= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in family sense).= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities). Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848. (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 601,1877 (vocabs.of A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa, Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (includes Palaiks).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of present family).Derivation: From the Klamath wordp’laikni, signifying “mountaineers” or “uplanders” (Gatschet).In two places73Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the shorter form of the name.Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,” * * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simplelanguages of the Sacramento.” He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related to the Sastean languages.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami (Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round Valley Reservation, California.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the following principal tribal divisions:74Achomâ´wi.Atua´mih.Chumâ´wa.Estake´wach.Hante´wa.Humâ´whi.Ilmâ´wi.Pakamalli?PIMAN FAMILY.= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427, 1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (defines area and gives habitat).Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and Sinaloa.The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological Society Journal, vol.XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol.III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was collected by Lieut. Whipple.Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with theMaricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly continuous to the Gila River.According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated.75PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Northern group:Opata.Papago.Pima.Southern group:Cahita.Cora.Tarahumara.Tepeguana.Population.—Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,76are Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.PUJUNAN FAMILY.> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 346, 1860.> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 282, 1877 (same as Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586 (vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,” Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 313, 1877 (distinguishes them from Maidu family).X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne, Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.77This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribeswere believed to be divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but language.”Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled later.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming them in in this direction.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Bayu.Boka.Eskin.Hélto.Hoak.Hoankut.Hololúpai.Koloma.Konkau.Kū´lmeh.Kulomum.Kwatóa.Nakum.Olla.Otaki.Paupákan.Pusúna.Taitchida.Tíshum.Toámtcha.Tosikoyo.Toto.Ustóma.Wapúmni.Wima.Yuba.QUORATEAN FAMILY.> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 423, 1853 (given as name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath and Salmon Rivers).= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid., 447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).< Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Cahrocs).Derivation: Name of a band at mouth of Salmon River, California. Etymology unknown.This family name is equivalent to the Cahroc or Karok of Powers and later authorities.In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remarkthat it is “The name of a band at the mouth of the Salmon, or Quoratem river.” He adds that “This latter name may perhaps be considered as proper to give to the family, should it be held one.” He defines the territory occupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluff creek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty or forty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point to point.”The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficiently formal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated by Gibbs.In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band, locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti and Lutuami areas.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, though the main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line.TRIBES.Ehnek.Karok.Pehtsik.Population.—According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in the region in 1889, the Indians of this family number about 600.SALINAN FAMILY.< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).Derivation: From river of same name.The language formerly spoken at the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtful position. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from each other, but from all other languages. Others have held that they represent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group of languages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearly that the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wise related to any other family.The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is a heterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than four distinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to this group, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco,” really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to the Mendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoan family mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslen and Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio, and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong within the drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied to them, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name.Population.—Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably never very populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, when first established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively 1,400 and 1,300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these converts were gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belonged to this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he was able to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of this family, and not all of these could speak their own language.SALISHAN FAMILY.> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 306, 1836 (or Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi, Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 618, 1882.> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab. of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884 (vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846 (includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale, Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper, Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl, Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 135, 306, 1836 (on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 427, 1847 (on Fraser River).> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856 (Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 224, 1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish of present family).X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (assigns Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives Tolmie’s vocabulary).> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same). Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas only; specimen vocabulary).> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of Noothlākimish).> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions Sātsq,Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (cited as including Billechola).> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap, Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits, Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including Klallems).X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums, Kwantlums, Teets of present family).X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains the following Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish, Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo, Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually, Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums, Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last being Salishan).> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).The extent of the Salish or Flathead family was unknown to Gallatin, as indeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which he gives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribe is stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the Columbia River, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s River or the most northern branch of Lewis’s River.” The former supposition was correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a single tribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, were considered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible as the familyname; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few words from the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given by Gallatin in Archæologia Americana,II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong under this family.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.Since Gallatin’s time, through the labors of Riggs, Hale, Tolmie, Dawson, Boas, and others, our knowledge of the territorial limits of this linguistic family has been greatly extended. The most southern outpost of the family, the Tillamook and Nestucca, were established on the coast of Oregon, about 50 miles to the south of the Columbia, where they were quite separated from their kindred to the north by the Chinookan tribes. Beginning on the north side of Shoalwater Bay, Salishan tribes held the entire northwestern part of Washington, including the whole of the Puget Sound region, except only the Macaw territory about Cape Flattery, and two insignificant spots, one near Port Townsend, the other on the Pacific coast to the south of Cape Flattery, which were occupied by Chimakuan tribes. Eastern Vancouver Island to about midway of its length was also held by Salishan tribes, while the great bulk of their territory lay on the mainland opposite and included much of the upper Columbia. On the south they were hemmed in mainly by the Shahaptian tribes. Upon the east Salishan tribes dwelt to a little beyond the Arrow Lakes and their feeder, one of the extreme north forks of the Columbia. Upon the southeast Salishan tribes extended into Montana, including the upper drainage of the Columbia. They were met here in 1804 by Lewis and Clarke. On the northeast Salish territory extended to about the fifty-third parallel. In the northwest it did not reach the Chilcat River.Within the territory thus indicated there is considerable diversity of customs and a greater diversity of language. The language is split into a great number of dialects, many of which are doubtless mutually unintelligible.The relationship of this family to the Wakashan is a very interesting problem. Evidences of radical affinity have been discovered by Boas and Gatschet, and the careful study of their nature and extent now being prosecuted by the former may result in the union of the two, though until recently they have been considered quite distinct.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Atnah.Bellacoola.Chehalis.Clallam.Colville.Comux.Copalis.Cowichin.Cowlitz.Dwamish.Kwantlen.Lummi.Met´how.Nanaimo.Nanoos.Nehalim.Nespelum.Nicoutamuch.Nisqualli.Nuksahk.Okinagan.Pend d’Oreilles.Pentlatc.Pisquow.Puyallup.Quaitso.Queniut.Queptlmamish.Sacumehu.Sahewamish.Salish.Samamish.Samish.Sanetch.Sans Puell.Satsop.Sawamish.Sekamish.Shomamish.Shooswap.Shotlemamish.Skagit.Skihwamish.Skitsuish.Skokomish.Skopamish.Sktehlmish.Smulkamish.Snohomish.Snoqualmi.Soke.Songish.Spokan.Squawmisht.Squaxon.Squonamish.Stehtsasamish.Stillacum.Sumass.Suquamish.Swinamish.Tait.Tillamook.Twana.Population.—The total Salish population of British Columbia is 12,325, inclusive of the Bellacoola, who number, with the Hailtzuk, 2,500, and those in the list of unclassified, who number 8,522, distributed as follows:Under the Fraser River Agency, 4,986; Kamloops Agency, 2,579; Cowichan Agency, 1,852; Okanagan Agency, 942; Williams Lake Agency, 1,918; Kootenay Agency, 48.Most of the Salish in the United States are on reservations. They number about 5,500, including a dozen small tribes upon the Yakama Reservation, which have been consolidated with the Clickatat (Shahaptian) through intermarriage. The Salish of the United States are distributed as follows (Indian Affairs Report, 1889, and U.S. Census Bulletin, 1890):Colville Agency, Washington, Coeur d’ Alene, 422; Lower Spokane, 417; Lake, 303; Colville, 247; Okinagan, 374; Kespilem, 67; San Pueblo (Sans Puell), 300; Calispel, 200; Upper Spokane, 170.Puyallup Agency, Washington, Quaitso, 82; Quinaielt (Queniut), 101; Humptulip, 19; Puyallup, 563; Chehalis, 135; Nisqually, 94; Squaxon, 60; Clallam, 351; Skokomish, 191; Oyhut, Hoquiam, Montesano, and Satsup, 29.Tulalip Agency, Washington, Snohomish, 443; Madison, 144; Muckleshoot, 103; Swinomish, 227; Lummi, 295.Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon, Tillamook, 5.SASTEAN FAMILY.= Saste, Hale in U. S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 572, 1859.= Shasty, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (= Saste). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 573, 1859 (= Saste).= Shasties, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (= Saste). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Shasti, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (southwest of Lutuami). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham, ibid, 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860 (allied to both Shoshonean and Shahaptian families). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Shaste, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (mentions Watsa-he’-wa, a Scott’s River band).= Sasti, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (= Shasties).= Shasta, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 607, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Shas-ti-ka, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 243, 1877.= Shasta, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (= Shasteecas).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (includes Palaik, Watsahewah, Shasta).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (contains Shastas of present family).Derivation: The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath tribes. He calls the tribe indifferently Shasties or Shasty, but the form applied by him to the family (see pp. 218, 569) is Saste, which accordingly is the one taken.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland, Oregon.SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY.X Shahaptan, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc.,XI, 225, 1841 (three tribes, Shahaptan or Nez-percés, Kliketat, Okanagan; the latter being Salishan).< Shahaptan, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (two classes, Nez-perces proper of mountains, and Polanches of plains; includes also Kliketat and Okanagan).> Sahaptin, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 198, 212, 542, 1846 (Shahaptin or Nez-percés, Wallawallas, Pelooses, Yakemas, Klikatats). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 14, 1848 (follows Hale). Gallatin, ibid.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (Nez-percés only). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Nez-perces and Wallawallas). Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Taitinapam and Kliketat).> Saptin, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (or Shahaptan).< Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (includes Wallawallas, Kliketat, Proper Sahaptin or Nez-percés, Pelús, Yakemas, Cayús?). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (includes Waiilatpu). Buschmann, Spuren deraztek. Sprache, 614, 615, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860 (as in 1856). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (vocabularies Sahaptin, Wallawalla, Kliketat). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Palouse, Walla Wallas, Yakimas, Tairtlas, Kliketats or Pshawanwappams, Cayuse, Mollale; the two last are Waiilatpuan).= Sahaptin, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 168, 1877 (defines habitat and enumerates tribes of). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 620, 1882.> Shahaptani, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 78, 1884 (Whulwhaipum tribe).< Nez-percés, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (see Shahaptan). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (see his Sahaptin).X Seliah, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama which belongs here).Derivation: From a Selish word of unknown significance.The Shahaptan family of Scouler comprised three tribes—the Shahaptan or Nez Percés, the Kliketat, a scion of the Shahaptan, dwelling near Mount Ranier, and the Okanagan, inhabiting the upper part of Fraser River and its tributaries; “these tribes were asserted to speak dialects of the same language.” Of the above tribes the Okinagan are now known to be Salishan.The vocabularies given by Scouler were collected by Tolmie. The term “Sahaptin” appears on Gallatin’s map of 1836, where it doubtless refers only to the Nez Percé tribe proper, with respect to whose linguistic affinities Gallatin apparently knew nothing at the time. At all events the name occurs nowhere in his discussion of the linguistic families.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The tribes of this family occupied a large section of country along the Columbia and its tributaries. Their western boundary was the Cascade Mountains; their westernmost bands, the Klikitat on the north, the Tyigh and Warm Springs on the south, enveloping for a short distance the Chinook territory along the Columbia which extended to the Dalles. Shahaptian tribes extended along the tributaries of the Columbia for a considerable distance, their northern boundary being indicated by about the forty-sixth parallel, their southern by about the forty-fourth. Their eastern extension was interrupted by the Bitter Root Mountains.PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.Chopunnish (Nez Percé), 1,515 on Nez Percé Reservation, Idaho.Klikitat, say one-half of 330 natives, on Yakama Reservation, Washington.Paloos, Yakama Reservation, number unknown.Tenaino, 69 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.Tyigh, 430 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.Umatilla, 179 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.Walla Walla, 405 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin, ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes; both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 567, 661, 1882.> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (as under Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (as under Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as under Shoshonees).< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language only).> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches, Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast, Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks, Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?, Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni, Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo, Kioway, the latter not belonging here).> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 76, 1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).In his synopsis of the Indian tribes78Gallatin’s reference to this great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of “some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of the river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his listof tribes and vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group. The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke79contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of southwestern Montana,80whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.81Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724.82According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande.83Howfar to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork.84The Kwaiantikwoket also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.85A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni extraction.PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.Bannock, 514 on Fort Hall Reservation and 75 on the Lemhi Reservation, Idaho.Chemehuevi, about 202 attached to the Colorado River Agency, Arizona.Comanche, 1,598 on the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.Gosiute, 256 in Utah at large.Pai Ute, about 2,300 scattered in southeastern California and southwestern Nevada.Paviotso, about 3,000 scattered in western Nevada and southern Oregon.Saidyuka, 145 under Klamath Agency.Shoshoni, 979 under Fort Hall Agency and 249 at the Lemhi Agency.Tobikhar, about 2,200, under the Mission Agency, California.Tukuarika, or Sheepeaters, 108 at Lemhi Agency.Tusayan (Moki), 1,996 (census of 1890).Uta, 2,839 distributed as follows: 985 under Southern Ute Agency, Colorado; 1,021 on Ouray Reserve, Utah; 833 on Uintah Reserve, Utah.SIOUAN FAMILY.X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 121, 306, 1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes, Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 87, 1836 (Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 245, et map, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836 (numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 243, 1840.> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862 (treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas, Iowas).> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties, Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas, Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas, Minnetarees.)> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.Derivation: A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,”“the snake-like ones,” “the enemies” (Trumbull).Under the family Gallatin makes four subdivisions, viz, the Winnebagos, the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins, the Minnetare group, and the Osages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distribution of the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats on the Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock River of the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gens du Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north to Spirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoans inhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and that on the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and the Missouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distance west of the Missouri, between 43° and 47° of latitude.The “Shyennes” are included in the family but are marked as doubtfully belonging here.Owing to the fact that “Sioux” is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and “Dakota,” which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated.It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,” though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the only exceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba and Woccon.Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend of Siouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistoric times, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the Mississippi River.The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the Hudson Bay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part of the watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi. It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distance on the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line ran eastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to the Winnebago.86It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began the Algonquian territory (Sac, etc.) on the west side of the Mississippi, extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returned to the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of the present States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied by Algonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a short distance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ran west of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, and Mississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties, Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippi became the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan from the Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerly tribe in the main Siouan territory. In 167387they were east of the Mississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansas and two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, in our present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the opposite side, in Arkansas. Shea says88that the Kaskaskias were found by De Soto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up the Mississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and the northeast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged to Algonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason for believing that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, or a sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable to compromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all of Arkansas up to about 36° north.On the southwest of the Siouan family was the Southern Caddoan group, the boundary extending from the west side of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and running northwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana; thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osages came in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the western boundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latter being recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of the Kansa or Kaw.The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska and northwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from the Kansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the east from Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoples occupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of the Elkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrara in northern Nebraska.There seems to be sufficient evidence for assigning to the Crows (Siouan) the northwest corner of Nebraska (i.e., that part north of the Kiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (not claimed by Cheyenne89), as well as the northern part of Wyoming and the southern part of Montana, where they met the Shoshonean stock.90The Biloxi habitat in 1699 was on the Pascogoula river,91in the southeast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxi subsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found by Mr. Gatschet in 1886.The Tutelo habitat in 1671 was in Brunswick County, southern Virginia, and it probably included Lunenburgh and Mecklenburg Counties.92The Earl of Bellomont (1699) says93that the Shateras were “supposed to be the Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia,” and Pownall, in his map of North America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i.e., Big Sandy) River. Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to North Carolina.94They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined the Nottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed into Pennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, where they joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand River Reservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The last full-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of the Siouan affinity of the Tutelo language we are indebted to Mr. Hale.The Catawba lived on the river of the same name on the northern boundary of South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leading people of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of the Carolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in North Carolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers.The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of the same linguistic connection.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in family sense).= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities). Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848. (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 601,1877 (vocabs.of A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa, Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (includes Palaiks).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of present family).Derivation: From the Klamath wordp’laikni, signifying “mountaineers” or “uplanders” (Gatschet).In two places73Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the shorter form of the name.Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,” * * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simplelanguages of the Sacramento.” He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related to the Sastean languages.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami (Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round Valley Reservation, California.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the following principal tribal divisions:74Achomâ´wi.Atua´mih.Chumâ´wa.Estake´wach.Hante´wa.Humâ´whi.Ilmâ´wi.Pakamalli?PIMAN FAMILY.= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427, 1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (defines area and gives habitat).Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and Sinaloa.The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological Society Journal, vol.XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol.III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was collected by Lieut. Whipple.Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with theMaricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly continuous to the Gila River.According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated.75PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Northern group:Opata.Papago.Pima.Southern group:Cahita.Cora.Tarahumara.Tepeguana.Population.—Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,76are Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.PUJUNAN FAMILY.> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 346, 1860.> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 282, 1877 (same as Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586 (vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,” Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 313, 1877 (distinguishes them from Maidu family).X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne, Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.77This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribeswere believed to be divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but language.”Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled later.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming them in in this direction.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Bayu.Boka.Eskin.Hélto.Hoak.Hoankut.Hololúpai.Koloma.Konkau.Kū´lmeh.Kulomum.Kwatóa.Nakum.Olla.Otaki.Paupákan.Pusúna.Taitchida.Tíshum.Toámtcha.Tosikoyo.Toto.Ustóma.Wapúmni.Wima.Yuba.QUORATEAN FAMILY.> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 423, 1853 (given as name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath and Salmon Rivers).= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid., 447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).< Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Cahrocs).Derivation: Name of a band at mouth of Salmon River, California. Etymology unknown.This family name is equivalent to the Cahroc or Karok of Powers and later authorities.In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remarkthat it is “The name of a band at the mouth of the Salmon, or Quoratem river.” He adds that “This latter name may perhaps be considered as proper to give to the family, should it be held one.” He defines the territory occupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluff creek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty or forty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point to point.”The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficiently formal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated by Gibbs.In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band, locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti and Lutuami areas.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, though the main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line.TRIBES.Ehnek.Karok.Pehtsik.Population.—According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in the region in 1889, the Indians of this family number about 600.SALINAN FAMILY.< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).Derivation: From river of same name.The language formerly spoken at the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtful position. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from each other, but from all other languages. Others have held that they represent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group of languages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearly that the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wise related to any other family.The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is a heterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than four distinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to this group, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco,” really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to the Mendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoan family mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslen and Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio, and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong within the drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied to them, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name.Population.—Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably never very populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, when first established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively 1,400 and 1,300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these converts were gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belonged to this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he was able to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of this family, and not all of these could speak their own language.SALISHAN FAMILY.> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 306, 1836 (or Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi, Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 618, 1882.> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab. of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884 (vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846 (includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale, Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper, Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl, Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 135, 306, 1836 (on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 427, 1847 (on Fraser River).> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856 (Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 224, 1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish of present family).X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (assigns Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives Tolmie’s vocabulary).> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same). Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas only; specimen vocabulary).> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of Noothlākimish).> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions Sātsq,Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (cited as including Billechola).> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap, Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits, Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including Klallems).X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums, Kwantlums, Teets of present family).X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains the following Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish, Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo, Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually, Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums, Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last being Salishan).> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).The extent of the Salish or Flathead family was unknown to Gallatin, as indeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which he gives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribe is stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the Columbia River, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s River or the most northern branch of Lewis’s River.” The former supposition was correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a single tribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, were considered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible as the familyname; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few words from the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given by Gallatin in Archæologia Americana,II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong under this family.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.Since Gallatin’s time, through the labors of Riggs, Hale, Tolmie, Dawson, Boas, and others, our knowledge of the territorial limits of this linguistic family has been greatly extended. The most southern outpost of the family, the Tillamook and Nestucca, were established on the coast of Oregon, about 50 miles to the south of the Columbia, where they were quite separated from their kindred to the north by the Chinookan tribes. Beginning on the north side of Shoalwater Bay, Salishan tribes held the entire northwestern part of Washington, including the whole of the Puget Sound region, except only the Macaw territory about Cape Flattery, and two insignificant spots, one near Port Townsend, the other on the Pacific coast to the south of Cape Flattery, which were occupied by Chimakuan tribes. Eastern Vancouver Island to about midway of its length was also held by Salishan tribes, while the great bulk of their territory lay on the mainland opposite and included much of the upper Columbia. On the south they were hemmed in mainly by the Shahaptian tribes. Upon the east Salishan tribes dwelt to a little beyond the Arrow Lakes and their feeder, one of the extreme north forks of the Columbia. Upon the southeast Salishan tribes extended into Montana, including the upper drainage of the Columbia. They were met here in 1804 by Lewis and Clarke. On the northeast Salish territory extended to about the fifty-third parallel. In the northwest it did not reach the Chilcat River.Within the territory thus indicated there is considerable diversity of customs and a greater diversity of language. The language is split into a great number of dialects, many of which are doubtless mutually unintelligible.The relationship of this family to the Wakashan is a very interesting problem. Evidences of radical affinity have been discovered by Boas and Gatschet, and the careful study of their nature and extent now being prosecuted by the former may result in the union of the two, though until recently they have been considered quite distinct.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.Atnah.Bellacoola.Chehalis.Clallam.Colville.Comux.Copalis.Cowichin.Cowlitz.Dwamish.Kwantlen.Lummi.Met´how.Nanaimo.Nanoos.Nehalim.Nespelum.Nicoutamuch.Nisqualli.Nuksahk.Okinagan.Pend d’Oreilles.Pentlatc.Pisquow.Puyallup.Quaitso.Queniut.Queptlmamish.Sacumehu.Sahewamish.Salish.Samamish.Samish.Sanetch.Sans Puell.Satsop.Sawamish.Sekamish.Shomamish.Shooswap.Shotlemamish.Skagit.Skihwamish.Skitsuish.Skokomish.Skopamish.Sktehlmish.Smulkamish.Snohomish.Snoqualmi.Soke.Songish.Spokan.Squawmisht.Squaxon.Squonamish.Stehtsasamish.Stillacum.Sumass.Suquamish.Swinamish.Tait.Tillamook.Twana.Population.—The total Salish population of British Columbia is 12,325, inclusive of the Bellacoola, who number, with the Hailtzuk, 2,500, and those in the list of unclassified, who number 8,522, distributed as follows:Under the Fraser River Agency, 4,986; Kamloops Agency, 2,579; Cowichan Agency, 1,852; Okanagan Agency, 942; Williams Lake Agency, 1,918; Kootenay Agency, 48.Most of the Salish in the United States are on reservations. They number about 5,500, including a dozen small tribes upon the Yakama Reservation, which have been consolidated with the Clickatat (Shahaptian) through intermarriage. The Salish of the United States are distributed as follows (Indian Affairs Report, 1889, and U.S. Census Bulletin, 1890):Colville Agency, Washington, Coeur d’ Alene, 422; Lower Spokane, 417; Lake, 303; Colville, 247; Okinagan, 374; Kespilem, 67; San Pueblo (Sans Puell), 300; Calispel, 200; Upper Spokane, 170.Puyallup Agency, Washington, Quaitso, 82; Quinaielt (Queniut), 101; Humptulip, 19; Puyallup, 563; Chehalis, 135; Nisqually, 94; Squaxon, 60; Clallam, 351; Skokomish, 191; Oyhut, Hoquiam, Montesano, and Satsup, 29.Tulalip Agency, Washington, Snohomish, 443; Madison, 144; Muckleshoot, 103; Swinomish, 227; Lummi, 295.Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon, Tillamook, 5.SASTEAN FAMILY.= Saste, Hale in U. S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 572, 1859.= Shasty, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (= Saste). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 573, 1859 (= Saste).= Shasties, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (= Saste). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Shasti, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (southwest of Lutuami). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham, ibid, 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860 (allied to both Shoshonean and Shahaptian families). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Shaste, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (mentions Watsa-he’-wa, a Scott’s River band).= Sasti, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (= Shasties).= Shasta, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 607, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Shas-ti-ka, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 243, 1877.= Shasta, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (= Shasteecas).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (includes Palaik, Watsahewah, Shasta).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (contains Shastas of present family).Derivation: The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath tribes. He calls the tribe indifferently Shasties or Shasty, but the form applied by him to the family (see pp. 218, 569) is Saste, which accordingly is the one taken.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland, Oregon.SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY.X Shahaptan, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc.,XI, 225, 1841 (three tribes, Shahaptan or Nez-percés, Kliketat, Okanagan; the latter being Salishan).< Shahaptan, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (two classes, Nez-perces proper of mountains, and Polanches of plains; includes also Kliketat and Okanagan).> Sahaptin, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 198, 212, 542, 1846 (Shahaptin or Nez-percés, Wallawallas, Pelooses, Yakemas, Klikatats). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 14, 1848 (follows Hale). Gallatin, ibid.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (Nez-percés only). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Nez-perces and Wallawallas). Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Taitinapam and Kliketat).> Saptin, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (or Shahaptan).< Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (includes Wallawallas, Kliketat, Proper Sahaptin or Nez-percés, Pelús, Yakemas, Cayús?). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (includes Waiilatpu). Buschmann, Spuren deraztek. Sprache, 614, 615, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860 (as in 1856). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (vocabularies Sahaptin, Wallawalla, Kliketat). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Palouse, Walla Wallas, Yakimas, Tairtlas, Kliketats or Pshawanwappams, Cayuse, Mollale; the two last are Waiilatpuan).= Sahaptin, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 168, 1877 (defines habitat and enumerates tribes of). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 620, 1882.> Shahaptani, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 78, 1884 (Whulwhaipum tribe).< Nez-percés, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (see Shahaptan). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (see his Sahaptin).X Seliah, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama which belongs here).Derivation: From a Selish word of unknown significance.The Shahaptan family of Scouler comprised three tribes—the Shahaptan or Nez Percés, the Kliketat, a scion of the Shahaptan, dwelling near Mount Ranier, and the Okanagan, inhabiting the upper part of Fraser River and its tributaries; “these tribes were asserted to speak dialects of the same language.” Of the above tribes the Okinagan are now known to be Salishan.The vocabularies given by Scouler were collected by Tolmie. The term “Sahaptin” appears on Gallatin’s map of 1836, where it doubtless refers only to the Nez Percé tribe proper, with respect to whose linguistic affinities Gallatin apparently knew nothing at the time. At all events the name occurs nowhere in his discussion of the linguistic families.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The tribes of this family occupied a large section of country along the Columbia and its tributaries. Their western boundary was the Cascade Mountains; their westernmost bands, the Klikitat on the north, the Tyigh and Warm Springs on the south, enveloping for a short distance the Chinook territory along the Columbia which extended to the Dalles. Shahaptian tribes extended along the tributaries of the Columbia for a considerable distance, their northern boundary being indicated by about the forty-sixth parallel, their southern by about the forty-fourth. Their eastern extension was interrupted by the Bitter Root Mountains.PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.Chopunnish (Nez Percé), 1,515 on Nez Percé Reservation, Idaho.Klikitat, say one-half of 330 natives, on Yakama Reservation, Washington.Paloos, Yakama Reservation, number unknown.Tenaino, 69 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.Tyigh, 430 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.Umatilla, 179 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.Walla Walla, 405 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin, ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes; both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 567, 661, 1882.> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (as under Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (as under Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as under Shoshonees).< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language only).> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches, Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast, Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks, Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?, Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni, Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo, Kioway, the latter not belonging here).> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 76, 1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).In his synopsis of the Indian tribes78Gallatin’s reference to this great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of “some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of the river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his listof tribes and vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group. The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke79contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of southwestern Montana,80whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.81Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724.82According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande.83Howfar to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork.84The Kwaiantikwoket also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.85A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni extraction.PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.Bannock, 514 on Fort Hall Reservation and 75 on the Lemhi Reservation, Idaho.Chemehuevi, about 202 attached to the Colorado River Agency, Arizona.Comanche, 1,598 on the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.Gosiute, 256 in Utah at large.Pai Ute, about 2,300 scattered in southeastern California and southwestern Nevada.Paviotso, about 3,000 scattered in western Nevada and southern Oregon.Saidyuka, 145 under Klamath Agency.Shoshoni, 979 under Fort Hall Agency and 249 at the Lemhi Agency.Tobikhar, about 2,200, under the Mission Agency, California.Tukuarika, or Sheepeaters, 108 at Lemhi Agency.Tusayan (Moki), 1,996 (census of 1890).Uta, 2,839 distributed as follows: 985 under Southern Ute Agency, Colorado; 1,021 on Ouray Reserve, Utah; 833 on Uintah Reserve, Utah.SIOUAN FAMILY.X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 121, 306, 1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes, Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 87, 1836 (Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 245, et map, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836 (numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 243, 1840.> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862 (treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas, Iowas).> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties, Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas, Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas, Minnetarees.)> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.Derivation: A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,”“the snake-like ones,” “the enemies” (Trumbull).Under the family Gallatin makes four subdivisions, viz, the Winnebagos, the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins, the Minnetare group, and the Osages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distribution of the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats on the Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock River of the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gens du Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north to Spirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoans inhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and that on the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and the Missouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distance west of the Missouri, between 43° and 47° of latitude.The “Shyennes” are included in the family but are marked as doubtfully belonging here.Owing to the fact that “Sioux” is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and “Dakota,” which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated.It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,” though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family.GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the only exceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba and Woccon.Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend of Siouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistoric times, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the Mississippi River.The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the Hudson Bay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part of the watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi. It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distance on the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line ran eastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to the Winnebago.86It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began the Algonquian territory (Sac, etc.) on the west side of the Mississippi, extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returned to the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of the present States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied by Algonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a short distance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ran west of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, and Mississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties, Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippi became the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan from the Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerly tribe in the main Siouan territory. In 167387they were east of the Mississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansas and two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, in our present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the opposite side, in Arkansas. Shea says88that the Kaskaskias were found by De Soto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up the Mississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and the northeast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged to Algonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason for believing that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, or a sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable to compromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all of Arkansas up to about 36° north.On the southwest of the Siouan family was the Southern Caddoan group, the boundary extending from the west side of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and running northwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana; thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osages came in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the western boundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latter being recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of the Kansa or Kaw.The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska and northwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from the Kansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the east from Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoples occupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of the Elkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrara in northern Nebraska.There seems to be sufficient evidence for assigning to the Crows (Siouan) the northwest corner of Nebraska (i.e., that part north of the Kiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (not claimed by Cheyenne89), as well as the northern part of Wyoming and the southern part of Montana, where they met the Shoshonean stock.90The Biloxi habitat in 1699 was on the Pascogoula river,91in the southeast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxi subsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found by Mr. Gatschet in 1886.The Tutelo habitat in 1671 was in Brunswick County, southern Virginia, and it probably included Lunenburgh and Mecklenburg Counties.92The Earl of Bellomont (1699) says93that the Shateras were “supposed to be the Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia,” and Pownall, in his map of North America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i.e., Big Sandy) River. Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to North Carolina.94They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined the Nottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed into Pennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, where they joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand River Reservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The last full-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of the Siouan affinity of the Tutelo language we are indebted to Mr. Hale.The Catawba lived on the river of the same name on the northern boundary of South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leading people of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of the Carolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in North Carolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers.The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of the same linguistic connection.PRINCIPAL TRIBES.
= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in family sense).= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities). Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848. (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 601,1877 (vocabs.of A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa, Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (includes Palaiks).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of present family).
= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in family sense).
= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale’s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities). Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 1848. (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).
= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.
= A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 601,1877 (vocabs.of A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach, Han-te´-wa, Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.Am.), 460, 475, 1878 (includes Palaiks).
< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (contains Palaik of present family).
Derivation: From the Klamath wordp’laikni, signifying “mountaineers” or “uplanders” (Gatschet).
In two places73Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the shorter form of the name.
Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,” * * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simplelanguages of the Sacramento.” He adds that the personal pronouns show it to be a true Digger Indian tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related to the Sastean languages.
The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami (Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round Valley Reservation, California.
Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the following principal tribal divisions:74
= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427, 1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (defines area and gives habitat).
= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427, 1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (includes Pima, Névome, Pápago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (defines area and gives habitat).
Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and Sinaloa.
The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter’s in Royal Geological Society Journal, vol.XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol.III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was collected by Lieut. Whipple.
Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with theMaricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly continuous to the Gila River.
According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated.75
Population.—Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,76are Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.
> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 346, 1860.> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 282, 1877 (same as Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586 (vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,” Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 313, 1877 (distinguishes them from Maidu family).X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne, Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).
> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 346, 1860.
> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.
= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
> Mai´-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 282, 1877 (same as Mai´-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586 (vocabs. of Kon´-kau, Hol-o´-lu-pai, Na´-kum, Ni´-shi-nam, “Digger,” Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sekumne, Tsamak).
> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).
> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 313, 1877 (distinguishes them from Maidu family).
X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (Ochecumne, Chupumne, Secumne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne, Yasumne, etc.; “altogether about 26 tribes”).
The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.77This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribeswere believed to be divided. “These races resembled one another in every respect but language.”
Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sekumne, and Tsamak. Hale did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled later.
The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming them in in this direction.
> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 423, 1853 (given as name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath and Salmon Rivers).= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid., 447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).< Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Cahrocs).
> Quoratem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (proposed as a proper name of family “should it be held one”).
> Eh-nek, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 423, 1853 (given as name of a band only; but suggests Quoratem as a proper family name).
> Ehnik, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 76, 1856 (south of Shasti and Lutuami areas). Latham, Opuscula, 342, 1860.
= Cahrocs, Powers in Overland Monthly, 328, April, 1872 (on Klamath and Salmon Rivers).
= Cahrok, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
= Ka´-rok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 19, 1877. Powell in ibid., 447, 1877 (vocabularies of Ka´-rok, Arra-Arra, Peh´-tsik, Eh-nek).
< Klamath, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (cited as including Cahrocs).
Derivation: Name of a band at mouth of Salmon River, California. Etymology unknown.
This family name is equivalent to the Cahroc or Karok of Powers and later authorities.
In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remarkthat it is “The name of a band at the mouth of the Salmon, or Quoratem river.” He adds that “This latter name may perhaps be considered as proper to give to the family, should it be held one.” He defines the territory occupied by the family as follows: “The language reaches from Bluff creek, the upper boundary of the Pohlik, to about Clear creek, thirty or forty miles above the Salmon; varying, however, somewhat from point to point.”
The presentation of the name Quoratem, as above, seems sufficiently formal, and it is therefore accepted for the group first indicated by Gibbs.
In 1856 Latham renamed the family Ehnik, after the principal band, locating the tribe, or rather the language, south of the Shasti and Lutuami areas.
The geographic limits of the family are somewhat indeterminate, though the main area occupied by the tribes is well known. The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the Athapascan territory near the Oregon line.
Population.—According to a careful estimate made by Mr. Curtin in the region in 1889, the Indians of this family number about 600.
< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).
< Salinas, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Gioloco, Ruslen, Soledad of Mofras, Eslen, Carmel, San Antonio, San Miguel). Latham, Opuscula, 350, 1860.
> San Antonio, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 568, 1877 (vocabulary of; not given as a family, but kept by itself).
< Santa Barbara, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (cited here as containing San Antonio). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M.,VII, 419, 1879 (contains San Antonio, San Miguel).
X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (San Miguel of his group belongs here).
Derivation: From river of same name.
The language formerly spoken at the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel in Monterey County, California, have long occupied a doubtful position. By some they have been considered distinct, not only from each other, but from all other languages. Others have held that they represent distinct dialects of the Chumashan (Santa Barbara) group of languages. Vocabularies collected in 1884 by Mr. Henshaw show clearly that the two are closely connected dialects and that they are in no wise related to any other family.
The group established by Latham under the name Salinas is a heterogeneous one, containing representatives of no fewer than four distinct families. Gioloco, which he states “may possibly belong to this group, notwithstanding its reference to the Mission of San Francisco,” really is congeneric with the vocabularies assigned by Latham to the Mendocinan family. The “Soledad of Mofras” belongs to the Costanoan family mentioned on page 348 of the same essay, as also do the Ruslen and Carmel. Of the three remaining forms of speech, Eslen, San Antonio, and San Miguel, the two latter are related dialects, and belong within the drainage of the Salinas River. The term Salinan is hence applied to them, leaving the Eslen language to be provided with a name.
Population.—Though the San Antonio and San Miguel were probably never very populous tribes, the Missions of San Antonio and San Miguel, when first established in the years 1771 and 1779, contained respectively 1,400 and 1,300 Indians. Doubtless the larger number of these converts were gathered in the near vicinity of the two missions and so belonged to this family. In 1884 when Mr. Henshaw visited the missions he was able to learn of the existence of only about a dozen Indians of this family, and not all of these could speak their own language.
> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 306, 1836 (or Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi, Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 618, 1882.> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab. of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884 (vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846 (includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale, Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper, Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl, Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 135, 306, 1836 (on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 427, 1847 (on Fraser River).> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856 (Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 224, 1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish of present family).X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (assigns Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives Tolmie’s vocabulary).> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same). Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas only; specimen vocabulary).> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of Noothlākimish).> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions Sātsq,Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (cited as including Billechola).> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap, Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits, Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including Klallems).X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums, Kwantlums, Teets of present family).X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains the following Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish, Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo, Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually, Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums, Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last being Salishan).> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).
> Salish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 306, 1836 (or Flat Heads only). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,II, 31-50, 1846 (of Duponceau. Said to be the Okanagan of Tolmie).
X Salish, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Flatheads, Kalispelms, Skitsuish, Colvilles, Quarlpi, Spokanes, Pisquouse, Soaiatlpi).
= Salish, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 618, 1882.
> Selish, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, 77, 1848 (vocab. of Nsietshaws). Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 63, 78, 1884 (vocabularies of Lillooet and Kullēspelm).
> Jelish, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 403, 1853 (obvious misprint for Selish; follows Hale as to tribes).
= Selish, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 169, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes of family). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 444, 1877.
< Selish, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama, which is Shahaptian).
> Tsihaili-Selish, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 205, 535, 569, 1846 (includes Shushwaps. Selish or Flatheads, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Skwale, Tsihailish, Kawelitsk, Nsietshawus). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 10, 1848 (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 658-661, 1859. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 399, 1862 (contains Shushwap or Atna Proper, Kuttelspelm or Pend d’Oreilles, Selish, Spokan, Okanagan, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Nusdalum, Kawitchen, Cathlascou, Skwali, Chechili, Kwaintl, Kwenaiwtl, Nsietshawus, Billechula).
> Atnahs, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 134, 135, 306, 1836 (on Fraser River). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 427, 1847 (on Fraser River).
> Atna, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 71, 1856 (Tsihaili-Selish of Hale and Gallatin).
X Nootka-Columbian, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc. Lond.,XI, 224, 1841 (includes, among others, Billechoola, Kawitchen, Noosdalum, Squallyamish of present family).
X Insular, Scouler, ibid., (same as Nootka-Columbian family).
X Shahaptan, Scouler, ibid., 225 (includes Okanagan of this family).
X Southern, Scouler, ibid., 224 (same as Nootka-Columbian family).
> Billechoola, Latham in Jour. Eth. Soc. Lond.,I, 154, 1848 (assigns Friendly Village of McKenzie here). Latham, Opuscula, 250, 1860 (gives Tolmie’s vocabulary).
> Billechula, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 300, 1850 (mouth of Salmon River). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 72, 1856 (same). Latham, Opuscula, 339, 1860.
> Bellacoola, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 607, 1882 (Bellacoolas only; specimen vocabulary).
> Bilhoola, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 62, 1884 (vocab. of Noothlākimish).
> Bilchula, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 130, 1887 (mentions Sātsq,Nūte̥´l, Nuchalkmχ, Taleómχ).
X Naass, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (cited as including Billechola).
> Tsihaili, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 310, 1850 (chiefly lower part of Fraser River and between that and the Columbia; includes Shuswap, Salish, Skitsuish, Piskwaus, Kawitchen, Skwali, Checheeli, Kowelits, Noosdalum, Nsietshawus).
X Wakash, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 301, 1850 (cited as including Klallems).
X Shushwaps, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (quoted as including Shewhapmuch and Okanagans).
X Hydahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Bellacoolas of present family).
X Nootkahs, Keane, ibid., 473 (includes Komux, Kowitchans, Klallums, Kwantlums, Teets of present family).
X Nootka, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 564, 1882 (contains the following Salishan tribes: Cowichin, Soke, Comux, Noosdalum, Wickinninish, Songhie, Sanetch, Kwantlum, Teet, Nanaimo, Newchemass, Shimiahmoo, Nooksak, Samish, Skagit, Snohomish, Clallam, Toanhooch).
< Puget Sound Group, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (comprises Nooksahs, Lummi, Samish, Skagits, Nisqually, Neewamish, Sahmamish, Snohomish, Skeewamish, Squanamish, Klallums, Classets, Chehalis, Cowlitz, Pistchin, Chinakum; all but the last being Salishan).
> Flatheads, Keane, ibid., 474, 1878 (same as his Salish above).
> Kawitshin, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 39, 1884 (vocabs. of Songis and Kwantlin Sept and Kowmook or Tlathool).
> Qauitschin, Boas in Petermann’s Mitteilungen, 131, 1887.
> Niskwalli, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 50, 121, 1884 (or Skwalliamish vocabulary of Sinahomish).
The extent of the Salish or Flathead family was unknown to Gallatin, as indeed appears to have been the exact locality of the tribe of which he gives an anonymous vocabulary from the Duponceau collection. The tribe is stated to have resided upon one of the branches of the Columbia River, “which must be either the most southern branch of Clarke’s River or the most northern branch of Lewis’s River.” The former supposition was correct. As employed by Gallatin the family embraced only a single tribe, the Flathead tribe proper. The Atnah, a Salishan tribe, were considered by Gallatin to be distinct, and the name would be eligible as the familyname; preference, however, is given to Salish. The few words from the Friendly Village near the sources of the Salmon River given by Gallatin in Archæologia Americana,II, 1836, pp. 15, 306, belong under this family.
Since Gallatin’s time, through the labors of Riggs, Hale, Tolmie, Dawson, Boas, and others, our knowledge of the territorial limits of this linguistic family has been greatly extended. The most southern outpost of the family, the Tillamook and Nestucca, were established on the coast of Oregon, about 50 miles to the south of the Columbia, where they were quite separated from their kindred to the north by the Chinookan tribes. Beginning on the north side of Shoalwater Bay, Salishan tribes held the entire northwestern part of Washington, including the whole of the Puget Sound region, except only the Macaw territory about Cape Flattery, and two insignificant spots, one near Port Townsend, the other on the Pacific coast to the south of Cape Flattery, which were occupied by Chimakuan tribes. Eastern Vancouver Island to about midway of its length was also held by Salishan tribes, while the great bulk of their territory lay on the mainland opposite and included much of the upper Columbia. On the south they were hemmed in mainly by the Shahaptian tribes. Upon the east Salishan tribes dwelt to a little beyond the Arrow Lakes and their feeder, one of the extreme north forks of the Columbia. Upon the southeast Salishan tribes extended into Montana, including the upper drainage of the Columbia. They were met here in 1804 by Lewis and Clarke. On the northeast Salish territory extended to about the fifty-third parallel. In the northwest it did not reach the Chilcat River.
Within the territory thus indicated there is considerable diversity of customs and a greater diversity of language. The language is split into a great number of dialects, many of which are doubtless mutually unintelligible.
The relationship of this family to the Wakashan is a very interesting problem. Evidences of radical affinity have been discovered by Boas and Gatschet, and the careful study of their nature and extent now being prosecuted by the former may result in the union of the two, though until recently they have been considered quite distinct.
Population.—The total Salish population of British Columbia is 12,325, inclusive of the Bellacoola, who number, with the Hailtzuk, 2,500, and those in the list of unclassified, who number 8,522, distributed as follows:
Under the Fraser River Agency, 4,986; Kamloops Agency, 2,579; Cowichan Agency, 1,852; Okanagan Agency, 942; Williams Lake Agency, 1,918; Kootenay Agency, 48.
Most of the Salish in the United States are on reservations. They number about 5,500, including a dozen small tribes upon the Yakama Reservation, which have been consolidated with the Clickatat (Shahaptian) through intermarriage. The Salish of the United States are distributed as follows (Indian Affairs Report, 1889, and U.S. Census Bulletin, 1890):
Colville Agency, Washington, Coeur d’ Alene, 422; Lower Spokane, 417; Lake, 303; Colville, 247; Okinagan, 374; Kespilem, 67; San Pueblo (Sans Puell), 300; Calispel, 200; Upper Spokane, 170.
Puyallup Agency, Washington, Quaitso, 82; Quinaielt (Queniut), 101; Humptulip, 19; Puyallup, 563; Chehalis, 135; Nisqually, 94; Squaxon, 60; Clallam, 351; Skokomish, 191; Oyhut, Hoquiam, Montesano, and Satsup, 29.
Tulalip Agency, Washington, Snohomish, 443; Madison, 144; Muckleshoot, 103; Swinomish, 227; Lummi, 295.
Grande Ronde Agency, Oregon, Tillamook, 5.
= Saste, Hale in U. S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 572, 1859.= Shasty, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (= Saste). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 573, 1859 (= Saste).= Shasties, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (= Saste). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.= Shasti, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (southwest of Lutuami). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham, ibid, 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860 (allied to both Shoshonean and Shahaptian families). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.= Shaste, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (mentions Watsa-he’-wa, a Scott’s River band).= Sasti, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (= Shasties).= Shasta, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 607, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.= Shas-ti-ka, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 243, 1877.= Shasta, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (= Shasteecas).< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (includes Palaik, Watsahewah, Shasta).< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (contains Shastas of present family).
= Saste, Hale in U. S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 569, 1846. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848. Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 572, 1859.
= Shasty, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (= Saste). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 573, 1859 (= Saste).
= Shasties, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 569, 1846 (= Saste). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Shasti, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 325, 1850 (southwest of Lutuami). Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc., Lond.,VI, 82, 1854. Latham, ibid, 74, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860 (allied to both Shoshonean and Shahaptian families). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Shaste, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 422, 1853 (mentions Watsa-he’-wa, a Scott’s River band).
= Sasti, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (= Shasties).
= Shasta, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 607, 1877. Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 438, 1877.
= Shas-ti-ka, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth.,III, 243, 1877.
= Shasta, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (= Shasteecas).
< Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 1882 (includes Palaik, Watsahewah, Shasta).
< Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 475, 1878 (contains Shastas of present family).
Derivation: The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or Klamath tribes. He calls the tribe indifferently Shasties or Shasty, but the form applied by him to the family (see pp. 218, 569) is Saste, which accordingly is the one taken.
The former territory of the Sastean family is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath, the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as Ashland, Oregon.
X Shahaptan, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc.,XI, 225, 1841 (three tribes, Shahaptan or Nez-percés, Kliketat, Okanagan; the latter being Salishan).< Shahaptan, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (two classes, Nez-perces proper of mountains, and Polanches of plains; includes also Kliketat and Okanagan).> Sahaptin, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 198, 212, 542, 1846 (Shahaptin or Nez-percés, Wallawallas, Pelooses, Yakemas, Klikatats). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 14, 1848 (follows Hale). Gallatin, ibid.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (Nez-percés only). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Nez-perces and Wallawallas). Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Taitinapam and Kliketat).> Saptin, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (or Shahaptan).< Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (includes Wallawallas, Kliketat, Proper Sahaptin or Nez-percés, Pelús, Yakemas, Cayús?). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (includes Waiilatpu). Buschmann, Spuren deraztek. Sprache, 614, 615, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860 (as in 1856). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (vocabularies Sahaptin, Wallawalla, Kliketat). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Palouse, Walla Wallas, Yakimas, Tairtlas, Kliketats or Pshawanwappams, Cayuse, Mollale; the two last are Waiilatpuan).= Sahaptin, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 168, 1877 (defines habitat and enumerates tribes of). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 620, 1882.> Shahaptani, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 78, 1884 (Whulwhaipum tribe).< Nez-percés, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (see Shahaptan). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (see his Sahaptin).X Seliah, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama which belongs here).
X Shahaptan, Scouler in Jour. Roy. Geog. Soc.,XI, 225, 1841 (three tribes, Shahaptan or Nez-percés, Kliketat, Okanagan; the latter being Salishan).
< Shahaptan, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (two classes, Nez-perces proper of mountains, and Polanches of plains; includes also Kliketat and Okanagan).
> Sahaptin, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd.,VI, 198, 212, 542, 1846 (Shahaptin or Nez-percés, Wallawallas, Pelooses, Yakemas, Klikatats). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 14, 1848 (follows Hale). Gallatin, ibid.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (Nez-percés only). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853 (Nez-perces and Wallawallas). Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth., 1, 241, 1877 (includes Taitinapam and Kliketat).
> Saptin, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (or Shahaptan).
< Sahaptin, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 323, 1850 (includes Wallawallas, Kliketat, Proper Sahaptin or Nez-percés, Pelús, Yakemas, Cayús?). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856 (includes Waiilatpu). Buschmann, Spuren deraztek. Sprache, 614, 615, 1859. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860 (as in 1856). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (vocabularies Sahaptin, Wallawalla, Kliketat). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 474, 1878 (includes Palouse, Walla Wallas, Yakimas, Tairtlas, Kliketats or Pshawanwappams, Cayuse, Mollale; the two last are Waiilatpuan).
= Sahaptin, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 168, 1877 (defines habitat and enumerates tribes of). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 443, 1877. Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 565, 620, 1882.
> Shahaptani, Tolmie and Dawson, Comp. Vocabs., 78, 1884 (Whulwhaipum tribe).
< Nez-percés, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 428, 1847 (see Shahaptan). Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 474, 1878 (see his Sahaptin).
X Seliah, Dall, after Gibbs, in Cont. N.A. Eth.,I, 241, 1877 (includes Yakama which belongs here).
Derivation: From a Selish word of unknown significance.
The Shahaptan family of Scouler comprised three tribes—the Shahaptan or Nez Percés, the Kliketat, a scion of the Shahaptan, dwelling near Mount Ranier, and the Okanagan, inhabiting the upper part of Fraser River and its tributaries; “these tribes were asserted to speak dialects of the same language.” Of the above tribes the Okinagan are now known to be Salishan.
The vocabularies given by Scouler were collected by Tolmie. The term “Sahaptin” appears on Gallatin’s map of 1836, where it doubtless refers only to the Nez Percé tribe proper, with respect to whose linguistic affinities Gallatin apparently knew nothing at the time. At all events the name occurs nowhere in his discussion of the linguistic families.
The tribes of this family occupied a large section of country along the Columbia and its tributaries. Their western boundary was the Cascade Mountains; their westernmost bands, the Klikitat on the north, the Tyigh and Warm Springs on the south, enveloping for a short distance the Chinook territory along the Columbia which extended to the Dalles. Shahaptian tribes extended along the tributaries of the Columbia for a considerable distance, their northern boundary being indicated by about the forty-sixth parallel, their southern by about the forty-fourth. Their eastern extension was interrupted by the Bitter Root Mountains.
Chopunnish (Nez Percé), 1,515 on Nez Percé Reservation, Idaho.
Klikitat, say one-half of 330 natives, on Yakama Reservation, Washington.
Paloos, Yakama Reservation, number unknown.
Tenaino, 69 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.
Tyigh, 430 on Warm Springs Reservation, Oregon.
Umatilla, 179 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
Walla Walla, 405 on Umatilla Reservation, Oregon.
> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin, ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes; both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 567, 661, 1882.> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (as under Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (as under Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as under Shoshonees).< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language only).> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches, Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast, Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks, Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?, Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni, Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo, Kioway, the latter not belonging here).> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 76, 1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).
> Shoshonees, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 306, 1836 (Shoshonee or Snake only). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, c, 77, 1848 (as above). Gallatin, ibid., 18, 1848 (follows Hale; see below). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 55, 71, 76, 1856 (treats only of Comanche, Chemehuevi, Cahuillo). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 553, 649, 1859.
> Shoshoni, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (Shóshoni, Wihinasht, Pánasht, Yutas, Sampiches, Comanches). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 73, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 340, 1860.
> Schoschonenu Kamantschen, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Shoshones, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (or Snakes; both sides Rocky Mountains and sources of Missouri).
= Shoshóni, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist. 154, 1877. Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 426, 1877.
< Shoshone, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 477, 1878 (includes Washoes of a distinct family). Bancroft, Nat. Races,III, 567, 661, 1882.
> Snake, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 120, 133, 1836 (or Shoshonees). Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 218, 1846 (as under Shoshonee). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 429, 1847 (as under Shoshones). Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep.,III, pt. 3, 76, 1856 (as under Shoshonees). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 552, 649, 1859 (as under Shoshonees).
< Snake, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 477, 1878 (contains Washoes in addition to Shoshonean tribes proper).
> Kizh, Hale in U.S. Expl. Exp.,VI, 569, 1846 (San Gabriel language only).
> Netela, Hale, ibid., 569, 1846 (San Juan Capestrano language).
> Paduca, Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 415, 1847 (Cumanches, Kiawas, Utas). Latham, Nat. Hist., Man., 310, 326, 1850. Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 73, 1854 (includes Wihinast, Shoshoni, Uta). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 96, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 300, 360, 1860.
< Paduca, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 346, 1850 (Wihinast, Bonaks, Diggers, Utahs, Sampiches, Shoshonis, Kiaways, Kaskaias?, Keneways?, Bald-heads, Cumanches, Navahoes, Apaches, Carisos). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 440, 1862 (defines area of; cites vocabs. of Shoshoni, Wihinasht, Uta, Comanch, Piede or Pa-uta, Chemuhuevi, Cahuillo, Kioway, the latter not belonging here).
> Cumanches, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853.
> Netela-Kij, Latham (1853) in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond.,VI, 76, 1854 (composed of Netela of Hale, San Juan Capistrano of Coulter, San Gabriel of Coulter, Kij of Hale).
> Capistrano, Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 85, 1856 (includes Netela, of San Luis Rey and San Juan Capistrano, the San Gabriel or Kij of San Gabriel and San Fernando).
In his synopsis of the Indian tribes78Gallatin’s reference to this great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of “some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshonees, living on the waters of the river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his listof tribes and vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group. The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.
Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.
This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke79contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of southwestern Montana,80whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.81Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724.82According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande.83Howfar to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork.84The Kwaiantikwoket also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.85
A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni extraction.
Bannock, 514 on Fort Hall Reservation and 75 on the Lemhi Reservation, Idaho.
Chemehuevi, about 202 attached to the Colorado River Agency, Arizona.
Comanche, 1,598 on the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.
Gosiute, 256 in Utah at large.
Pai Ute, about 2,300 scattered in southeastern California and southwestern Nevada.
Paviotso, about 3,000 scattered in western Nevada and southern Oregon.
Saidyuka, 145 under Klamath Agency.
Shoshoni, 979 under Fort Hall Agency and 249 at the Lemhi Agency.
Tobikhar, about 2,200, under the Mission Agency, California.
Tukuarika, or Sheepeaters, 108 at Lemhi Agency.
Tusayan (Moki), 1,996 (census of 1890).
Uta, 2,839 distributed as follows: 985 under Southern Ute Agency, Colorado; 1,021 on Ouray Reserve, Utah; 833 on Uintah Reserve, Utah.
X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 121, 306, 1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes, Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 87, 1836 (Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 245, et map, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836 (numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 243, 1840.> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862 (treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas, Iowas).> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties, Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas, Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas, Minnetarees.)> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
X Sioux, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 121, 306, 1836 (for tribes included see text below). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 408, 1847 (follows Gallatin). Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (as in 1836). Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852. Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 402, 1853. Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
> Sioux, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 333, 1850 (includes Winebagoes, Dakotas, Assineboins, Upsaroka, Mandans, Minetari, Osage). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 58, 1856 (mere mention of family). Latham, Opuscula, 327, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil, 458, 1862.
> Catawbas, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 87, 1836 (Catawbas and Woccons). Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 245, et map, 1840. Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind,V, 399, 1847. Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc.,II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848. Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878.
> Catahbas, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Catawba, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 334, 1850 (Woccoon are allied). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes,III, 401, 1853.
> Kataba, Gatschet in Am. Antiquarian,IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend,I, 15, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 413, April 29, 1887.
> Woccons, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc.,II, 306, 1836 (numbered and given as a distinct family in table, but inconsistently noted in foot-note where referred to as Catawban family.)
> Dahcotas, Bancroft, Hist. U.S.,III, 243, 1840.
> Dakotas, Hayden, Cont. Eth. and Phil. Missouri Ind., 232, 1862 (treats of Dakotas, Assiniboins, Crows, Minnitarees, Mandans, Omahas, Iowas).
> Dacotah, Keane, App. to Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 470, 1878. (The following are the main divisions given: Isaunties, Sissetons, Yantons, Teetons, Assiniboines, Winnebagos, Punkas, Omahas, Missouris, Iowas, Otoes, Kaws, Quappas, Osages, Upsarocas, Minnetarees.)
> Dakota, Berghaus, Physik. Atlas, map 72, 1887.
Derivation: A corruption of the Algonkin word “nadowe-ssi-wag,”“the snake-like ones,” “the enemies” (Trumbull).
Under the family Gallatin makes four subdivisions, viz, the Winnebagos, the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins, the Minnetare group, and the Osages and southern kindred tribes. Gallatin speaks of the distribution of the family as follows: The Winnebagoes have their principal seats on the Fox River of Lake Michigan and towards the heads of the Rock River of the Mississippi; of the Dahcotas proper, the Mendewahkantoan or “Gens du Lac” lived east of the Mississippi from Prairie du Chien north to Spirit Lake. The three others, Wahkpatoan, Wahkpakotoan and Sisitoans inhabit the country between the Mississippi and the St. Peters, and that on the southern tributaries of this river and on the headwaters of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. The three western tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktoanans and the Tetons wander between the Mississippi and the Missouri, extending southerly to 43° of north latitude and some distance west of the Missouri, between 43° and 47° of latitude.The “Shyennes” are included in the family but are marked as doubtfully belonging here.
Owing to the fact that “Sioux” is a word of reproach and means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many later writers as a family designation, and “Dakota,” which signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The term “Sioux” was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that the term is here employed. The term “Dahcota” (Dakota) was correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term with this signification should be perpetuated.
It is only recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some affinities of the Catawban language with “Muskhogee and even with Choctaw,” though these were not sufficient to induce him to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the Catawba linguistic material available, which has been materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects of the widespread Siouan family.
The pristine territory of this family was mainly in one body, the only exceptions being the habitats of the Biloxi, the Tutelo, the Catawba and Woccon.
Contrary to the popular opinion of the present day, the general trend of Siouan migration has been westward. In comparatively late prehistoric times, probably most of the Siouan tribes dwelt east of the Mississippi River.
The main Siouan territory extended from about 53° north in the Hudson Bay Company Territory, to about 33°, including a considerable part of the watershed of the Missouri River and that of the Upper Mississippi. It was bounded on the northwest, north, northeast, and for some distance on the east by Algonquian territory. South of 45° north the line ran eastward to Lake Michigan, as the Green Bay region belonged to the Winnebago.86
It extended westward from Lake Michigan through Illinois, crossing the Mississippi River at Prairie du Chien. At this point began the Algonquian territory (Sac, etc.) on the west side of the Mississippi, extending southward to the Missouri, and crossing that river it returned to the Mississippi at St. Louis. The Siouan tribes claimed all of the present States of Iowa and Missouri, except the parts occupied by Algonquian tribes. The dividing line between the two for a short distance below St. Louis was the Mississippi River. The line then ran west of Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties, in Missouri, and Mississippi County and those parts of Craighead and Poinsett Counties, Arkansas, lying east of the St. Francis River. Once more the Mississippi became the eastern boundary, but in this case separating the Siouan from the Muskhogean territory. The Quapaw or Akansa were the most southerly tribe in the main Siouan territory. In 167387they were east of the Mississippi. Joutel (1687) located two of their villages on the Arkansas and two on the Mississippi one of the latter being on the east bank, in our present State of Mississippi, and the other being on the opposite side, in Arkansas. Shea says88that the Kaskaskias were found by De Soto in 1540 in latitude 36°, and that the Quapaw were higher up the Mississippi. But we know that the southeast corner of Missouri and the northeast corner of Arkansas, east of the St. Francis River, belonged to Algonquian tribes. A study of the map of Arkansas shows reason for believing that there may have been a slight overlapping of habitats, or a sort of debatable ground. At any rate it seems advisable to compromise, and assign the Quapaw and Osage (Siouan tribes) all of Arkansas up to about 36° north.
On the southwest of the Siouan family was the Southern Caddoan group, the boundary extending from the west side of the Mississippi River in Louisiana, nearly opposite Vicksburg, Mississippi, and running northwestwardly to the bend of Red River between Arkansas and Louisiana; thence northwest along the divide between the watersheds of the Arkansas and Red Rivers. In the northwest corner of Indian Territory the Osages came in contact with the Comanche (Shoshonean), and near the western boundary of Kansas the Kiowa, Cheyenne, and Arapaho (the two latter being recent Algonquian intruders?) barred the westward march of the Kansa or Kaw.
The Pawnee group of the Caddoan family in western Nebraska and northwestern Kansas separated the Ponka and Dakota on the north from the Kansa on the south, and the Omaha and other Siouan tribes on the east from Kiowa and other tribes on the west. The Omaha and cognate peoples occupied in Nebraska the lower part of the Platte River, most of the Elkhorn Valley, and the Ponka claimed the region watered by the Niobrara in northern Nebraska.
There seems to be sufficient evidence for assigning to the Crows (Siouan) the northwest corner of Nebraska (i.e., that part north of the Kiowan and Caddoan habitats) and the southwest part of South Dakota (not claimed by Cheyenne89), as well as the northern part of Wyoming and the southern part of Montana, where they met the Shoshonean stock.90
The Biloxi habitat in 1699 was on the Pascogoula river,91in the southeast corner of the present State of Mississippi. The Biloxi subsequently removed to Louisiana, where a few survivors were found by Mr. Gatschet in 1886.
The Tutelo habitat in 1671 was in Brunswick County, southern Virginia, and it probably included Lunenburgh and Mecklenburg Counties.92The Earl of Bellomont (1699) says93that the Shateras were “supposed to be the Toteros, on Big Sandy River, Virginia,” and Pownall, in his map of North America (1776), gives the Totteroy (i.e., Big Sandy) River. Subsequently to 1671 the Tutelo left Virginia and moved to North Carolina.94They returned to Virginia (with the Sapona), joined the Nottaway and Meherrin, whom they and the Tuscarora followed into Pennsylvania in the last century; thence they went to New York, where they joined the Six Nations, with whom they removed to Grand River Reservation, Ontario, Canada, after the Revolutionary war. The last full-blood Tutelo died in 1870. For the important discovery of the Siouan affinity of the Tutelo language we are indebted to Mr. Hale.
The Catawba lived on the river of the same name on the northern boundary of South Carolina. Originally they were a powerful tribe, the leading people of South Carolina, and probably occupied a large part of the Carolinas. The Woccon were widely separated from kinsmen living in North Carolina in the fork of the Cotentnea and Neuse Rivers.
The Wateree, living just below the Catawba, were very probably of the same linguistic connection.