Indian Linguistic Families of America, North of Mexico: Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891, pages 1-142Powell, John Wesley
History
Indian Linguistic Families of America, North of Mexico: Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891, pages 1-142
Powell, John Wesley
Indians of North America -- Languages; Indians of North America -- Languages -- Bibliography
In 1853, as above cited, Gibbs gives Eh-nek as the titular heading of
his paragraphs upon the language of this family, with the remark that 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account