco vocabularies).
= Pawnee, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 478, 1878 (gives four groups, viz: Pawnees proper; Arickarees; Wichitas; Caddoes).
= Pani, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 42, 1884. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Towiaches. Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 128, 1836 (same as Panis above). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 407, 1847.
> Towiachs, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (includes Towiach, Tawakenoes, Towecas?, Wacos).
> Towiacks, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.
> Natchitoches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (stated by Dr. Sibley to speak a language different from any other). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 342, 1850. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 406, 1847 (after Gallatin). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (a single tribe only).
> Aliche, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (near Nacogdoches; not classified).
> Yatassees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 116, 1836 (the single tribe; said by Dr. Sibley to be different from any other; referred to as a family).
> Riccarees, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 344, 1850 (kept distinct from Pawnee family).
> Washita, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc., Lond., 103, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 441, 1859 (revokes previous opinion of its distinctness and refers it to Pawnee family).
> Witchitas, Buschmann, ibid., (same as his Washita).
Derivation: From the Caddo term ka´-ede, signifying “chief” (Gatschet).
The Pawnee and Caddo, now known to be of the same linguistic family, were supposed by Gallatin and by many later writers to be distinct, and accordingly both names appear in the Archæologia Americana as family designations. Both names are unobjectionable, but as the term Caddo has priority by a few pages preference is given to it.
Gallatin states “that the Caddoes formerly lived 300 miles up Red River but have now moved to a branch of Red River.” He refers to the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, and the Nabedaches as speaking dialects of the Caddo language.
Under Pawnee two tribes were included by Gallatin: The Pawnees proper and the Ricaras. The Pawnee tribes occupied the country on the Platte River adjoining the Loup Fork. The Ricara towns were on the upper Missouri in latitude 46° 30'.The boundaries of the Caddoan family, as at present understood, can best be given under three primary groups, Northern, Middle, and Southern.
Northern group.—This comprises the Arikara or Ree, now confined to a small village (on Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota,) which they share with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes of the Siouan family. The Arikara are the remains of ten different tribes of “Paneas,” who had been driven from their country lower down the Missouri River (near the Ponka habitat in northern Nebraska) by the Dakota. In 1804 they were in three villages, nearer their present location.21
According to Omaha tradition, the Arikara were their allies when these two tribes and several others were east of the Mississippi River.22Fort Berthold Reservation, their present abode, is in the northwest corner of North Dakota.
Middle group.—This includes the four tribes or villages of Pawnee, the Grand, Republican, Tapage, and Skidi. Dunbar says: “The original hunting ground of the Pawnee extended from the Niobrara,” in Nebraska, “south to the Arkansas, but no definite boundaries can be fixed.” In modern times their villages have been on the Platte River west of Columbus, Nebraska. The Omaha and Oto were sometimes southeast of them near the mouth of the Platte, and the Comanche were northwest of them on the upper part of one of the branches of the Loup Fork.23The Pawnee were removed to Indian Territory in 1876. The Grand Pawnee and Tapage did not wander far from their habitat on the Platte. The Republican Pawnee separated from the Grand about the year 1796, and made a village on a “large northwardly branch of the Kansas River, to which they have given their name; afterwards they subdivided, and lived in different parts of the country on the waters of Kansas River. In 1805 they rejoined the Grand Pawnee.” The Skidi (Panimaha, or Pawnee Loup), according to Omaha tradition,24formerly dwelt east of the Mississippi River, where they were the allies of the Arikara, Omaha, Ponka, etc. After their passage of the Missouri they were conquered by the Grand Pawnee, Tapage, and Republican tribes, with whom they have remained to this day. De L’Isle25gives twelve Panimaha villages on the Missouri River north of the Pani villages on the Kansas River.
Southern group.—This includes the Caddo, Wichita, Kichai, and other tribes or villages which were formerly in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Indian Territory.
The Caddo and Kichai have undoubtedly been removed from their priscan habitats, but the Wichita, judging from the survival of local names (Washita River, Indian Territory, Wichita Falls, Texas) and the statement of La Harpe,26are now in or near one of their early abodes. Dr. Sibley27locates the Caddo habitat 35 miles west of the main branch of Red River, being 120 miles by land from Natchitoches, and they formerly lived 375 miles higher up. Cornell’s Atlas (1870) places Caddo Lake in the northwest corner of Louisiana, in Caddo County. It also gives both Washita and Witchita as the name of a tributary of Red River of Louisiana. This duplication of names seems to show that the Wichita migrated from northwestern Louisiana and southwestern Arkansas to the Indian Territory. After comparing the statements of Dr. Sibley (as above) respecting the habitats of the Anadarko, loni, Nabadache, and Eyish with those of Schermerhorn respecting the Kädo hadatco,28of Le Page Du Pratz (1758) concerning the Natchitoches, of Tonti29and La Harpe30about the Yatasi, of La Harpe (as above) about the Wichita, and of Sibley concerning the Kichai, we are led to fix upon the following as the approximate boundaries of the habitat of the southern group of the Caddoan family: Beginning on the northwest with that part of Indian Territory now occupied by the Wichita, Chickasaw, and Kiowa and Comanche Reservations, and running along the southern border of the Choctaw Reservation to the Arkansas line; thence due east to the headwaters of Washita or Witchita River, Polk County, Arkansas; thence through Arkansas and Louisiana along the western bank of that river to its mouth; thence southwest through Louisiana striking the Sabine River near Salem and Belgrade; thence southwest through Texas to Tawakonay Creek, and along that stream to the Brazos River; thence following that stream to Palo Pinto, Texas; thence northwest to the mouth of the North Fork of Red River; and thence to the beginning.
(Ki-¢i´-tcac, Omaha pronunciation of the name of a Pawnee tribe,Ki-dhi´-chash or Ki-ri´-chash).
Population.—The present number of the Caddoan stock is 2,259, of whom 447 are on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and the rest in the Indian Territory, some on the Ponca, Pawnee, and Otoe Reservation, the others on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation. Below is given the population of the tribes officially recognized, compiled chiefly from the Indian Report for 1889:
= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.,I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers language different from any of its neighbors).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).
= Chimakum, Gibbs in Pac. R. R. Rep.,I, 431, 1855 (family doubtful).
= Chemakum, Eells in Am. Antiquarian, 52, Oct., 1880 (considers language different from any of its neighbors).
< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (Chinakum included in this group).
< Nootka, Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains Chimakum).
Derivation unknown.
Concerning this language Gibbs, as above cited, states as follows:
The language of the Chimakum “differs materially from either that of the Clallams or the Nisqually, and is not understood by any of their neighbors. In fact, they seem to have maintained it a State secret. To what family it will ultimately be referred, cannot now be decided.”
Eells also asserts the distinctness of this language from any of its neighbors. Neither of the above authors assigned the language family rank, and accordingly Mr. Gatschet, who has made a comparison of vocabularies and finds the language to be quite distinct from any other, gives it the above name.
The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about seventy individuals. This small remnant occupied some fifteen small lodges on Port Townsend Bay. According to Gibbs “their territory seems to have embraced the shore from Port Townsend to Port Ludlow.”31In 1884 there were, according toMr. Myron Eells, about twenty individuals left, most of whom are living near Port Townsend, Washington. Three or four live upon the Skokomish Reservation at the southern end of Hood’s Canal.
The Quile-ute, of whom in 1889 there were 252 living on the Pacific south of Cape Flattery, belong to the family. The Hoh, a sub-tribe of the latter, number 71 and are under the Puyallup Agency.
The following tribes are recognized:
= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 474, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).
= Chim-a-ri´-ko, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 474, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 255, April, 1882 (stated to be a distinct family).
According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe, living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival of the Americans only twenty-five of the Chimalakwe were left. In 1875 Powers collected a Chimariko vocabulary of about two hundred words from a woman, supposed to be one of the last three women of that tribe. In 1889 Mr. Curtin, while in Hoopa Valley, found a Chimariko man seventy or more years old, who is believed to be one of the two living survivors of the tribe. Mr. Curtin obtained a good vocabulary and much valuable information relative to the former habitat and history of the tribe. Although a study of these vocabularies reveals a number of words having correspondences with the Kulanapan (Pomo) equivalents, yet the greater number show no affinities with the dialects of the latter family, or indeed with any other. The family is therefore classed as distinct.
= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (between 53° 30' and 55° 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok, Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 401, 1862.= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (published in 1870).Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 39, 40, 1877 (probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 607, 1882.= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of family).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (includes Chimmesyans).X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (same as his Northern family).< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848 (including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present family).
= Chimmesyan, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (between 53° 30' and 55° 30' N.L.). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860.
Chemmesyan, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (includes Naaskok, Chemmesyan, Kitshatlah, Kethumish). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860. Latham, Elements Comp. Phil., 401, 1862.
= Chymseyans, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of tribes of N.W. coast classified by languages).
= Chimayans, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 487, 1855 (gives Kane’s list but with many orthographical changes). Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 269, 1869 (published in 1870).Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 39, 40, 1877 (probably distinct from T’linkets). Bancroft, Native Races,III, 564, 607, 1882.
= Tshimsian, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14-25, 1884.
= Tsimpsi-an´, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 379, 1885 (mere mention of family).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (includes Chimmesyans).
X Haidah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 220, 1841 (same as his Northern family).
< Naas, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848 (including Chimmesyan). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
< Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.
= Nasse, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 40, 1877 (or Chimsyan).
< Nass, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 606, 1882 (includes Nass and Sebassa Indians of this family, also Hailtza).
= Hydahs, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 473, 1878 (includes Tsimsheeans, Nass, Skeenas, Sebasses of present family).
Derivation: From the Chimsian ts’em, “on;” kcian, “main river:” “On the main (Skeena) river.”
This name appears in a paper of Latham’s published in 1848. To it is referred a vocabulary of Tolmie’s. The area where it is spoken is said by Latham to be 50° 30' and 55° 30'. The name has become established by long usage, and it is chiefly on this account that it has been given preference over the Naas of Gallatin of the same year. The latter name was given by Gallatin to a group of languages now known to be not related, viz, Hailstla, Haceltzuk Billechola, and Chimeysan. Billechola belongs under Salishan, a family name of Gallatin’s of 1836.
Were it necessary to take Naas as a family name it would best apply to Chimsian, it being the name of a dialect and village of Chimsian Indians, while it has no pertinency whatever to Hailstla and Haceltzuk, which are closely related and belong to a family quite distinct from the Chimmesyan. As stated above, however, the term Naas is rejected in favor of Chimmesyan of the same date.
For the boundaries of this family the linguistic map published by Tolmie and Dawson, in 1884, is followed.
Following is a list of the Chimmesyan tribes, according to Boas:32
Population.—The Canadian Indian Report for 1888 records a total for all the tribes of this family of 5,000. In the fall of 1887 about 1,000 of these Indians, in charge of Mr. William Duncan, removedto Annette Island, about 60 miles north of the southern boundary of Alaska, near Port Chester, where they have founded a new settlement called New Metlakahtla. Here houses have been erected, day and industrial schools established, and the Indians are understood to be making remarkable progress in civilization.