= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 335, 1841 (includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599, 617, 1859, (follows Scouler).= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,Ipt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 639, 1883.X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain relationship to Calapooya).Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooiah, inhabiting “the fertile Willamat plains” and the Yamkallie, who live “more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.” Scouler adds that the Umpqua “appear to belong to this Family, although their language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than the Yamkallie is.” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascan family. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascon tribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan.The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to theheadwaters of that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River, being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently were not met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat were derived solely from natives.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Ahántchuyuk(Pudding River Indians).Atfálati.Calapooya.Chelamela.Lákmiut.Santiam.Yámil.Population.—So far as known the surviving Indians of this family are all at the Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon.The following is a census for 1890:Atfálati28Calapooya22Lákmiut29Mary’s River28Santiam27Yámil30Yonkalla7Total171KARANKAWAN FAMILY.= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus,XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in Science, 414, April 9, 1887.The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). In 1804 this author, upon hearsay evidence, stated their number to be 500 men.56In several places in the paper cited it is explicitly stated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa was a coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered.The vocabulary is unsatisfactory, not only because of its meagerness, but because most of the terms are unimportant for comparison. Nevertheless, such as it is, it represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as the linguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the language provisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than to accept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially as we know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed his statement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language.A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivors of this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe has been discovered and it is probable that not one is now living.KERESAN FAMILY.> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856 (includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate, Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 417, 1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and gives linguistic literature).= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479, 1878.= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Cochite, Sille).= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (misprint; follows Lane).= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (same as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).Derivation unknown. The name is pronounced with an explosive initial sound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris.Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies of Kiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma.The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande.VILLAGES.Acoma.Acomita.57Cochití.Hasatch.Laguna.Paguate.Pueblito.57Punyeestye.Punyekia.Pusityitcho.San Felipe.Santa Ana.Santo Domingo.Seemunah.Sia.Wapuchuseamma.Ziamma.Population.—According to the census of 1890 the total population of the villages of the family is 3,560, distributed as follows:Acoma58566Cochití268Laguna591,143Santa Ana253San Felipe554Santo Domingo670Sia106KIOWAN FAMILY.= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (on upper waters Arkansas).= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than aught else”).= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics of).Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning “Káyowe man.” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat.”The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the loss of Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas and Kaskaias languages were harsh, guttural, and extremely difficult.”60Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieut. Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe.So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comanches were assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, both resigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims and rights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of the eastern boundary of New Mexico.The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership of territory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined the Comanche on the northwest. In fact Pope61definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned them upon the map.62This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne and Arapaho of Algonquian stock.Population.—According to the United States census for 1890 there are 1,140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.KITUNAHAN FAMILY.= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52° and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with Kitunaha).= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882.= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary of Upper Kootenuha).= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877.= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha, Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River, a branch of the Columbia in Oregon.Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of the language spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southern portions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are not sufficient to definitely settle the question.The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between the northern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along the Cootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied by these tribes is in British Columbia.TRIBES.The principal divisions or tribes are Cootenai, or Upper Cootenai; Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai; Klanoh-Klatklam, or Flathead Cootenai; Yaketahnoklatakmakanay, or Tobacco Plains Cootenai.Population.—There are about 425 Cootenai at Flathead Agency, Montana, and 539 at Kootenay Agency, British Columbia; total, 964.KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848, (Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham, Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 433, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 231, 1848.< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas, Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as “doubtful Kolúches”).= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family with short vocabulary).= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and population).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841 (includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 489, 1855.= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of N.W. coast tribes classified by language).= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann, 676, 1859).= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 1877 (divided into Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes, Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas, Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 562, 579, 1882.= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and gives population).Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning “dish,” the allusion being to the dish-shaped lip ornaments.This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacent coast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude.”In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies to the Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as the Kinai, are more marked than in any other.The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially in accordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southern boundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by the census agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farther north than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Prince of Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal, indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouth of Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have been supposed to be exclusivelyan insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawson has made the interesting discovery63that the Tagish, a tribe living inland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto been supposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family. This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, which for the most part limits the extension of this people inland and confines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanent foothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboring Athapascan tribes.TRIBES.Auk.Chilcat.Hanega.Hoodsunu.Hunah.Kek.Sitka.Stahkin.Tagish.Taku.Tongas.Yakutat.Population.—The following figures are from the census of 1880.64The total population of the tribes of this family, exclusive of the Tagish, is 6,437, distributed as follows:Auk640Chilcat988Hanega (including Kouyon and Klanak)587Hoodsunu666Hunah908Kek568Sitka721Stahkin317Taku269Tongas273Yakutat500KULANAPAN FAMILY.X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 431, 1853 (the name of one of the Clear Lake bands).> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1863 (as above).> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly,IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro, Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana, Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto, Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos, Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah, Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios, Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju. Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).The name applied to this family was first employed by Gibbs in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is the “name of one of theClear Lake bands,” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupying the large valley.” The distinctness of the language is now generally admitted.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on the north by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of this family, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located in the valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, and on the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow strip to the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the main body by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north by the warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language and many of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to have extensively intermarried with them.TRIBES.Balló Kaì Pomo, “Oat Valley People.”Batemdikáyi.Búldam Pomo (Rio Grande or Big River).Chawishek.Choam Chadila Pomo (Capello).Chwachamajù.Dápishul Pomo (Redwood Cañon).Eastern People (Clear Lake about Lakeport).Erío (mouth of Russian River).Erússi (Fort Ross).Gallinoméro (Russian River Valley below Cloverdale and in Dry Creek Valley).Grualála (northwest corner of Sonoma County).Kabinapek (western part of Clear Lake basin).Kaimé (above Healdsburgh).Kai Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).Kastel Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).Kato Pomo, “Lake People.”Komácho (Anderson and Rancheria Valleys).Kulá Kai Pomo (Sherwood Valley).Kulanapo.Láma (Russian River Valley).Misálamagūn or Musakakūn (above Healdsburgh).Mitoám Kai Pomo, “Wooded Valley People” (Little Lake).Poam Pomo.Senel (Russian River Valley).Shódo Kaí Pomo (Coyote Valley).Síako (Russian River Valley).Sokóa (Russian River Valley).Yokáya Pomo, “Lower Valley People” (Ukiah City).Yusâl (or Kámalel) Pomo, “Ocean People” (on coast and along Yusal Creek).KUSAN FAMILY.= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.Derivation: Milhau, in a manuscript letter to Gibbs (Bureau of Ethnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to mean lake, lagoon or inland bay.”The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet.65Lewis and Clarke66also mention them in the same location as the Cookkoo-oose. The tribe was referred to also under the name Kaus by Latham,67who did not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for the purpose.Mr. Gatschet, as above, distinguishes the language as forming a distinct stock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River and Bay, and at the mouth of Coquille River, Oregon.TRIBES.Anasitch.Melukitz.Mulluk or Lower Coquille.Nacu?.Population.—Most of the survivors of this family are gathered upon the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated as the agency returns are not given by tribes.LUTUAMIAN FAMILY.= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami).= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach. Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general remarks upon family).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs, Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots, Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct families). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan family).= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,II, pt. 1,XXXIII, 1890.Derivation: From a Pit River word meaning “lake.”The tribes of this family appear from time immemorial to have occupied Little and Upper Klamath Lakes, Klamath Marsh, and Sprague River, Oregon. Some of the Modoc have been removed to the Indian Territory, where 84 now reside; others are in Sprague River Valley.The language is a homogeneous one and, according to Mr. Gatschet who has made a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions of the family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language.The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people.” The Modoc are termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people.”TRIBES.Klamath.Modoc.Population.—There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on theKlamathReservation in 1889. Since then they have slightly decreased.MARIPOSAN FAMILY.> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid., 570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches, Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.Derivation: A Spanish word meaning “butterfly,” applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name.Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. On the north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of its junction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeast corner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on the west by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middle of the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on the south, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along the foothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shore of Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from the southeast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of the Sierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On the east the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposan boundary.In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the eastern bank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of the Mariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the San Joaquin turns to the west before entering Suisun Bay.TRIBES.Ayapaì (Tule River).Chainímaini (lower King’s River).Chukaímina (Squaw Valley).Chūk’chansi (San Joaquin River above Millerton).Ćhunut (Kaweah River at the lake).Coconūn´ (Merced River).Ititcha (King’s River).Kassovo (Day Creek).Kau-í-a (Kaweah River; foothills).Kiawétni (Tule River at Porterville).Mayáyu (Tule River, south fork).Notoánaiti (on the lake).Ochíngita (Tule River).Pitkachì (extinct; San Joaquin River below Millerton).Pohállin Tinleh (near Kern lake).Sawákhtu (Tule River, south fork).Táchi (Kingston).Télumni (Kaweah River below Visalia).Tínlinneh (Fort Tejon).Tisèchu (upper King’s River).Wíchikik (King’s River).Wikchúmni (Kaweah River; foothills).Wíksachi (upper Kaweah Valley).Yúkol (Kaweah River plains).Population.—There are 145 of the Indians of this family now attached to the Mission Agency, California.MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 421, 1853 (mentioned as a band and dialect).> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856 (includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi, Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band ofAplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyemvocabulary, Cocouyem and Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras, Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco). Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same as above).= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches, Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County, California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is Wakalumitoh.The Talatui mentioned by Hale68as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an incomplete vocabulary.It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the nextgroup, especially in that of the Ruslen.”He adds: “Nevertheless, for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be distinct.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Miwok division:Awani.Chauchila.Chumidok.Chumtiwa.Chumuch.Chumwit.Hettitoya.Kani.Lopolatimne.Machemni.Mokelumni.Newichumni.Olowidok.Olowit.Olowiya.Sakaiakumni.Seroushamne.Talatui.Tamoleka.Tumidok.Tumun.Walakumni.Yuloni.Olamentke division:Bollanos.Chokuyem.Guimen.Likatuit.Nicassias.Numpali.Olamentke.Olumpali.Sonomi.Tamal.Tulare.Utchium.Population.—Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive, and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate census has not been taken.In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a woman.MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 94, 306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles, Hitchittees).> Muskhogies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 50, 1884 (general account of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 119, 1836.> Chocta-Muskhog, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with reference to migration).> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 100, 306, 1836 (or Choctaws).> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs or Flatheads).> Tschahtas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs, Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or Choktahs).> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above New Orleans).Derivation: From the name of the principal tribe of the Creek Confederacy.In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, who lived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula of Florida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies, that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under this family. In fact, he called69the family Choctaw Muskhogee. In deference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were kept separate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to be fully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in 1836, and calls the family the Chocta-Muskhog.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The area occupied by this family was very extensive. It may be described in a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlantic west to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to the Tennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribes except the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some small settlements of Shawni.Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creek claimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasi are believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.70The territorial line between the Muskhogean family and the Catawba tribe in South Carolina can only be conjectured.It seems probable that the whole peninsula of Florida was at one time held by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when the Apalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also were forced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasi were the only Indians that held possession of the Floridian peninsula.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Alibamu.Apalachi.Chicasa.Choctaw.Creek or Maskoki proper.Koasáti.Seminole.Yamacraw.Yamasi.Population.—There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory, an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at 9,996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539; of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.There are four families of Koasáti, about twenty-five individuals, near the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are known to survive.NATCHESAN FAMILY.> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 95, 806, 1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 403, 1847.> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the Utchees).> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am. Antiq.,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 33, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).The Na’htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago.71The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na’htchi was the principal.Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the “Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in 1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic isolation of the language.Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward.72The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, themissionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na’htchi.The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Na’htchi.Taensa.Population.—There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.PALAIHNIHAN FAMILY.
= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 335, 1841 (includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599, 617, 1859, (follows Scouler).= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,Ipt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 639, 1883.X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain relationship to Calapooya).Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooiah, inhabiting “the fertile Willamat plains” and the Yamkallie, who live “more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.” Scouler adds that the Umpqua “appear to belong to this Family, although their language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than the Yamkallie is.” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascan family. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascon tribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan.The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to theheadwaters of that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River, being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently were not met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat were derived solely from natives.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Ahántchuyuk(Pudding River Indians).Atfálati.Calapooya.Chelamela.Lákmiut.Santiam.Yámil.Population.—So far as known the surviving Indians of this family are all at the Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon.The following is a census for 1890:Atfálati28Calapooya22Lákmiut29Mary’s River28Santiam27Yámil30Yonkalla7Total171KARANKAWAN FAMILY.= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus,XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in Science, 414, April 9, 1887.The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). In 1804 this author, upon hearsay evidence, stated their number to be 500 men.56In several places in the paper cited it is explicitly stated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa was a coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered.The vocabulary is unsatisfactory, not only because of its meagerness, but because most of the terms are unimportant for comparison. Nevertheless, such as it is, it represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as the linguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the language provisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than to accept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially as we know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed his statement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language.A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivors of this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe has been discovered and it is probable that not one is now living.KERESAN FAMILY.> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856 (includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate, Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 417, 1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and gives linguistic literature).= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479, 1878.= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Cochite, Sille).= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (misprint; follows Lane).= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (same as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).Derivation unknown. The name is pronounced with an explosive initial sound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris.Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies of Kiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma.The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande.VILLAGES.Acoma.Acomita.57Cochití.Hasatch.Laguna.Paguate.Pueblito.57Punyeestye.Punyekia.Pusityitcho.San Felipe.Santa Ana.Santo Domingo.Seemunah.Sia.Wapuchuseamma.Ziamma.Population.—According to the census of 1890 the total population of the villages of the family is 3,560, distributed as follows:Acoma58566Cochití268Laguna591,143Santa Ana253San Felipe554Santo Domingo670Sia106KIOWAN FAMILY.= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (on upper waters Arkansas).= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than aught else”).= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics of).Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning “Káyowe man.” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat.”The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the loss of Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas and Kaskaias languages were harsh, guttural, and extremely difficult.”60Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieut. Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe.So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comanches were assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, both resigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims and rights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of the eastern boundary of New Mexico.The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership of territory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined the Comanche on the northwest. In fact Pope61definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned them upon the map.62This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne and Arapaho of Algonquian stock.Population.—According to the United States census for 1890 there are 1,140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.KITUNAHAN FAMILY.= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52° and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with Kitunaha).= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882.= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary of Upper Kootenuha).= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877.= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha, Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River, a branch of the Columbia in Oregon.Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of the language spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southern portions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are not sufficient to definitely settle the question.The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between the northern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along the Cootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied by these tribes is in British Columbia.TRIBES.The principal divisions or tribes are Cootenai, or Upper Cootenai; Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai; Klanoh-Klatklam, or Flathead Cootenai; Yaketahnoklatakmakanay, or Tobacco Plains Cootenai.Population.—There are about 425 Cootenai at Flathead Agency, Montana, and 539 at Kootenay Agency, British Columbia; total, 964.KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848, (Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham, Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 433, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 231, 1848.< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas, Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as “doubtful Kolúches”).= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family with short vocabulary).= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and population).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841 (includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 489, 1855.= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of N.W. coast tribes classified by language).= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann, 676, 1859).= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 1877 (divided into Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes, Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas, Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 562, 579, 1882.= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and gives population).Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning “dish,” the allusion being to the dish-shaped lip ornaments.This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacent coast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude.”In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies to the Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as the Kinai, are more marked than in any other.The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially in accordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southern boundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by the census agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farther north than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Prince of Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal, indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouth of Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have been supposed to be exclusivelyan insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawson has made the interesting discovery63that the Tagish, a tribe living inland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto been supposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family. This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, which for the most part limits the extension of this people inland and confines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanent foothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboring Athapascan tribes.TRIBES.Auk.Chilcat.Hanega.Hoodsunu.Hunah.Kek.Sitka.Stahkin.Tagish.Taku.Tongas.Yakutat.Population.—The following figures are from the census of 1880.64The total population of the tribes of this family, exclusive of the Tagish, is 6,437, distributed as follows:Auk640Chilcat988Hanega (including Kouyon and Klanak)587Hoodsunu666Hunah908Kek568Sitka721Stahkin317Taku269Tongas273Yakutat500KULANAPAN FAMILY.X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 431, 1853 (the name of one of the Clear Lake bands).> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1863 (as above).> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly,IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro, Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana, Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto, Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos, Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah, Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios, Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju. Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).The name applied to this family was first employed by Gibbs in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is the “name of one of theClear Lake bands,” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupying the large valley.” The distinctness of the language is now generally admitted.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on the north by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of this family, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located in the valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, and on the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow strip to the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the main body by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north by the warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language and many of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to have extensively intermarried with them.TRIBES.Balló Kaì Pomo, “Oat Valley People.”Batemdikáyi.Búldam Pomo (Rio Grande or Big River).Chawishek.Choam Chadila Pomo (Capello).Chwachamajù.Dápishul Pomo (Redwood Cañon).Eastern People (Clear Lake about Lakeport).Erío (mouth of Russian River).Erússi (Fort Ross).Gallinoméro (Russian River Valley below Cloverdale and in Dry Creek Valley).Grualála (northwest corner of Sonoma County).Kabinapek (western part of Clear Lake basin).Kaimé (above Healdsburgh).Kai Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).Kastel Pomo (between Eel River and South Fork).Kato Pomo, “Lake People.”Komácho (Anderson and Rancheria Valleys).Kulá Kai Pomo (Sherwood Valley).Kulanapo.Láma (Russian River Valley).Misálamagūn or Musakakūn (above Healdsburgh).Mitoám Kai Pomo, “Wooded Valley People” (Little Lake).Poam Pomo.Senel (Russian River Valley).Shódo Kaí Pomo (Coyote Valley).Síako (Russian River Valley).Sokóa (Russian River Valley).Yokáya Pomo, “Lower Valley People” (Ukiah City).Yusâl (or Kámalel) Pomo, “Ocean People” (on coast and along Yusal Creek).KUSAN FAMILY.= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.Derivation: Milhau, in a manuscript letter to Gibbs (Bureau of Ethnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to mean lake, lagoon or inland bay.”The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet.65Lewis and Clarke66also mention them in the same location as the Cookkoo-oose. The tribe was referred to also under the name Kaus by Latham,67who did not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for the purpose.Mr. Gatschet, as above, distinguishes the language as forming a distinct stock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River and Bay, and at the mouth of Coquille River, Oregon.TRIBES.Anasitch.Melukitz.Mulluk or Lower Coquille.Nacu?.Population.—Most of the survivors of this family are gathered upon the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated as the agency returns are not given by tribes.LUTUAMIAN FAMILY.= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami).= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach. Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general remarks upon family).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs, Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots, Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct families). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan family).= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,II, pt. 1,XXXIII, 1890.Derivation: From a Pit River word meaning “lake.”The tribes of this family appear from time immemorial to have occupied Little and Upper Klamath Lakes, Klamath Marsh, and Sprague River, Oregon. Some of the Modoc have been removed to the Indian Territory, where 84 now reside; others are in Sprague River Valley.The language is a homogeneous one and, according to Mr. Gatschet who has made a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions of the family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language.The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people.” The Modoc are termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people.”TRIBES.Klamath.Modoc.Population.—There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on theKlamathReservation in 1889. Since then they have slightly decreased.MARIPOSAN FAMILY.> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid., 570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches, Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.Derivation: A Spanish word meaning “butterfly,” applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name.Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. On the north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of its junction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeast corner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on the west by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middle of the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on the south, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along the foothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shore of Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from the southeast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of the Sierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On the east the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposan boundary.In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the eastern bank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of the Mariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the San Joaquin turns to the west before entering Suisun Bay.TRIBES.Ayapaì (Tule River).Chainímaini (lower King’s River).Chukaímina (Squaw Valley).Chūk’chansi (San Joaquin River above Millerton).Ćhunut (Kaweah River at the lake).Coconūn´ (Merced River).Ititcha (King’s River).Kassovo (Day Creek).Kau-í-a (Kaweah River; foothills).Kiawétni (Tule River at Porterville).Mayáyu (Tule River, south fork).Notoánaiti (on the lake).Ochíngita (Tule River).Pitkachì (extinct; San Joaquin River below Millerton).Pohállin Tinleh (near Kern lake).Sawákhtu (Tule River, south fork).Táchi (Kingston).Télumni (Kaweah River below Visalia).Tínlinneh (Fort Tejon).Tisèchu (upper King’s River).Wíchikik (King’s River).Wikchúmni (Kaweah River; foothills).Wíksachi (upper Kaweah Valley).Yúkol (Kaweah River plains).Population.—There are 145 of the Indians of this family now attached to the Mission Agency, California.MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 421, 1853 (mentioned as a band and dialect).> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856 (includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi, Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band ofAplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyemvocabulary, Cocouyem and Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras, Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco). Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same as above).= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches, Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County, California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is Wakalumitoh.The Talatui mentioned by Hale68as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an incomplete vocabulary.It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the nextgroup, especially in that of the Ruslen.”He adds: “Nevertheless, for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be distinct.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Miwok division:Awani.Chauchila.Chumidok.Chumtiwa.Chumuch.Chumwit.Hettitoya.Kani.Lopolatimne.Machemni.Mokelumni.Newichumni.Olowidok.Olowit.Olowiya.Sakaiakumni.Seroushamne.Talatui.Tamoleka.Tumidok.Tumun.Walakumni.Yuloni.Olamentke division:Bollanos.Chokuyem.Guimen.Likatuit.Nicassias.Numpali.Olamentke.Olumpali.Sonomi.Tamal.Tulare.Utchium.Population.—Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive, and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate census has not been taken.In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a woman.MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 94, 306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles, Hitchittees).> Muskhogies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 50, 1884 (general account of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 119, 1836.> Chocta-Muskhog, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with reference to migration).> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 100, 306, 1836 (or Choctaws).> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs or Flatheads).> Tschahtas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs, Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or Choktahs).> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above New Orleans).Derivation: From the name of the principal tribe of the Creek Confederacy.In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, who lived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula of Florida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies, that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under this family. In fact, he called69the family Choctaw Muskhogee. In deference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were kept separate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to be fully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in 1836, and calls the family the Chocta-Muskhog.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The area occupied by this family was very extensive. It may be described in a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlantic west to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to the Tennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribes except the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some small settlements of Shawni.Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creek claimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasi are believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.70The territorial line between the Muskhogean family and the Catawba tribe in South Carolina can only be conjectured.It seems probable that the whole peninsula of Florida was at one time held by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when the Apalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also were forced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasi were the only Indians that held possession of the Floridian peninsula.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Alibamu.Apalachi.Chicasa.Choctaw.Creek or Maskoki proper.Koasáti.Seminole.Yamacraw.Yamasi.Population.—There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory, an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at 9,996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539; of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.There are four families of Koasáti, about twenty-five individuals, near the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are known to survive.NATCHESAN FAMILY.> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 95, 806, 1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 403, 1847.> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the Utchees).> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am. Antiq.,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 33, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).The Na’htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago.71The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na’htchi was the principal.Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the “Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in 1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic isolation of the language.Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward.72The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, themissionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na’htchi.The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Na’htchi.Taensa.Population.—There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.PALAIHNIHAN FAMILY.
= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 335, 1841 (includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599, 617, 1859, (follows Scouler).= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,Ipt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 639, 1883.X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain relationship to Calapooya).
= Kalapooiah, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 335, 1841 (includes Kalapooiah and Yamkallie; thinks the Umpqua and Cathlascon languages are related). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 599, 617, 1859, (follows Scouler).
= Kalapuya, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 3217, 584, 1846 (of Willamet Valley above Falls). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,Ipt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Gallatin in Sohoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 617, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860. Gatschet in Mag. Arn. Hist., 167, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877.
> Calapooya, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 639, 1883.
X Chinooks, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (includes Calapooyas and Yamkally).
> Yamkally, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 630, 1883 (bears a certain relationship to Calapooya).
Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the Kalapooiah, inhabiting “the fertile Willamat plains” and the Yamkallie, who live “more in the interior, towards the sources of the Willamat River.” Scouler adds that the Umpqua “appear to belong to this Family, although their language is rather more remote from the Kalapooiah than the Yamkallie is.” The Umpqua language is now placed under the Athapascan family. Scouler also asserts the intimate relationship of the Cathlascon tribes to the Kalapooiah family. They are now classed as Chinookan.
The tribes of the Kalapooian family inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the falls, and extended well up to theheadwaters of that stream. They appear not to have reached the Columbia River, being cut off by tribes of the Chinookan family, and consequently were not met by Lewis and Clarke, whose statements of their habitat were derived solely from natives.
Population.—So far as known the surviving Indians of this family are all at the Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon.
The following is a census for 1890:
= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus,XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in Science, 414, April 9, 1887.
= Karánkawa, Gatschet in Globus,XLIX, No. 8, 123, 1886 (vocabulary of 25 terms; distinguished as a family provisionally). Gatschet in Science, 414, April 9, 1887.
The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St. Bernard (Matagorda Bay). In 1804 this author, upon hearsay evidence, stated their number to be 500 men.56In several places in the paper cited it is explicitly stated that the Karankawa spoke the Attakapa language; the Attakapa was a coast tribe living to the east of them. In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language he remembered.
The vocabulary is unsatisfactory, not only because of its meagerness, but because most of the terms are unimportant for comparison. Nevertheless, such as it is, it represents all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa but from all others. Unsatisfactory as the linguistic evidence is, it appears to be safer to class the language provisionally as a distinct family upon the strength of it than to accept Sibley’s statement of its identity with Attakapa, especially as we know nothing of the extent of his information or whether indeed his statement was based upon a personal knowledge of the language.
A careful search has been made with the hope of finding a few survivors of this family, but thus far not a single descendant of the tribe has been discovered and it is probable that not one is now living.
> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856 (includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate, Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 417, 1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and gives linguistic literature).= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479, 1878.= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Cochite, Sille).= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (misprint; follows Lane).= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (same as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).
> Keres, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 86-90, 1856 (includes Kiwomi, Cochitemi, Acoma).
= Kera, Powell in Rocky Mt. Presbyterian, Nov., 1878 (includes San Felipe, Santo Domingo, Cóchiti, Santa Aña, Cia, Acoma, Laguna, Povate, Hasatch, Mogino). Gratschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 417, 1879. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 259, 1883.
= Keran, Powell in Am. Nat., 604, Aug., 1880 (enumerates pueblos and gives linguistic literature).
= Queres, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Ana.), 479, 1878.
= Chu-cha-cas, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (includes Laguna, Acoma, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Cochite, Sille).
= Chu-cha-chas, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (misprint; follows Lane).
= Kes-whaw-hay, Lane in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 689, 1855 (same as Chu-cha-cas above). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 479, 1878 (follows Lane).
Derivation unknown. The name is pronounced with an explosive initial sound, and Ad. F. Bandelier spells it Qq’uêres, Quéra, Quéris.
Under this name Turner, as above quoted, includes the vocabularies of Kiwomi, Cochitemi, and Acoma.
The full list of pueblos of Keresan stock is given below. They are situated in New Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small western affluents, and on the Jemez and San José, which also are tributaries of the Rio Grande.
Population.—According to the census of 1890 the total population of the villages of the family is 3,560, distributed as follows:
= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (on upper waters Arkansas).= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than aught else”).= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics of).
= Kiaways, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (on upper waters Arkansas).
= Kioway, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 80, 1856 (based on the (Caigua) tribe only). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 432, 433, 1859. Latham, EL. Comp. Phil., 444, 1862 (“more Paduca than aught else”).
= Kayowe, Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 280, Oct., 1882 (gives phonetics of).
Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning “Káyowe man.” The Comanche term káyowe means “rat.”
The author who first formally separated this family appears to have been Turner. Gallatin mentions the tribe and remarks that owing to the loss of Dr. Say’s vocabularies “we only know that both the Kiowas and Kaskaias languages were harsh, guttural, and extremely difficult.”60Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary furnished by Lieut. Whipple, dissents from the opinion expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting that its relationship to Camanche is greater than to any other family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa tribe.
So intimately associated with the Comanches have the Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to determine their pristine home. By the Medicine Creek treaty of October 18, 1867, they and the Comanches were assigned their present reservation in the Indian Territory, both resigning all claims to other territory, especially their claims and rights in and to the country north of the Cimarron River and west of the eastern boundary of New Mexico.
The terms of the cession might be taken to indicate a joint ownership of territory, but it is more likely that the Kiowa territory adjoined the Comanche on the northwest. In fact Pope61definitely locates the Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in substantial accord with the statements of other writers of about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they appear upon the headwaters of the Platte, which is the region assigned them upon the map.62This region was occupied later by the Cheyenne and Arapaho of Algonquian stock.
Population.—According to the United States census for 1890 there are 1,140 Kiowa on the Kiowa, Comanche, and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.
= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52° and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with Kitunaha).= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882.= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary of Upper Kootenuha).= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877.= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).
= Kitunaha, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 535, 1846 (between the forks of the Columbia). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 77, 1848 (Flatbow). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1853. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 70, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 388, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (between 52° and 48° N.L., west of main ridge of Rocky Mountains). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (on Kootenay River).
= Coutanies, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha).
= Kútanis, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 316, 1850 (Kitunaha).
= Kituanaha, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Coutaria or Flatbows, north of lat. 49°).
= Kootanies, Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859.
= Kutani, Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha).
= Cootanie, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (synonymous with Kitunaha).
= Kootenai, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877 (defines area occupied). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 446, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882.
= Kootenuha, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 79-87, 1884 (vocabulary of Upper Kootenuha).
= Flatbow, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 204, 1846 (= Kitunaha). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 10, 77, 1848 (after Hale). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 395, 1862 (or Kitunaha). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 170, 1877.
= Flachbogen, Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Kootenais (Flatbows or Skalzi)).
This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha, Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River, a branch of the Columbia in Oregon.
Mr. Gatschet thinks it is probable that there are two dialects of the language spoken respectively in the extreme northern and southern portions of the territory occupied, but the vocabularies at hand are not sufficient to definitely settle the question.
The area occupied by the Kitunahan tribes is inclosed between the northern fork of the Columbia River, extending on the south along the Cootenay River. By far the greater part of the territory occupied by these tribes is in British Columbia.
The principal divisions or tribes are Cootenai, or Upper Cootenai; Akoklako, or Lower Cootenai; Klanoh-Klatklam, or Flathead Cootenai; Yaketahnoklatakmakanay, or Tobacco Plains Cootenai.
Population.—There are about 425 Cootenai at Flathead Agency, Montana, and 539 at Kootenay Agency, British Columbia; total, 964.
= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848, (Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham, Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 433, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 231, 1848.< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas, Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as “doubtful Kolúches”).= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family with short vocabulary).= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and population).X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841 (includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 489, 1855.= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of N.W. coast tribes classified by language).= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann, 676, 1859).= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 1877 (divided into Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes, Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas, Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 562, 579, 1882.= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and gives population).
= Koluschen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 14, 1836 (islands and adjacent coast from 60° to 55° N.L.).
= Koulischen, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848, (Koulischen and Sitka languages). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Sitka, bet. 52° and 59° lat.).
< Kolooch, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (tends to merge Kolooch into Esquimaux). Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond., 1, 163, 1848 (compared with Eskimo language.). Latham, Opuscula, 259, 276, 1860.
= Koluschians, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 433, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Scouler (1846) in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 231, 1848.
< Kolúch, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 294, 1850 (more likely forms a subdivision of Eskimo than a separate class; includes Kenay of Cook’s Inlet, Atna of Copper River, Koltshani, Ugalents, Sitkans, Tungaas, Inkhuluklait, Magimut, Inkalit; Digothi and Nehanni are classed as “doubtful Kolúches”).
= Koloschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 680, 1859. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Kolush, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 401, 1862 (mere mention of family with short vocabulary).
= Kaloshians, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (gives tribes and population).
X Northern, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 218, 1841 (includes Koloshes and Tun Ghasse).
X Haidah, Scouler, ibid, 219, 1841 (same as his Northern).
= Klen-ee-kate, Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,V, 489, 1855.
= Klen-e-kate, Kane, Wanderings of an Artist, app., 1859 (a census of N.W. coast tribes classified by language).
= Thlinkithen, Holmberg in Finland Soc., 284, 1856 (fide Buschmann, 676, 1859).
= Thl’nkets, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 268, 269, 1869 (divided into Sitka-kwan, Stahkin-kwan, “Yakutats”).
= T’linkets, Dall in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 36, 1877 (divided into Yăk´ūtăts, Chilkāht’-kwan, Sitka-kwan, Stākhin´-kwān, Kygāh´ni).
= Thlinkeet, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 462, 1878 (from Mount St. Elias to Nass River; includes Ugalenzes, Yakutats, Chilkats, Hoodnids, Hoodsinoos, Takoos, Auks, Kakas, Stikines, Eeliknûs, Tungass, Sitkas). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 562, 579, 1882.
= Thlinkit, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 14, 1884 (vocab. of Skutkwan Sept; also map showing distribution of family). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
= Tlinkit, Dall in Proc. Am. Ass., 375, 1885 (enumerates tribes and gives population).
Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly, kaluga, meaning “dish,” the allusion being to the dish-shaped lip ornaments.
This family was based by Gallatin upon the Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), “who inhabit the islands and the adjacent coast from the sixtieth to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude.”
In the Koluschan family, Gallatin observes that the remote analogies to the Mexican tongue to be found in several of the northern tribes, as the Kinai, are more marked than in any other.
The boundaries of this family as given by Gallatin are substantially in accordance with our present knowledge of the subject. The southern boundary is somewhat indeterminate owing to the fact, ascertained by the census agents in 1880, that the Haida tribes extend somewhat farther north than was formerly supposed and occupy the southeast half of Prince of Wales Island. About latitude 56°, or the mouth of Portland Canal, indicates the southern limit of the family, and 60°, or near the mouth of Atna River, the northern limit. Until recently they have been supposed to be exclusivelyan insular and coast people, but Mr. Dawson has made the interesting discovery63that the Tagish, a tribe living inland on the headwaters of the Lewis River, who have hitherto been supposed to be of Athapascan extraction, belong to the Koluschan family. This tribe, therefore, has crossed the coast range of mountains, which for the most part limits the extension of this people inland and confines them to a narrow coast strip, and have gained a permanent foothold in the interior, where they share the habits of the neighboring Athapascan tribes.
Population.—The following figures are from the census of 1880.64The total population of the tribes of this family, exclusive of the Tagish, is 6,437, distributed as follows:
X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 431, 1853 (the name of one of the Clear Lake bands).> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1863 (as above).> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly,IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro, Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana, Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto, Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos, Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah, Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios, Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju. Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).
X Kula-napo, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 431, 1853 (the name of one of the Clear Lake bands).
> Mendocino (?), Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 77, 1856 (name suggested for Choweshak, Batemdaikai, Kulanapo, Yukai, Khwaklamayu languages). Latham, Opuscula, 343, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 410, 1863 (as above).
> Pomo, Powers in Overland Monthly,IX, 498, Dec., 1873 (general description of habitat and of family). Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 146, 1877. Powell, ibid., 491 (vocabularies of Gal-li-no-mé-ro, Yo-kai´-a, Ba-tem-da-kaii, Chau-i-shek, Yu-kai, Ku-la-na-po, H’hana, Venaambakaiia, Ka´-bi-na-pek, Chwachamaju). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 16, 1877 (gives habitat and enumerates tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 436, 1877. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Castel Pomos, Ki, Cahto, Choam, Chadela, Matomey Ki, Usal or Calamet, Shebalne Pomos, Gallinomeros, Sanels, Socoas, Lamas, Comachos).
< Pomo, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 566, 1882 (includes Ukiah, Gallinomero, Masallamagoon, Gualala, Matole, Kulanapo, Sanél, Yonios, Choweshak, Batemdakaie, Chocuyem, Olamentke, Kainamare, Chwachamaju. Of these, Chocuyem and Olamentke are Moquelumnan).
The name applied to this family was first employed by Gibbs in 1853, as above cited. He states that it is the “name of one of theClear Lake bands,” adding that “the language is spoken by all the tribes occupying the large valley.” The distinctness of the language is now generally admitted.
The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and Copehan territories, on the north by the watershed of the Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California. Several tribes of this family, viz, the Kastel Pomo, Kai Pomo, and Kato Pomo, are located in the valley between the South Fork of Eel River and the main river, and on the headwaters of the South Fork, extending thence in a narrow strip to the ocean. In this situation they were entirely cut off from the main body by the intrusive Yuki tribes, and pressed upon from the north by the warlike Wailakki, who are said to have imposed their language and many of their customs upon them and as well doubtless to have extensively intermarried with them.
= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.
= Kúsa, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 257, 1883.
Derivation: Milhau, in a manuscript letter to Gibbs (Bureau of Ethnology), states that “Coos in the Rogue River dialect is said to mean lake, lagoon or inland bay.”
The “Kaus or Kwokwoos” tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the Clamet.65Lewis and Clarke66also mention them in the same location as the Cookkoo-oose. The tribe was referred to also under the name Kaus by Latham,67who did not attempt its classification, having in fact no material for the purpose.
Mr. Gatschet, as above, distinguishes the language as forming a distinct stock. It is spoken on the coast of middle Oregon, on Coos River and Bay, and at the mouth of Coquille River, Oregon.
Population.—Most of the survivors of this family are gathered upon the Siletz Reservation, Oregon, but their number can not be stated as the agency returns are not given by tribes.
= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami).= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach. Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general remarks upon family).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs, Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots, Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct families). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan family).= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,II, pt. 1,XXXIII, 1890.
= Lutuami, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (headwaters Klamath River and lake). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 17, 77, 1848 (follows Hale). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (headwaters Clamet River). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 310, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Luturim, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (misprint for Lutuami; based on Clamets language).
= Lutumani, Latham, Opuscula, 341, 1860 (misprint for Lutuami).
= Tlamatl, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Clamets, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (alternative of Lutuami).
= Klamath, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach. Ind. Misc., 439, 1877. Gatschet in Am. Antiq., 81-84, 1878 (general remarks upon family).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (a geographic group rather than a linguistic family; includes, in addition to the Klamath proper or Lutuami, the Yacons, Modocs, Copahs, Shastas, Palaiks, Wintoons, Eurocs, Cahrocs, Lototens, Weeyots, Wishosks, Wallies, Tolewahs, Patawats, Yukas, “and others between Eel River and Humboldt Bay.” The list thus includes several distinct families). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 640, 1882 (includes Lutuami or Klamath, Modoc and Copah, the latter belonging to the Copehan family).
= Klamath Indians of Southwestern Oregon, Gatschet in Cont, N.A. Eth.,II, pt. 1,XXXIII, 1890.
Derivation: From a Pit River word meaning “lake.”
The tribes of this family appear from time immemorial to have occupied Little and Upper Klamath Lakes, Klamath Marsh, and Sprague River, Oregon. Some of the Modoc have been removed to the Indian Territory, where 84 now reside; others are in Sprague River Valley.
The language is a homogeneous one and, according to Mr. Gatschet who has made a special study of it, has no real dialects, the two divisions of the family, Klamath and Modoc, speaking an almost identical language.
The Klamaths’ own name is É-ukshikni, “Klamath Lake people.” The Modoc are termed by the Klamath Módokni, “Southern people.”
Population.—There were 769 Klamath and Modoc on theKlamathReservation in 1889. Since then they have slightly decreased.
> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid., 570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches, Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.
> Mariposa, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 84, 1856 (Coconoons language, Mariposa County). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Philology, 416, 1862 (Coconoons of Mercede River).
= Yo´-kuts, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 369, 1877. Powell, ibid., 570 (vocabularies of Yo´-kuts, Wi´-chi-kik, Tin´-lin-neh, King’s River, Coconoons, Calaveras County).
= Yocut, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 158, 1877 (mentions Taches, Chewenee, Watooga, Chookchancies, Coconoons and others). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 432, 1877.
Derivation: A Spanish word meaning “butterfly,” applied to a county in California and subsequently taken for the family name.
Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to the Coconūn have been treated of under the family name Yokut. As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound basis, his name is here restored.
The territory of the Mariposan family is quite irregular in outline. On the north it is bounded by the Fresno River up to the point of its junction with the San Joaquin; thence by a line running to the northeast corner of the Salinan territory in San Benito County, California; on the west by a line running from San Benito to Mount Pinos. From the middle of the western shore of Tulare Lake to the ridge at Mount Pinos on the south, the Mariposan area is merely a narrow strip in and along the foothills. Occupying one-half of the western and all the southern shore of Tulare Lake, and bounded on the north by a line running from the southeast corner of Tulare Lake due east to the first great spur of the Sierra Nevada range is the territory of the intrusive Shoshoni. On the east the secondary range of the Sierra Nevada forms the Mariposan boundary.
In addition to the above a small strip of territory on the eastern bank of the San Joaquin is occupied by the Cholovone division of the Mariposan family, between the Tuolumne and the point where the San Joaquin turns to the west before entering Suisun Bay.
Population.—There are 145 of the Indians of this family now attached to the Mission Agency, California.
> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 421, 1853 (mentioned as a band and dialect).> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856 (includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi, Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band ofAplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyemvocabulary, Cocouyem and Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras, Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco). Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same as above).= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches, Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).
> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 421, 1853 (mentioned as a band and dialect).
> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856 (includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi, Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band ofAplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyemvocabulary, Cocouyem and Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras, Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco). Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same as above).
= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).
< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.
X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel, Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches, Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).
Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County, California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is Wakalumitoh.
The Talatui mentioned by Hale68as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an incomplete vocabulary.
It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the nextgroup, especially in that of the Ruslen.”He adds: “Nevertheless, for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be distinct.
The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.
Population.—Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive, and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate census has not been taken.
In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a woman.
> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 94, 306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles, Hitchittees).> Muskhogies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 50, 1884 (general account of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 119, 1836.> Chocta-Muskhog, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with reference to migration).> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 100, 306, 1836 (or Choctaws).> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs or Flatheads).> Tschahtas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs, Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or Choktahs).> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above New Orleans).
> Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 94, 306, 1836 (based upon Muskhogees, Hitchittees, Seminoles). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 1847 (includes Muskhogees, Seminoles, Hitchittees).
> Muskhogies, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Muscogee, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 471, 1878 (includes Muscogees proper, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Hitchittees, Coosadas or Coosas, Alibamons, Apalaches).
= Maskoki, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 50, 1884 (general account of family; four branches, Maskoki, Apalachian, Alibamu, Chahta). Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Choctaw Muskhogee, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 119, 1836.
> Chocta-Muskhog, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.
= Chata-Muskoki, Hale in Am. Antiq., 108, April, 1883 (considered with reference to migration).
> Chahtas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 100, 306, 1836 (or Choctaws).
> Chahtahs, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (or Choktahs or Flatheads).
> Tschahtas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Choctah, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 337, 1850 (includes Choctahs, Muscogulges, Muskohges). Latham in Trans. Phil. Soc. Lond., 103, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 366, 1860.
> Mobilian, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 349, 1840.
> Flat-heads, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 403, 1847 (Chahtahs or Choktahs).
> Coshattas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 349, 1850 (not classified).
> Humas, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 341, 1850 (east of Mississippi above New Orleans).
Derivation: From the name of the principal tribe of the Creek Confederacy.
In the Muskhogee family Gallatin includes the Muskhogees proper, who lived on the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers; the Hitchittees, living on the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers; and the Seminoles of the peninsula of Florida. It was his opinion, formed by a comparison of vocabularies, that the Choctaws and Chickasaws should also be classed under this family. In fact, he called69the family Choctaw Muskhogee. In deference, however, to established usage, the two tribes were kept separate in his table and upon the colored map. In 1848 he appears to be fully convinced of the soundness of the view doubtfully expressed in 1836, and calls the family the Chocta-Muskhog.
The area occupied by this family was very extensive. It may be described in a general way as extending from the Savannah River and the Atlantic west to the Mississippi, and from the Gulf of Mexico north to the Tennessee River. All of this territory was held by Muskhogean tribes except the small areas occupied by the Yuchi, Ná’htchi, and some small settlements of Shawni.
Upon the northeast Muskhogean limits are indeterminate. The Creek claimed only to the Savannah River; but upon its lower course the Yamasi are believed to have extended east of that river in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.70The territorial line between the Muskhogean family and the Catawba tribe in South Carolina can only be conjectured.
It seems probable that the whole peninsula of Florida was at one time held by tribes of Timuquanan connection; but from 1702 to 1708, when the Apalachi were driven out, the tribes of northern Florida also were forced away by the English. After that time the Seminole and the Yamasi were the only Indians that held possession of the Floridian peninsula.
Population.—There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory, an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.
So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at 9,996, these being principally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539; of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.
There are four families of Koasáti, about twenty-five individuals, near the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are known to survive.
> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 95, 806, 1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 403, 1847.> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the Utchees).> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am. Antiq.,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 33, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).
> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 95, 806, 1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 402, 403, 1847.
> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colapissas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the Utchees).
> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.
> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am. Antiq.,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 33, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).
The Na’htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago.71The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na’htchi was the principal.
Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.
The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the “Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in 1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic isolation of the language.
Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward.72The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.
D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, themissionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na’htchi.
The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.
Population.—There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.