Full text of "Shoshonean dialects of California"

See other formats

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY

Vol. 4 No. 3

SHOSHONEAN DIALECTS OF CALIFORNIA

A. L. KROEBER

BERKELEY

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

FEBRUARY, 1907

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

The following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnol-
ogical subjects issued under the direction of the Department of Anthrop-
ology are sent in exchange for the publications of anthropological depart-
ments and museums, for journals devoted to general anthropology or
to archaeology and ethnology, and for specimens contributed to the
museum collections of the University. They are for sale at the prices
stated, which include postage or express charges. Exchanges should be
directed to The Exchange Department, University Library, Berkeley,
California, U. S. A. All orders and remittances should be addressed
to the University Press.

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY. (Octavo).

Vol. 1. No. 1. Life and Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard.

Pages 88, Plates 30, September, 1903 . . . Price, $1.25

No. 2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pages 290, March,

1904. Price, 3.00

Vol. 2. No. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J.

Sinclair. Pages 27, Plates 14, April, 1904 . . Price, .40

No. 2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San

Francisco, by A. L. Kroeber. Pages 52, June, 1904. Price, .60

No. 3. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber.

Pages 22, June, 1904 Price, .25

No. 4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California,

by A. L. Kroeber. Pages 60, Plates 7, January, 1905. Price, .75

No. 5. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by

A. L. Kroeber. Pages 213, January, 1907 . . Price, 2.25

Vol. 3. The Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard.

Pages 344, June, 1905 Price, 3.50

Vol. 4. No. 1. The Earliest Historical Relations between Mexico and

Japan, by Zelia Ntittall. Pages 47, April, 1906. . Price, .50

No. 2. Contributions to the Physical Anthropology of California,
by A. Hrdlicka. Pages 16, Tables 5, Plates 10, June, 1906.
Price, .75

No. 3. Shoshonean Dialects of California, by A. L. Kroeber.

Pages 100, February, 1907 Price, 1.50

No. 4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L.
Kroeber (in press).

No. 5. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada,
by A. L. Kroeber (in press).

Vol. 5. No. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language: Part I, The Indi-
vidual Sounds, by Pliny Earle Goddard (in press).

No. 2. Navaho Myths, Prayers and Songs with Texts and Trans-
lations, by Washington Matthews, edited by Pliny Earle Goddard

(in press).

Vol. 6. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo Indians, by S. A. Barrett
(in press).

Vol. 7. No. 1. The Emeryville Shellmound, by Dr. Max Uhle (in press).

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS

AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY
VOL. 4 NO. 3

SHOSHONEAN DIALECTS OF CALIFORNIA.

A. L. KROEBER.

PAGE

PART 1. SHOSHONEAN DIALECTS AND DIVISIONS 66

Introduction 66

New Vocabularies 67

Comparative Vocabulary of Nineteen Dialects 71

Linguistic Notes on the Vocabularies 90

Systematized Comparative Vocabulary of Shoshonean 92

Classification 97

Pueblo Branch 97

Plateau Branch 97

Kern River Branch 98

Southern California Branch 99

Relations of the Dialectic Groups 101

Geographical Distribution of the Dialectic Divisions 101

Ute-Chemehuevi Group 105

Chemehuevi 105

Paiute 109

Kawaiisu HO

Shoshoni-Comanche Group HI

Mono-Paviotso Group 114

Kern River Group

Tiibatulabal 122

Bankalachi 126

Giamina 126

Distribution of Shoshoneans in the San Joaquin-Tulare Valley 128

Southern California Branch 130

Serrano Group

Gitanemuk 135

Mohineyam 139

Gabrielino Group

Luisefio-Cahuilla Group 145

Luiseno 145

San Juan Capistrano - 149

Agua Caliente 150

Cahuilla 151

Sunta Barbara Islands - 151'

PA::T II. RELATIONSHIP OF SHOSHONEAN TO NAHUATL 154

PART III. HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS 164

66 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

I. SHOSHONEAN DIALECTS AND DIVISIONS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Shoshonean Indian linguistic family, which once occupied
practically the entire Great Basin, with considerable additional
territory in both the Atlantic and Pacific drainages, is one of the
great stocks of North America, even without being united with
Piman and Nahuatl into the still larger Uto-Aztekan family.
It is, however, the least known ethnologically of the larger fam-
ilies north of Mexico. The relations to one another of its various
subdivisions, and the extent and inclusion of its tribal groups,
have been very imperfectly understood.

Linguistically, matters are superficially better, since many
vocabularies have been collected and published since the begin-
ning of the last century. But knowledge of the structure of the
language has lagged behind, and there is not yet printed even
a sketch of the grammar of any Shoshonean dialect, although it
is to be hoped that the researches already made by Mr. H. H. St.
Clair of the American Museum of Natural History, by Mr. H. R.
Voth for the Field Museum of Natural History, and by others in
Southern California, may before long furnish abundant morpho-
logical information as to several Shoshonean dialects.

In view of the fact that so many Shoshonean vocabularies are
available, Gatschet alone having printed eighteen in the Seventh
Report of Wheeler's Survey, while grammatical information is
still so much needed, the addition, to the undigested mass of
already existing vocabularies, of the dozen and a half new ones
which are here presented and on which this paper is based, would
be without value if this new material were not sufficient to defin-
itely establish certain conclusions. Thus it is that the value of
these new vocabularies is not so much intrinsic, for they were
collected without deeper study of the language and must be
imperfect in many points, as it rests in the fact of their being
the largest number hitherto secured by one observer, by which

VOL. 4] Krocber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 67

circumstance the confusing elements of individual method and of
conflicting orthographies are avoided; and especially in their
fortunately happening to represent all the most important
dialectic groups of the family. That this is so is scarcely
the result of any systematic plan, but rather the incidental con-
sequence of various field investigations extending over several
years among both Shoshonean and adjacent tribes. At least half
of the vocabularies were secured in connection with work carried
on primarily among the Yokuts and Yuman stocks. Three vocab-
ularies were obtained in 1900 within sight of the Rocky Moun-
tains on an expedition for the American Museum of Natural
History, through the courtesy of whose authorities the use of
this material is made available. The remainder were mostly
obtained in California in 1903 and 1904 in connection with the
Ethnological and Archaeological Survey of California carried on
by the Anthropological Department of the University. Several
additional vocabularies were secured in the San Joaquin valley
in 1906, some time after the completion of this paper but before
work had been begun upon it by the printer. Fortunately the
distribution of Shoshonean dialects in California is such, that
with the addition of the three from the Rocky Mountain region,
the vocabularies here presented, although obtained in only two
rather limited portions of the immense territory covered by the
family, represent, as stated, all of its principal groups.

NEW VOCABULAEIES.

The following are the sources of the vocabularies presented.

The brief Shoshoni and Bannock vocabularies were obtained
from one interpreter, apparently a Bannock, on Fort Hall res-
ervation in southeastern Idaho, during a short collecting trip
made to this place in 1900. The Shoshoni vocabulary is cor-
roborated by a briefer list of words obtained among the Sho-
shoni of Wind river reservation east of the Rocky Mountains
in Wyoming. The Bannock vocabulary seems to be the first
published from the tribes going under this name.

The Ute vocabulary was obtained, also in 1900, among the
Uintah Ute, mainly from the official reservation interpreter, an
elderly man named Charley. More experience was had with this

68 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

dialect than with the preceding and the vocabulary is probably
phonetically somewhat more reliable.

The Chemehuevi vocabulary was obtained, in the course of
investigations among the Mohave, from a woman of a family of
Chemehuevi living in Mohave territory on the Colorado river
some eight miles north of Needles, California.

The Kawaiisu vocabulary is from Dominga, wife of Rosario,
an old woman at the Indian settlement on Rancho Tejon, south-
east of Bakersfield. She stated that she herself was born at
Tejon, but that her father was from the vicinity of Tehachapi,
her mother from Caliente. A vocabulary of this dialect has also
been obtained from Mrs. Juan Imitirio, a Shoshonean woman of
the Tiibatulabal tribe, married to a Yokuts on Tule river reserva-
tion. A number of words not secured from the first informant
were obtained from her. No vocabulary of this dialect appears
to have been previously published.

Two vocabularies called Mono were obtained. One is from
a young half-breed woman named Lucy, the wife of Jim Johnson,
a Pohonichi Moquelumnan at the time living near Raymond,
Madera county, California ; this informant belonged to the Mono
of the North Fork of the San Joaquin, the people called Nim by
Dr. C. Hart Merriam. The other is from the Tiibatulabal woman
just mentioned, and represents the dialect of the people about
Lone Pine and Big Pine along Owens river in Inyo county, Cali-
fornia. These people were called Monachi by the informant,
but, being east of the Sierra Nevada, are probably known locally
as Paiutes. The North Fork of the San Joaquin vocabulary
seems to be the first available from the Mono of the western side
of the Sierra.

The Endimbich vocabulary is also from a people generally
known as Mono, but specifically called Endimbich or Intimpich.
They lived on Mill creek, a tributary of Kings river. The inform-
ant was an old woman, wife of a Chukaimina Yokuts called Jack,
living in Squaw valley, Fresno county. She comes from a place
called by the Yokuts Kicheyu, which appears to be in the vicinity
of Dunlap. No Endimbich vocabulary has been previously pub-
lished.

The Shikaviyam or Sikauyam or Kosho vocabulary, the fourth

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 69

of the Mono group, is also from Mrs. Juan Imitirio, whose
mother belonged to these people. They lived southward and
eastward of Owens lake, probably in the region of the Koso
mountains. The informant's remembrance of the dialect was not
complete. This exact dialect also appears to be unrepresented in
published collections.

The Tiibatulabal vocabulary is the fourth of those obtained
from Mrs. Juan Imitirio at Tule river reservation. She furnished
also the Shikaviyam, the Inyo Mono, and part of the Kawaiisu
vocabularies. Tiibatulabal is her native language from her
father's side. This is the first vocabulary of this dialectic group
published.

The Bankalachi vocabulary is from Tom Wheaton, an old
man on Tule river reservation usually speaking only Yokuts. He
was born at Tejon from a Yokuts father and a Shoshonean
mother. He now knows little of Shoshonean tribes or lan-
guages, and designates his mother only as Nuchawayi, or hill-
inhabitant, and Malda, or Shoshonean. He stated that her people
lived at Kelsiu, so called by the Yokuts, on upper White river.
This is the region usually assigned to the Bankalachi by Yokuts
informants, and another old Yokuts stated this informant's
mother to have been Bankalachi. The vocabulary obtained is so
close to Tiibatulabal that it is not certain that it represents a
distinct dialect ; but Bankalachi is uniformly declared to be but
slightly different from Tiibatulabal. The informant's recollec-
tion was incomplete, but apparently, so far as it went, reliable.

The Gitanemuk or Gikidanum vocabulary was independently
obtained at Tule river reservation from an intelligent old Yokuts
man called Chalola, and at Tejon ranch from a woman called
Ysabel, who was born there and whose native dialect this appears
to have been. Chalola 's father belonged to the Wowol tribe, his
mother to the Yauelmani. After his father's death, while he
himself was still a boy, he was taken to Tejon. There he was
brought up, probably on the Tejon reservation of the fifties and
sixties of the last century, in contact with the Gitanemuk. He
seems to speak the language fluently. The vocabulary is the
first that has been printed of this dialect, although it differs but
little from Serrano, which has been known for years.

70 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

The Mohineyam vocabulary was obtained, like the Cheme-
huevi, among the Mohave. An old woman named Hamukha from
her birthplace on the Mohave river, was brought by her relatives,
who were related to the Mohave by marriage, to the latter for
safe keeping, about the time that the tribe was virtually extermi-
nated, it is said by the Mexicans. This may have been before
the coming of the Americans, as she was a little girl at the time.
She has lived among the Mohave ever since as one of the tribe.
She recalls certain words with difficulty, but both the grammati-
cal forms of her words and their close resemblance to Serrano
are evidence that the vocabulary is in the main correct. This
vocabulary is also new.

The brief Gabrielino or San Gabriel vocabulary was obtained
from an old man named Jose Varojo, at Highland, San Bernar-
dino county, California. This region seems to have been origi-
nally Serrano territory and the majority of the Indians at High-
land at present are Serrano. This informant however stated
that he, or his ancestors, were from the coast near Santa Monica,
the Indians of w^hich region were attached to San Gabriel mis-
sion, so that Gabrielino is his native dialect.

The Fernandeno or San Fernando vocabulary is from Rosario,
an old man at Tejon ranch, who says that he was born at San
Fernando. According to his statement the San Fernando dialect
is very little different from that of San Gabriel, which concurs
with the facts and with older statements in literature; yet no
vocabulary of the dialect has ever been published.

The Luiseno vocabulary was obtained at Bincon, San Diego
county, from Felix Calac. The Agua Caliente vocabulary is
from his wife, who speaks this dialect as her native tongue.

The Cahuilla vocabulary is from Marcellino Quashish, a
Luiseno at Pala, California. He appeared not to know the lan-
guage perfectly and soon became tired. This vocabulary is there-
fore added only for purposes of comparison.

The Hopi vocabulary was secured from a young man named
Sam, attached to the Hupa reservation school as shoemaker.

The characters used in these vocabularies, other than those
whose phonetic value is obvious, are : i, e, 6, u, open ; I, e, 6, u,
closed ; a, English aw, nearly 6 ; a, as in English bad ; a, between

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 71

Tic
o
-w

•a

'3 6 =?

a ° s

=S g ?« 43

mini

« 5

4= ~

03 03

E S

03 ._
£ S

M 3
5-

— •"

W) o

c3 ^~*

.§S -H

f^ fl

o .^

s.a

^ .-i .-.

:i-3:i

jj; o o <y o 42
- 03 ? '? 'P '? 03
fl (3 & £ £ f a

mill!

M w

•S'S
£ ^2

cS §

"'I

— r

«J5

is «

tc 43

-- aj

fr ^

03 -

fe °

^ Sl_l

-. oo

§^

S 2 .5

5 .'2

sillf
**

o
Z

-° «

•9 -a :i

A c8
& &>

^ 1

Hj o

S f,

, v^ « •&'&'« 'S -

= O 3 S5 :? :O =O "^

:o 2 ."3 ;? '§ '^•'S -g S S 8 2 a S S ^ '*

1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 3 J ^ «

S tic <M ?>

03 ._ CC

" 43 43 " "*

03 03 03 03 C3 C8 03 io3 03 "o3 03 oJ 03 *J rt
PH &, CL, Cu CL f± ft O.42 42 O, P, -

._, .
* '

-f-.n-EillllilMt

-a c- ft

• .S

<D 0 3

^ O 43
O -J7 03

fl P P,

S.2 £

« «S 05

University of California Publications. [AM.AKCH.ETH.

"S 6

fJJ

03 g

S-r

cs co es

E s s

•£ o

i s'-S i s If,

a a

.5 '3

•j3 BlS-S

.-i &, cj fl c3 P .2
co co d i — i H rr rt

^3 ."S

•rg^

'*• .'- :" o>
^4 ,a ^ ,M

•

0 0

CS 0 ._ .M =0

E .§-? .^.s- 9

o :§ :-:| '§

B 3 ^X

g *

^ S 3 ,5 S H

•I

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Skoshonean Dialects of California. 73

<?.

$•>•$•$

«§§§
s^SSS

I? il .?«.;§•

.U1

s 2 2 g

.S s i i

c =s

c« a o o o

7 «
S"c8

9 5 2 2 S

as a a a a

a, s> "6

=o 9

9 o o
"o cb ^ .„

Mil

a> -H
0 fl

s0r°

« '£
^ «

'= 'S

g S
o o

g g

I =
w C

» rf

— — •

*•

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

S 3

a -a -a

5 03 03

§ .-§

_a PH I— '

g p be
S bo a

|>|l||

*fH **
III

S3®
CflP

-3
O

«1

P.S

§ a
l 1

cSPpP

9 §

-2 'S '43

<u 2 §
'S'p P

Sli

? I ftsja 1 j « -s a=« *g
|1 l^flfllf Illl

.g -if :o 03 03 I .P § O V -^ .i O o

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 75

•4
I

1 a

p a o

03 03 2

n ry E

03 03 O

S S S

P S s-a

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

!= ^ „

9 ? 3

oofe

.§

S
g

-i'l

.I'o
~' 05

0 g

g « ,g fl

ca e« S J. § •-

'CTJCO+i O

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

- :O

o :o

ft ft

o be
a

fts

'a *

.- 1, t> .j «, «8

°* 5 _ O C O 53 +j .g ^j^j^

O •_ £ OOO-4-aftft ftftft

3* S«

a, ia

l.a.2

l .3i

-g -g 2 S « .M
-

2-g S «f

g o> S JP*
00 73 § '-

1 5

5 Is

« -e s5

o rt

- ft

¥ S^ -^rs
_ _ cs 7 caa cs

Q^ o 'rC O j^ io3 F«

.
ft

*c8 Itf)

'3 s s

§ 3 £ s ^ y*1:* .* .°

^3 be ob P cs 4< i5 ci)J2

o ^

*•£
•iff

Ti 5 J2

cs .

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

-i-> rt

0 ?>
£ H

1 I

!{!*i*Lj.M

|ISli|l|l

=O :O cS a .2 cc. A :S :O =S 108 O o o O ci o>

ss ssga^ sss sssssss

-
>^ CCC

« b'S
RgS

^ •-_J

•ss>

Igillllilli

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 79

2 •" •" 3

O 5 M^3^§'52"3"345

:o &, 3 5 ',5s 3 '3 '3

11,1 rt

Ills

CoOoC-i-J-u-i-)-^^^*
300033S3H'S§

M he be be be be u tx &c -12 +:

gill 111 12 ts S

'0 ,3 .2 •§ 3 .5 :S « =S 3 3

n-Soc ace fc c ^ ^>

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

P=i

OocS5S°3'®0O 5 5

on ~

ofl
o> 3

-42
!®Q

1
03

"S ~

"«'

•4
(

!
t

3 ,f!2

$
I

n
'S
w
-2

bala GOX

^ >%"a3
0) » £

_ -2 bo
5 o

ft >H 'r3

"ol

H
03

-4->
£3

>~H

03
=
= 0

•g 03 111

« o I! j"

'Is

• — S
I!S 03

pn ,C rC ^2 o

•^^

is i

S
d

ta H S

S g rt

• |M

O O 73

s a ft

03
be

1 t

K '. S «

) 'O

•uS-frf

o S S '^

** of.ft.ft.ft-0 f *a * ^

i £•£ ^ :§ ° :^ '§ 2 ^

< (•" t

s o3 o
» « .>

-1" 1^

1 X 03 §

CO 4J +J T

:ro'T3'a-^ w o (U^OT:

'° '"•

3 O> T3 -M

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 81

Jv~.
"o

a
a

/3
be

'53

•c

•;

2 ££

•=.
x
a

g]?:g

T1 c

bC^

2r-.'S &
3 :S cS 03

3 _P rfj J

— — -

"C ^ *C

S -^ CS CS

c a s

—

P -^ P

f^ ^

2 i— i — ._

3 3 43

0 -^ ^.

^ = 3

fl £ a
s a s

— = ~

CM — — be bC

03 c3

03 c$ —

bo bo be be £cla

p S3O

J2 as

o ^ (s

's *s -s '3 •« *

33J3 oj V ^»

cc ^

EH —

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

111

io =g

JH ^3

,44

'So

8 ft

oT oT
"fl "S

cS P) 05
fe c« a
Zi >• "->

-
PI

I M**j£l«| 8^9199.11 «~

=> liSl^liliWlilli ^s.

OC-3S3 ^:o:SoOOSj3 Sa

111

ed fl

o i

« e

03 _

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

•„ 1

§ a

2-*

iS C3

•a'3

•~ ~

r: -

o p ^

& 5 3

O O CD

cd cfi c3

s §

ns +

•S c

bO -ta ^

•i cj -3 .j5 ::

JI5 PH S bC rj

s s s

B flB fl

bC tJD bC

PH43

A( 3

« -S

-H -a

a •IS'lSllLSI »
I » s a •&•§ 3 1 r§ i ^3 J

•S ^fi -f'^lSi'aS^'rt^™

iil g^ilsl sllal

c3 3 bC cfl

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

ce »H

t «&

£ §

C5 -£

I §
•^ .g

1 f

^.&

,a M '3

111

£ £ £

-^^
||

s ™

SII

03 «

§ s p

- cjo^j

S S3 o

s s s

I g

5.2

& -

t§

c8 P S S3

ft,

CJO 6C

2 c

*rt ^j

•S.SJS

ii^lll3lllli

•33 a

^ DO CO

Q} CO
>. GO

u
al
g,
t

87 Y
graphi
surpris
the Yoku

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

•a

•a-al li

:S e<S :S S S O O O

I ilS

CS'O'O 13 bO -2 cfi^cS

O ^ cd

ill

'Z.'v:^

§i^

P ^ 1^3

c« "S ^3

"o 3.

*ft

-
* -

'bio

-a

* S

3 i

' P.

•

1 fl

§l§l!i!| p

-"S iS ® « » So «

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

1 s

>a P
-9 J

oS=S

-a

8 a Jj

® X®

•s

•§

. .-

, 3 > -rt

„

a a

o o

1 a

a a

0 0

CO ...
TO "*^ H

a s

'fl

.»

•i

^ rS fl ^

.a a •& i :§

a a a

-S

:^ "^ *rt ^ ^->

u § S

a a .fi

a a a a s a .?

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

.rt~

=0 «0
=O :O

5 <c «

103 43 ,£3

— i, -O

2l|

— - ~
O a 03

I !

3 1 1-

I s

"? B 13

c3 c3 03

— — ~

PH l> P- .S
sO O O g

^ KK*

•M « C

:s 5^ I

&, K+s 5
=3 S O O>

£ s s s

•
-*. >>

r~» O

^ S

0:3

§11

2 rt rt

can

•

'a
o

, r5

•a ^

'S £-s£S!l;3-*S20 g

tiii^lf|lillii«L

in ii film lull

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

.Jn 3

a M

Ill ill

-4-= ^ -1^ ,13 >j P

™ fl
a) c6
a<ro

rt ' fl

•A o o3

in
a

^1
a3 a>
t^ &,

fl P P

"S IS 3

I'5

'o ^

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoskonean Dialects of California. 89

I , 5

P tyC^d £3

'8> III

03 M

A S3

2 e

C eS

rt .. n

S .« 2 S

CO ^ w 05

E I S E

=§ JA

X jj

• - be

•r-s 3

"2 *
S M

CS 0

.S ««
0 5

03 03

- -
& P

'3 S

E 03

E S

a 'a
.1 g

I
a

90 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

a and a, perhaps with similar quality as o, u, o, u; o, u impure ;
o, u, differing from French and German 6, ii, as o, u differ from
o, u ; n, nasalized vowel ; A, E, i, o, u, obscure vowels ; a, e, *, °, u,
unarticulated vowels; c, sh or approaching it; z, j, sonants cor-
responding to s, c; n, nasal of k as n is of t; q, G, velar or
uvular k, g ; x, spirant of k ; g' , sonant spirant of k ; X, G' , spi-
rants corresponding to q, G ; v, bilabial ; t-, palatal t ; ', aspiration.

LINGUISTIC NOTES ON THE VOCABULAEIES.

Many Shoshonean vocabularies have been written without the
sonants g, d, b. It would seem that these sounds occur as well
as k, t, p, but that they are to Indo-European ears so nearly like
the surds as to be distinguished from them with difficulty. The
stem for water, occurring perhaps in Paiute and in numerous
geographical names, has usually been written pa-; but the pre-
ceding vocabularies show that by the author it was more fre-
quently heard as ba. It is not altogether certain that such surd-
resembling sonants really exist in addition to the surds; it is
possible that there is only one class of sounds, most nearly but
not quite similar to our surds, and that these have been heard
sometimes as surd and sometimes as sonant. But it is certain
that at least not every k, t, and p in Shoshonean is pronounced
as in English. And this seems to hold true of every dialectic
group of the family.

Many Californian Shoshonean dialects have an interdental t.
Whether this t replaces our t, or occurs in addition to it, has not
been determined. Interdental or lower dental t is frequent in
Californian languages, occurring in Yuki, Porno, Yokuts, and
perhaps other families. In the Shoshonean family it has been
noted in Luiseno, Agua Caliente, Gitanemuk, Kawaiisu, and
Tiibatulabal, in other, words in the Luiseno-Cahuilla, Serrano,
Kern river, and Ute-Chemehuevi groups ; and it is probably found
in others.

Shoshonean v is always bilabial, and by an untrained observer
is readily heard as b or w. Most vocabularies show some confu-
sion of these sounds, and the lists of the present author are no
exception. Tiibatulabal is the only dialect in which it is doubtful

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 91

whether v occurs, appearing to be replaced by w. This possible
exception may be due to contact of the Tiibatulabal with the
Yokuts, whose languages have no v.

The northern Mono vocabulary here given shows r in a num-
ber of cases where d or t occurs in the southern dialect and in
other groups. This r was heard as intermediate between r and
d rather than as r.

A marked phonetic characteristic of Shoshonean are the d, ii,
and allied o, u sounds. These all have a peculiar impure or
muddied quality, which may be due to imperfect rounding of
the lips. The same sounds are known to occur in the Yokuts1 and
Chumash2 linguistic families, both territorially adjacent to Sho-
shonean. 0 and u have been found by the writer in every one
of the Shoshonean dialectic groups with which he has had experi-
ence, excepting Luiseno-Cahuilla ; and it seems probable that they
occur in all dialects of these groups.

E and o are generally open in Shoshonean, at least in the
Californian dialects. They are open also in most of the linguistic
families of California.

Many of the vocabularies show pronominal forms, especially
in the terms for parts of the body. In California these are
usually prefixes. The Tiibatulabal forms obtained mostly end
in -n, which seems to be the possessive suffix of the first person,
my. The second person, thy, is indicated by the suffix -n. Most
of the northern Mono terms are preceded by da-, which probably
means his, or somebody 's. Gabrielino sems to add -n on prefixing
a possessive pronoun : ki-g' , house, ni-ki-n, my house.

A feature that appears prominently in the material collected
is the existence throughout the Shoshonean family of noun-
suffixes or terminations which are lost under certain conditions.
It would appear that a noun cannot stand as a naked stem, but
requires a suffix; but that any form of composition into which
the stem enters, such as the addition of a possessive affix, makes
the terminal suffix unnecessary, and it is lost. This process,
which is more or less visible in every Shoshonean dialect, occurs
in identical form in Nahuatl. Stone in Luiseno is to-ta, Juaneno

1 P. 329 of Vol. II of this series.

2 P. 32 of Vol. II of this series.

92 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

to-t; my stone is no-to. Ki-tca, house, objective ki-c, plural
ki-tc-am, becomes no-ki ; yu-la, head, tcam-yu, our heads. These
forms are exactly paralleled by Nahuatl te-tl, stone, no-teuh, my
stone; yak-atl, nose, no-yak, my nose.

These grammatically interesting suffixes cannot be examined
further here. One of the first prerequisites of a comparison of
Shoshonean dialects that will be of linguistic and not only of
ethnological value, is a comparative determination of these
suffixes. Some striking correspondences are apparent in the pres-
ent vocabularies; as in the case of pa-, water, where Serrano
shows -tc, Gabrielino -r, Luiseno-Cahuilla -1, the Plateau branch
-, Tiibatulabal -1. Ku-, fire, shows -t in Southern California and
Tiibatulabal, -c in Mono-Paviotso, -n in Ute-Chemehuevi and
Shoshone-Comanche. Without following particular correspond-
ences any further, it may be said that the Plateau dialects seem
to show suffixes of this type in -v, -p, -n, -c, and -t, and to lack
them in -1 and t; Tiibatulabal to lack those in v and p, but to
have -c, -ntc, -t, and especially -1; the Southern California dia-
lects to lack -v, -p, and perhaps -n ; to possess -t in common ; and
to specialize, Serrano in -tc, Gabrielino in -x and -r, Luiseno-
Cahuilla in -c, -tc, -r, and -1.

SYSTEMATIZED COMPAEATIVE VOCABULAEY OF SHOSHONEAN.

A comparison of these vocabularies with those previously
printed, which are in very different and often imperfect orthog-
raphies, shows that there is no known dialect which differs dis-
tinctly from those here given, even though some of the localities
at which these other vocabularies were obtained are distant, and
the tribes quite distinct from those visited by the writer. The
material for a classification of the Shoshonean family on a lin-
guistic basis is therefore given by the present series of new vocab-
ularies, while those previously printed amplify and correct them
and help to determine more accurately the geographical distri-
bution of each dialect and group.

In the following general comparative vocabulary covering
twenty-five of the words most important for a discrimination of
dialects in Shoshonean, material from the dialects represented

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Skoshonean Dialects of California.

by the present new vocabularies, and from all the more distinct
dialects shown in addition by older vocabularies, is brought
together in uniform orthography, and with as much simplifica-
tion as possible both phonetically and structurally, in order to
display both more comprehensively and more concisely than in
the longer preceding tables the material on which the following
classification of the Shoshonean family rests. On account of the
doubt existing, and for the sake of simplicity, sonants have been
written as surds. Whenever possible, stems have been given
instead of words, or when more desirable marked by hyphens.
This vocabulary is therefore an abstract or ideal one rather than
an attempt at an actual and accurate representation of the sev-
eral dialects.

03 '3

-2

1- ~

ii??

o o

03 03

i— i « « O

— Pl

"3 '3 '3 '3
PI PI p< PI

'3 B 3 '3
Pl Pl Pl Pl

B 0

333 B

Pi Pi Pi Pi

PI P)

03 03

£ P

-M

.§

manag-

.» |i

a a a

cd c3 cd

s s s

i-ift!
?iii

.i— (

O3 o3 o3
43 43 43
03 03 03

S S S

43
-
=

M »,4t1 MAS

Iliia
ill i

S S a a

jji.

X~X

**•

'"• ~'

, ~ ..

*^s

E-H

• H *»H J3

cd o3 cd

nj Cd C3 rt
Sc K C K

& P P P

0 03 B

IS-S -5

"eS

00 »rt

Pi Pi Pi

B JS

c3 -2

333

l'§

w • —
W W

'3 "3 "3

!2 1 .§ 1 .§

"_ ^ i, "— —

333
03 03 03
43 43 43

3 3 ^i r-^
P, P, P, P,

333 3

Jri

S ®

•g fl

_h "S

'p.

Comanehe
Shoshoni

Ute
S. E. Bannc
Chemehuev:
Kawaiisu

s ^§

co c co rn

S -*-> QO -~

_O o o *" 43

Tubatulabs

Gikidanum
Mohineyam
Serrano

Gabrielino

.2 .1

03^0^ 4«

-111

CCi-3-< 0

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

03 03 03

tS'sJijj

c3 03 : o3 03 03 03

?> i ?> ?>

111

-^ 4J -IJ

: ft

: 03

o3 'Jm

£j»

ft: o

-S

0 0~^ ft

§ B : ft 03
B B : o3 0
CO 03 : t> ?>
ft fti^t M

3 .. 3 O

B n B B
S M B

ft 0 ft Pn

cokont

03
g

'ft

i o3 c3 o3

'a^'an'ft'EH

•o

B B : 3 B B

?> ?j i 'S B

-*J _ -(->

"be

o o

O O O O 03
B B B B M

*-k-k

.rH -rU .— .^

4^ ^ F^ pM

r~t

0 0 1 3 J3 6
_Ld ^ : X B 4
c3 03 ; o3 o3 Cv>

° ^5

>a IB

cS 03

B B

1 .M »S tp3

IISS

05 ,

| ||

I ^'^

i — i

-5

"eT ' "T^

i -2^

5 ft : £5 ft a a

03 . ^ ft

PH ft. ft g

i <s
J3 -i-=

03 03

8 | a a

1 — ' ' i-*j ' •*» -*j

^ +, ^ ^3

S -R

• i u

^ i"S

°B

•

^ & ^ S ^

^.5:0 :§ =S
03 S i fl B fl

'B '«

03 o3 o3

•S-iS S

CO 03 O5

Is
S

« M X V

03 03 03 M
o3 03 03 -+J

,9
1

jj i O O 3
^ ft : "*"* o3 '*"' ft

W 'o i P S ?> H
_3 _® ;_oj g _oj _oj

03 05 03 pj 03

c3 03 c3 ^3 03
B B B -M B

13
t

O ."S
cp O

-l-i -u
03 3

C
o

'3 '3

03 03

£ o x x

p* • fl CB

i>> >> a B

a (p

03 r<

0> 3 <B ,-j

a o i a> H § ^

o ja if IftA

Q OC :P QQ O M

"§ a'
+> OB

^=1 03
^ o r/) (S*[

03 _JJ2 QQ

Tiibatulabal

Gikidanum
Mohineyam
Serrano

S. J. Capistr
Luiseno
Agua Caliem
Cahuilla

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

fc;

^- — ^

.1*

gXS S
•43 •.£ !B :-2

£.!>!

•s

333

a s e

^S =» 3

•4-i

CS -IH -FH
^^ g^

0 SMM

o cS

'£

'i'i

* ?> s.

c« 'S 'S ?>

O O

"V "V

•"A ^ "^ -2

-M -*j

0 W H

ifi| pfl glfl

•1 >> >^-2

TO Q O "

A) -S -£ AS

'3 'S

ASA)

ail!

§<

OH r*^t

ft PH o

„

"I *»

TO?^

'» 'V '|

P< P<'S "•* H

> 'S

* ~? S S

^j -fca ^j 4J o

-M ^j

**""

0 0 «

TO* TO"

— PH

o3 cd c3 O

03 03 03 rt

m 9 9

— :- ~

03 03 03 03

AS
1

«¥« «

o ° n

•3

A) 0 AS A3

6063

AS A! AS AS

333
AS AS AS

Z&S&

. o,

.a .a

?> ?> P
0 0 w

P ^ 5>

i 5> i ;> p
• fl 4» fl w

.2 .2 .2 .2 -2

03
r>

•lii

-g-Ji

C O P

c o a S a

^•.

^03?,

.1 s

83 03 ^

1 fl

.2 3.2

iiil*

w"S _«s

woo

i~ * - ^

5 -S '^ -2 •"

— <

,i ^ ^-, M

a a s
— — ~

Enft^ &J

333

3333
o o o o

'E,
o

Comanehe
Shoshoni

Ute
S. E. Bannock
Chemehuevi
Kawaiisu

*S a

jj O fl
J3 cj
oo 0 CO CQ
— ' r~^

2 o o *" ,g^

»^ n i *^ _ __!

Tiibatulabal

Gikidanum
Mohineyam
Serrano

Gabrielino

S. J. Capistran
Luiseno
Agua Caliente
Cahuilla

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

•Jr!

i i

lis

•S

ft ft ft

rf c3 c3 c3

o o

°o3 'S

"o3 03

R 6 g

c3 c5 o3

03 0

•a

'ol 'c3 "el 73

44 44

44 44 P

44 44 44 44

eo-

._,

:S .„ ._

P _

s a

r1 ir1

g S S

a s

:S =S

•S 9 o

O O O <O

=C)

.i :i

P ;.J ;g '3

:o P S

O O O ff>

'p P

^ 'p 'p ^

P P P R

^-^

2~^

44 e°-

•all

03 03 03

ft ft ft

03 .rt
^'5-1

'3 '5 44 'M

X 44 03 C8
03 o3 ft ft

4.^ a

S3 0 g

.-S.-S'S

44 44 44

s S i P

-— p -^ .—
44 o3 44 44

O i— i i— c

'**

P •? "T

03 O O

•— '

i — i

'? ft'S

^T1

•a "

"f "f "*?

"o
I1

•S .P P

S tfj

H-

I'il

o o t> o

£, -8-g

• FH -rt

fe te

o .-§'1

44
X

• rH • —
tl M

03 cS
O O

BO 0 ft

S _

O S S o3
o ft ft u

O c,} o
-^ -u *s
S S 3

44 44 44

•rH

1111

Comanehe
Shoshoni

Ute
S. E. Bannocl
Chemehuevi
Kawaiisu

OQ P

Tiibatulabal

Gikidanum
Mohineyam
Serrano

Gabrieiino

03 ^j

•is ^

sill

VOL. 4] Kroebcr. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 97

CLASSIFICATION.

On the basis of this material, the Shoshonean family may be
stated to consist of four principal branches of very unequal terri-
torial extent and importance. Some of these branches must be
subdivided. There are thus eight principal dialectic groups in
the family. These divisions are the Pueblo branch; the Plateau
branch, comprising the Ute-Chemehuevi, the Shoshoni-Comanche,
and the Mono-Paviotso groups; the Kern river branch; and the
Southern California branch, consisting of the Serrano, the Gabri-
elino, and the Luisefio-Cahuilla groups.

Pueblo Branch.

The Pueblo branch consists only of the Moki or Hopi Indians
of northern Arizona. The one Tanoan village of Hano among
the Hopi must of course be excluded. Hopi is more divergent
from any of the other Shoshonean dialects than these are from
one another, and contains a number of distinct radicals for some
of the most important words, such as water; but it is neverthe-
less clearly Shoshonean. To judge from the texts printed in
recent publications of the Field Museum of Natural History, its
grammatical forms and its structure will prove to be quite simi-
lar to those of other Shoshonean languages.

Plateau Branch.

The Plateau branch is by far the most extensive. Compris-
ing such characteristic tribes as the Shoshoni, Bannock, Ute,
Paiute, and Comanche, it reaches from the Columbia on the
north to the Colorado on the south, and extends over the Rockies
on the east and over the Sierras into the great valley of Cali-
fornia on the west; All the dialects known from this branch
belong to three well marked groups between which, as yet, but
few connecting dialects have been found. The distribution of
these three groups is as follows.

98 University of California Publications. [AM. ARCH. Era.

The Ute-Chemehuevi group includes the Ute of Utah and
Colorado, the Paiute of southern Nevada but not those of north-
western Nevada, the Chemehuevi in the vicinity of the Mohave
on the Colorado river, the Kawaiisu in the Tehachapi mountains,
and at least certain of the people called Bannock. Koughly
speaking it is the southernmost of the three Plateau groups.

The Shoshoni-Comanche group includes the Shoshoni of east-
ern Idaho, northwestern Utah, and northeastern Nevada, those
east of the Rocky Mountains now in Wyoming, and the Com-
anche. This group is the most northeasterly of the three consti-
tuting the Plateau branch.

The Mono-Paviotso group includes: the Shoshoneans on both
sides of the Sierra Nevada north of Kern river, most of whom are
generally known as Monachi or Mono ; the people of Owens Val-
ley, east of the Sierra Nevada, who have been called both Monachi
and Paiute; the so-called Paiute, Powell's Paviotso, of Walker
river and apparently all northwestern Nevada; the Shoshoneans
of eastern Oregon, called both Snake and Paiute; and probably
certain of the Bannock or other Indians of Idaho. The Pana-
mint Indians of the Death Valley region in California belong
probably either to this group or the Ute-Chemehuevi. The Mono-
Paviotso group is situated west of the Ute-Chemehuevi and
Shoshoni-Comanche groups.

Kern River Branch.

The Kern river branch of the family consists of a single group,
and in fact virtually a single tribe, on Kern river at the south-
ern end of the Sierra Nevada in California. These people, the
Tiibatulabal, whose only known near relatives are the practi-
cally extinct Bankalachi of Deer creek, east of Tulare lake, lived
mainly about the junction of the two principal forks of Kern
river, in a region which, while not inaccessible, is scantily inhab-
ited by whites and little visited. It is for this reason probably,
as well as on acount of their comparative insignificance and a
lack of aggressiveness characteristic of the California Indians,
that these people are so little known, and that their language,

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 99

although recognized as Shoshonean, has been hitherto unrepre-
sented by any vocabularies. The Tiibatulabal dialect differs
equally from those of the Plateau branch and those of the South-
ern California branch. It is apparently about as different from
Hopi as are these two branches. It seems equally divergent from
all three of the Plateau groups, and shows no special approach
to any of the three Southern California groups. In certain ways
it is somewhat intermediate between the Plateau branch and the
Southern California branch, agreeing sometimes with one and
sometimes with the other where they differ from one another.
But on the other hand it possesses many forms peculiar to itself,
sometimes when the corresponding words in the several other
branches are all referable to a common root. While thus in a
measure connecting the two much larger branches between which
it is also geographically nearly intermediate, it is more than a
mere transition form, and shows sufficient independence from
both to compel it to be regarded as a branch co-ordinate with
them.

Southern California Branch.

The Southern California branch comprises all the Indians of
what is specifically known as Southern California, that is, the
part of the state south of the Tehachapi range. The only excep-
tion to this statement are the Chemehuevi, whose original habitat
appears to have been mainly in southernmost Nevada, but who
occupy more or less territory in California on the Colorado river,
and who are of the Plateau branch. The three Southern Cali-
fornia branches appear to be about equally different from one
another, and, as in the case of the three groups of the Plateau
branch, transitions between the groups have not been found,
even though some of them consist of several dialects.

The Serrano group consists of the Indians of the vicinity of
San Bernardino, generally known as Serranos, and, as implied
by the name, mainly in the neighboring mountains. All the
Indians of the San Bernardino range spoke dialects belonging
to this group, and their territory extended northward from this
range over the western part of the Mohave desert and the space
intervening between this range and the Tehachapi mountains.

100

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

The Gitanemuk of Tejon creek, on the northern or Tulare drain-
age side of the Tehachapi range, also spoke a Serrano dialect.

The Gabrielino group consisted of the Indians attached to
the Missions San Gabriel and San Fernando, who, like most of
the Indians of California, were without specific tribal names.

The Luiseno-Cahuilla group includes the Luiseno of the
vicinity of Mission San Luis Rey and north to San Jacinto ; the
Juaneno of Mission San Juan Capistrano; the Cahuilla, mainly
on the eastern side of the San Jacinto range; and a small body

Dialectic branches of the Shoshonean stock.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 101

of people, known as Agua Caliente, at the head waters of San
Luis Rey river in San Diego county. The dialects of these four
divisions of the group differ considerably; but, as compared
with Serrano and Gabrielino, are near enough together to be
included in one group. Boas has already noticed this closer
relation of Luisefio, Cahuilla, and Agua Caliente as opposed to
Serrano1, and Barrows2 similarly places Luiseno, Juaneiio and
Cahuilla into one group as distinguished from Gabrielino.

Relations of the Dialectic Groups.

The relation of these dialects is illustrated in the accompany-
ing diagram, the relative degrees of similarity and divergence
between dialectic divisions being approximately indicated by the
respective distances between them. Of course an exact repre-
sentation of the various interrelations is not possible in two
dimensions.

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE DIALECTIC DIVISIONS.

Difficulty is encountered in attempting to determine the more
exact boundaries of the various groups. All the earlier vocabu-
laries, on being compared with the material here presented, fall
clearly into one of the groups described, but the habitat of the
people to whom they are attributed is often uncertain. This is
due primarily to the loose political organization of the Shosho-
neans, among whom, both in California and on the Plateau, the
more definite tribal organization of the Plains did not exist. The
various dialects belonging to the same group, though often
extending over a wide territory, are mostly very similar. Even

1 F. Boas, Proc. A. A. A. S., 44, 261, 1895. Gatschet, Rep. Chief Eng.
1876, III, 553, 556, unites Serrano, Cahuilla, Luiseno, and Juaneno into one
dialectic group, the Kauvuyah, as opposed to Tobikhar (Gabrielino).

3 The Ethno-Botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern California,
Chicago, 1900, 22.

102 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

those of other groups are similar enough to be readily recognized
as akin. These circumstances have rendered the discrimination
of bodies without political coherence or distinctness difficult. The
numerous divisions ordinarily do not seem to have carried on
war with one another, differing in this respect from the tribes
of such families as the Sioux in the east and the Yuman people
in the south, among whom intertribal hostility within the same
family was at times not only bitter but permanent. In great
part the Plateau Shoshoneans called one another by names com-
posed of the name of a food and the word eaters, such as ' ' fish
eaters," "buffalo eaters," "mountain sheep eaters," "root eat-
ers," "squirrel eaters," and many others. In most cases they
lacked tribal names for themselves, the word niim or some vari-
ant such as nov-inch, meaning simply persons or people, being
used. In Southern California another stem, atakh or takhat,
appears with the same meaning and similar use. Such tribal
names as Ute, Paiute, Monachi, Chemehuevi, and probably most
of the others commonly known, were not used by the people whom
they designate, but by other tribes in referring to them. The
result of all these circumstances is that when tribal names have
definitely taken hold, either through Indians of other families
or through the whites, the people to whom they apply are still
indeterminate. With many small bands living over a vast terri-
tory, without political divisions and speaking similar languages,
it is only natural that systematic discriminations should often
not have been made, or that a term perhaps strictly applicable
to a certain division was extended by non-Shoshonean tribes to
more distant and to them less known members of the same fam-
ily. Similarly, white explorers, travellers, and settlers entering
Shoshonean territory extended the name of the first group, such
as Shoshoni, Ute, or Paiute, with whom they came in contact,
to all or other Indians of the family of whom they later received
knowledge.

In this way Ute and Paiute have been used to designate the
same people. Paiute is a well-known term in Nevada, being
commonly used for all the Indians of the state except the small
body of non-Shoshonean Washo about Reno and Carson, and the
Shoshoni in the northeastern part of the state. The Nevada

VOL. 4] Krocbcr. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 103

"Paiute" dialects, however, very evidently belong to two dis-
tinct groups. It is for this reason that the term, although so
well known, has been avoided in the designation of the groups
of the Plateau branch. The Californian Mono and even certain
of the Serrano in Southern California have been called Paiute
and Pah Ute. The Shoshoni would now seem to be a fairly defin-
itely limited people; but both the vocabularies given by Hale,
that of the Shoshoni proper and that of the western Shoshoni or
Wihinasht, as wrell as one of those given by Gatschet in Wheeler 's
Survey, belong to the Mono-Paviotso and Ute-Chemehuevi
groups. The Bannock mentioned by Mooney as north of Nevada
are stated to speak a Mono-Paviotso dialect ; those from whom a
vocabulary is here given belong to the Ute-Chemehuevi group.
The determination of the proper names of the people to whom
such well-known and frequently used terms as these are applied,
and of the divisions to which their dialects belong, is an ethno-
logical need ; but this need can be satisfied only by investigations
on the spot. The present difficulty is not the lack of data, but
their looseness.

In Southern California native tribal names are as rare as
on the Plateau, but the Spanish names like Luiseno and Serrano
have generally been applied to Indians of distinct dialects and
are therefore more helpful than confusing. Cahuilla, in the
spellings Kauvuya and Coahuilla, and Tobikhar, have been em-
ployed respectively by Gatschet, Barrows, and Powell1 to desig-
nate the entire Southern California branch. As such they are
of course only artificial book names, which must not be confused
with the same terms as actually or originally used for more
restricted groups2.

There is a tendency in various Shoshonean dialects for the
tribal name, or rather the word for the people, to be related to

1 Gatschet : in Eep. U. S. Geogr. Surveys W. of the one hundredth mer-
idian, in charge of G. M. Wheeler, Vol. VII, Archaeology, by F. W. Put-
nam, Appendix, Linguistics, pp. 399-485, by A. S. Gatschet, 1879, 412.
Barrows: The Ethno-botany of the Coahuilla Indians of Southern Califor-
nia, Chicago, 1900, 22. Powell: Indian Linguistic Families of America
North of Mexico, Ann. Kep. Bur. Ethn., VII, 110.

2 It is doubtful whether Tobikhar ever was actually employed as a tribal
or group name. Gatschet, loc. cit., uses it for Gabrielino, on Loew's author-
ity; Powell, loc. cit., applies it without further statement to all the Sho-
shoneans of Southern California.

104 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

the stem denoting house or live. Thus, Ute, nov-intc, Kawaiisn
nilvu, Chemehuevi and Mono nwm; Mono-Paviotso, novi, house;
Tiibatulabal, ailhaml, person, hanll, house. Gitanemuk, the name
of these people for themselves, gits, stem gi-, house. Gabrielino,
Hale Kij, Buschmann Kizh; house, ki-g', Hale, ki-tc; Luiseiio-
Cahuilla, Kechi, Khecham, Gaitchim, Nekee; house, ki-tca, ki-c,
ki-tc.

The examination of the territory and composition of the
several Shoshonean groups which follows is subject to the limita-
tions of knowledge which have been described. Wherever new
information as to geographical or tribal organization has been
obtained by the writer, it is given; but the information to be
found in literature has not been generally restated, except where
it has been corrected by new data or was desirable for other
reasons, such as having been scattered. Outside of certain parts
of Southern California, the only attempt of consequence as yet
made to describe the distribution and organization of any large
body of Shoshoneans has been in the admirable report of Powell
and Ingalls1, Gatschet's2 comprehensive compilation being lack-
ing in definiteness, apparently on account of not being based on
direct investigations of the author with the Indians. What the
exact territory and relations of such bodies of people as the
Shoshone, the Ute, the Bannock, the Paiute, and the Paviotso
were, and what the names for themselves of these bodies and
their subdivisions were, can only be determined by systematic
field work. Comparison and summarization of the scattered liter-
ture, in which the same tribe is called by different names and
the same name applied to entirely distinct tribes, all without
any reference to the exact linguistic basis on which the classifica-
tion must probably in most cases rest, will not materially unravel
the confusion in which our knowledge of the Shoshonean family
now is. This paper is based on linguistic material; and the
information bearing on the distribution and political classifica-
tion of the Shoshonean tribes is introduced only to show as far
as possible where and what the groups are that have been estab-
lished by means of this linguistic material.

1 J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls, in Eep. Comm. Ind. Aff. 1873, 41-74.

2 Wheeler Survey, op. cit., VII, 409.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 105

UTE-CHEMEHUEVI GROUP.

The Indians of this branch comprise the Ute, the southern
or true Paiute, certain of the Bannock, the Chemehuevi, and the
Kawaiisu.

No new information as to the territory of any of the eastern
tribes is here presented. The subdivisions, and their names, num-
bers, and territory, of the Ute and Paiute, are given in the Powell
and Ingalls Report1. The territory of the Ute, and part of that
of the Paiute and "Bannock," are shown in Mooney's map
accompanying his Calendar History of the Kiowa2. The Paiute
and Bannock boundaries on the west are not there given. So far
as it goes this map would seem to be very nearly correct. It
must be remembered that Mooney's Paiute are those to whom
alone the term should be correctly applied, and that the Paiute
of northwestern Nevada belong to the Mono-Pa viotso group. In
regard to the inclusion of part of the Bannock in the Ute-
Chemehuevi group, it can only be said that the vocabulary
obtained by the author from the Bannock of Fort Hall belongs
to this group. The main portion of the Bannock territory has
generally been put farther down on Snake river than Fort Hall,
and the indications, such as the statements of Powell and
Mooney, that there are as to the language of the people there,
point to Mono-Paviotso affinities. A test vocabulary of the Ban-
nock of Lemhi reservation, Idaho, courteously obtained for the
author by Supt. C. C. Covey, shows that the "Bannock" there
speak a dialect more or less intermediate between Mono-Paviotso
and Shoshoni-Comanche.

Chemehuevi.

The Chemehuevi are, as they have been correctly designated,
really nothing but a part of the Paiute. The origin of the name
is obscure. They call themselves simply nwm, person. Accord-
ing to information obtained from the Mohave, their territory
seems to have been mainly in the vicinity of Eldorado canyon
on the Colorado river, and in the desert mountainous region
west of it in southernmost Nevada and California. They extended

1 Op. cit.

'Ann. Eep. Bur. Ethn., XVII, pi. 57.

106 University of California Publications. [AM. ARCH. ETH.

down the Colorado as far as Cottonwood Island, where they met
the Mohave. In recent times they have held Chemehuevi valley,
the next valley on the Colorado south of Mohave valley, and in
which Bill Williams Fork enters this river. The Mohave state
that the Chemehuevi held both sides of the river in Chemehuevi
valley. It is probable that their occupation of Chemehuevi valley
is a comparatively recent matter1. The Mohave tell that at
least part of the river between themselves and the Yuma was
formerly held by the Halchidhoma, a Yuman tribe which was
subsequently expelled by themselves and joined its near relatives,
the Maricopa, in the Gila valley, with whom it has since become
incorporated. The Halchidhoma were still on the river when
Garces visited them in 1776. The Chemehuevi at that time were
in the desert west of the river2. They are described by Garces

*J. W. Powell and G. W. Ingalls, Rep. Comm. Ind. Aff. for 1873, 53:
' ' These Chem-a-hue-vis speak the same language as the Pai-Utes, and claim
that they formerly lived among them."

" Garces found the Cajuenches, — the Kokhuene of the Mohave, who ac-
cording to the present day accounts of the latter were associated with the
Halchidhoma, up to the time of the expulsion of these to the Maricopa, on
the stretch of the Colorado above the Yuma and below the Mohave, — below
the Yuma in 1776. He found the Halchidhoma actually living on the river
for a distance which was apparently very nearly equivalent to the frontage
on it of the present Eiverside county. Cutting across an angle of the river
to the west of it to reach the Mohave from the Halchidhoma, he encountered
the Chemehuevi in the desert in latitude 34° 31' (apparently a nearly
correct determination), at a place where there was water, and which was no
doubt on a wash shown in this region on modern maps as draining eastward
into the river. On subsequently coming down the river from the Mohave,
whose rancherias, as well as those of the Halchidhoma farther down, he
mentions, he passed through Chemehuevi valley without encountering any
inhabitants; nor does he allude to any signs of habitation along this part
of the river. He uniformly places the Chemehuevi west and north of the
river, never on it. — On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, the Diary and Itiner-
ary of Francisco Garces, 1775-1776, by Elliott Coues, New York, 1900.

One Mohave informant stated to the author that the Mohave had never
held Chemehuevi valley. They gathered mesquite there because they were
friendly with the Chemehuevi; but the valley and the trees belonged to
the Chemehuevi. When the Yuman Kokhuene and Halchidhoma were still
on the Colorado, certain Chemehuevi lived at Hapuvese, on the western side
of the river, near Ehrenberg. When the Mohave fought the Kokhuene and
Halchidhoma, they came to these Chemehuevi, who were not numerous
claimed them as friends, and by force but without meeting resistance,

• .vf™ u6™ "P the river with them- Some of the Chemehuevi remained
in the Mohave country, some went up to Cottonwood island (Mat-hakeva)
where they also lived together with Mohave, and some went down the river
to Chemehuevi valley (Amartathove). The Mohave remained at Cottonwood
siand until war broke out between them and the Chemehuevi (probably
nearly rorty years ago), when they removed down stream to the main body
o± their people in Mohave valley.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 107

as much under the influence of the Mohave, with whom they held
in tribal matters. More recently, apparently in the sixties, there
was bitter hostility between the two tribes, but this appears to
be the only instance known of war between them. The name
Chemehuevi seems to have been used with the same difference
in extension as so many other Shoshonean tribal names. Powell
restricts it to the people in 1873 in Chemehuevi valley, and
includes various tribes adjoining the Mohave on the north and
northwest, such as the Movwiats of Cottonwood Island, the
Hokwaits of Ivanpah, and the Timpashauwagotsits of the Provi-
dence mountains, among the Paiute. On the other hand the
Mohave often extend the term Chemehuevi to all the Paiute of
southern Nevada of whom they have knowledge. Thus Garces,
whose information was obtained primarily through the Mohave,
speaks of the Chemegue Cuajala1 and the Chemegue Sevinta,
these being the Mohave Kohoaldje and Sivinte, the latter being
the Shivwits Paiute placed by Powell in northwestern Arizona.
As the languages of all the people in question differ only dialecti-
cally, and as the name Chemehuevi seems to be applied to them-
selves by none of them, the differences between the several state-
ments are not essential, and until definite investigation shall
have been made among the Chemehuevi and the neighboring
Paiute, the proper extension of the term must be regarded as
unsettled. The essential fact is that all these southern Paiute
and the Chemehuevi are very closely allied.

The ' ' Chemehuevi ' ' informant from whom a vocabulary was
obtained could give as the only name of her people for themselves
niim, person. How correct Gatschet 's Tantawats is, is not known.
She called the whites haiku, which is the Mohave haiko or hiiko,
and probably the origin of the name of the town Hiko in south-
eastern Nevada. The Mohave she called Aiat, the Walapai,
Walyepai, the Yuma, Gwichyana. The Virgin river Paiutes
known to the Mohave as Kohoaldje and Sivinte, she called
Paraniikh2 and Sivits3. The "Sosoni Indians," whoever they
may be, she called Gvoots. The Hopi, whom, like the Mohave,

1 Op. cit., p. 445. He speaks also of the Yabipai Cajuala.

2 Powell and Ingalls, 50, mention the Paraniguts in the valley of the same
name (also called Pahranagat).

'Ibid., Shivwits.

108 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

who call them Mimka, she identified with the Navaho, she knew
as Muukw. The Gitanemuk (Mohave: Kuvahaivima) , or the
Serranos south or east of them, as well as those of the lower
Mohave river, (Mohave: Vanyume), she called Panumits or
Banumints; the Kawaiisu, (Mohave: Kuvakhye), Hiniima or
Hinienima (cf. Mohineyam) ; the Yokuts, the tule-sleepers of the
Mohave, Salempive ; the Serrano proper, the Hanyuveche of the
Mohave, Maringints ; the Cahuilla, Kwitanemun or Kwitanemum
(cf. Gitanemuk). Bitanta or Pitanta was the name she gave
one of the Serrano divisions on Mohave river. She herself
belonged to the Diimpi saghavatsits, in the Avikavasuk or blue
mountains of the Mohave, the Providence mountains of the
whites1. Doyaghaba seems to be the name of Paiute Springs or
Creek, on the old wagon road from Mohave valley to the Mohave
river, where Whipple mentions petroglyphs and small planted
fields2. The Mohave call this place Ahakuvilye. This was Cheme-
huevi territory, as was Aipava, farther west on the same wagon
road. Then followed Baniikh, Soda Lake, in the territory of the
Serrano "Vanyume"; and, still further along the wagon road
westward, Atamavi, Batsigwana, Bakiba, Diimpimitowats, Naya,
Amugup, Ba 'moi, and Dundugumitowats, Daggett. These names
seem to be all Chemehuevi ; diimpi is the Ute timpui, rock, and
the frequent ba- seems to be the usual Shoshonean pa, water.

The mountain corresponding in its function in the mythology
of these Paiute- Chemehuevi to the Mohave Avikwame, at which
most myths and dream-ceremonies begin, is called by the Mohave
Savetpilye, and seems to be Charleston mountain in southern
Nevada, or perhaps some other prominent peak in the vicinity.
The principal mythological characters of the Chemehuevi were -
said to be Yunakat, food, Mohave Pahuchach ; Shinauva, Coyote ;
and Tovats, his oldest brother. These three men named the
places in the land, assigned habitations to the people, made
water, and provided grass seed and other food. The Cheme-
huevi dream about them at Savetpilye as the Mohave do about
Mastamho at Avikwame or other beings elsewhere, and thus
become doctors or acquire other supernatural powers. For

1 Ibid., 51 ; Timpashauwagotsits, Paiutes of the Providence mountains.

2 Pacific Kailroad Reports, III, 1856, part I, 121, part III, 42, plate 36.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 109

instance the Chemehuevi husband of the informant was
instructed — in a dream — by Tovats how to make flint arrow-
points. The earth was still soft and wet and there were as yet
no mountains; then the arrow-weed for arrows grew up, and
Tovats told him to make bow and arrows. In place of the
many singing ceremonies of the Mohave, the Chemehuevi have
only three; at least no others could be learned of. These are
called Nakh, mountain-sheep, corresponding to Mohave a 'mo;
Ashop, salt, Mohave ath'i; and the doctor's singing, Puaghant,
Mohave kwathidhe. It is evident that the underlying ideas of
Paiute-Chemehuevi and Mohave beliefs are very similar, as, in
spite of their belonging to distinct linguistic stocks, might be
expected from their contiguity and friendly relations.

Paiute.

The Kohoaldje and Sivinte that have just been mentioned
are described by the Mohave as living, the former about the
mouth of the Virgin or Muddy river, the latter in the mountains
beyond, that is, north or east of the Kohoaldje. The languages
are described, as is undoubtedly the case, as being similar to each
other and nearly the same as Chemehuevi. At least the Kohoaldje
are said to have been agriculturalists to some extent. The
Chemehuevi woman just mentioned said that her people in the
Providence mountains farmed a little. Powell and Ingalls1 also
state that the Paiute generally practiced some agriculture.

The Mohave also mention as "Chemehuevi," that is. Paiute
tribes or divisions, the Pakechuana, north of the mountain called
Savetpilye, just mentioned; and the Kwanakepai, about fifty
miles north of Mandivel or Vanderbilt, at Sandy in Nevada,
this place being called by themselves Harakaraka.

In the list of Paiute tribes given by Powell and Ingalls there
is none farther north than Potosi, near Pioche, which would
make it seem that the Paiute habitat extended to the head waters
of Muddy river but not beyond to the north. Westward they
mention no tribes in Nevada beyond the 116th meridian. In
California they enumerate five tribes, the Moquats, Timpashau-
wagotsits, Hokwaits, Kauyaichits, and Yagats in southeastern

1 Op. dt., 53.

110 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Inyo and northeastern San Bernardino counties, from the region
of Kingston and Providence mountains, Ivanpah, Ash Meadows,
and Amargosa1. The Mohave confirm the fact that this region
was held by tribes closely allied to the Chemehuevi2. The Pana-
mint mountains, in which the Panamint Indians ranged, border
on this territory, being separated from the Kingston range by
Death Valley. It remains to be ascertained whether the Pana-
mint Indians belong to the Ute-Chemehuevi, the Mono-Paviotso,
or some other group.

Kawaiisu.

At no very great actual distance from the Paiutes of Kings-
ton mountains and Amargosa, but physiographically in a very
different environment, is the only tribe of the Ute-Chernehuevi
group to live inside the watershed which forms the natural
boundary of California. These are the Kawaiisu of the Tehachapi
mountains in Kern county, California. Kawaiisu is the name
given them by their Yokuts neighbors. It appears also as
Kawaisa, Kawaizu, Gaweija, Gawiijim, and Kaweija according
to dialectic and individual variations. They probably had no
distinctive name for themselves. Dr. Merriam3 calls them
Newooah, which is the word for person, obtained by the author
in the form nuwu, plural nuwuwu. Their Shoshonean neighbors
the Tiibatulabal, who were of an entirely different branch of the
family, seem to call them Kawishm. They seem to be known
popularly or locally as Tehachapi and Caliente Indians. The
Spanish-speaking Indians at Tejon call them Serranos, moun-
taineers, although in ethnological literature Serrano has come to
be the specific designation of another more southerly group of
the family. The Chemehuevi call the Kawaiisu Hiniima or

1 Actually partly in Nevada. Coville, The Panamint Indians of Cali-
fornia, Am. Anthr. V, 351, 1892, speaks of "mixed Paiutes and Shoshonis"
at Ash Meadows, Nevada.

2 Garces, like the Mohave, calls them Chemehuevi. On his eastward return
trip to the Mohave in 1776 he found a rancheria of the "Chemebet" in a
sandy plain two leagues eastnortheast of the Pozos de San Juan de Dios,
which are probably Marl Springs, and which he previously mentioned as
five leagues east of the sink of Mohave river and ten west of the Providence
mountains. Fourteen leagues eastward of this was another Chemehuevi
rancheria, and a league and a half farther on a third. Ten leagues more
in an eastsoutheasterly direction brought him to the Mohave. Op. cit., 238,
306.

3 Science, 1904, 912.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. Ill

Hinienima; the Mohineyam Serrano of Mohave river Agutush-
yam ; the Gitanemuk Serrano, Agudutsyam or Akutusyam. The
Mohave call them Kuvakhye1 and know that they speak a dialect
related to Chemehuevi. Some of the Mohave extend or place
them eastward near the California-Nevada line. The explorer
Garces calls them Cobaji after the Mohave and says that the
Yokuts called them Colteches.

From the statements of Garces it would appear that the
Kawaiisu held both slopes of the Tehachapi mountains. They
probably lived, however, mainly on the more favored northwest-
ern side draining into the San Joaquin valley, and so far as
known are all to be found there now. Paiute mountain, Walker
Basin creek, Caliente and Kelso creeks, and Tehachapi belonged
to them. The old woman from whom the Kawaiisu vocabulary
given was secured was descended from a father belonging to
Tehachapi and a mother at Caliente.

Two informants at Tejon gave as the Yokuts name of Caliente
Tumoyo or Trumoyo and Shatnau ilak, both terms referring to
the hot springs. Tehachapi is declared by both Yokuts and
Shoshoneans to be the native name of the locality. Its present
form is probably somewhat corrupted. The Yokuts usually speak
of it as Tahichpi-u. A Gitanemuk informant gave Caliente as
Hihinkiava, Walker's Basin as Yitpe, and Havilah as Wiwayuk.
The Tiibatulabal informant called Walker's Basin Yutp, and
Havilah, which she regarded as in the territory of her own peo-
ple, Aniitap.

SHOSHONI-COMANCHE GROUP.

Several Comanche vocabularies have been printed and several
from the Shoshoni, though the number from the latter division
is less than the total number attributed to them. As already
stated, Hale's Shoshoni vocabularies, both his Wihinasht or
western Shoshoni and his Shoshoni proper, do not belong to the
Shoshoni-Comanche but to the Mono-Paviotso2 group; although

1 Mohave like Shoshonean v is bilabial and therefore to our ears resembles
b or w.

2 Hale 's Shoshoni, and the Lemhi reservation Bannock, are the only Pla-
teau dialects known that do not fall distinctly within the limits of one dia-
lectic group. They resemble Shoshoni-Comanche almost as much as Mono-
Paviotso, as shown below.

112 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

his Shoshoni are correctly described as living east of the Snake
river and extending eastward over the Rockies. Of the two
Shoshoni vocabularies given by Gatschet in Wheeler's Survey,
the first, number five, from the Shoshoni of ' ' Utah and Nevada ' '
is actually Shoshoni; the second, number six, from Hyko,
Nevada, is, as the locality would indicate, really Paiute. Say's
brief vocabulary in the Archaeologia Americana, reprinted by
Buschmann1, seems to be the first published that can be definitely
assigned to the Shoshoni. The equally limited vocabularies of
Wied and of Wyeth2 give scarcely any words that are suitable
for a positive determination of the dialectic group to which they
belong. From the western Shoshoni, inhabiting all northeastern
Nevada and probably parts of adjacent Idaho, very little
linguistic material is accessible. A small pamphlet of thirty
64 mo. pages, by Page and Butterfield, printed in 1868 in Bel-
mont, Nevada, gives a vocabulary of the "Dialect of the Sho-
shone Indians" which is clearly of the Shoshoni- Comanche
group. While the locality in which this dialect is spoken
is not given, it is probably the immediate vicinity and un-
doubtedly the general region about Belmont. Two short test
vocabularies from the two tribes on the Western Shoshone or
Duck River reservation on the northern boundary of Nevada,
received through the courtesy of Mr. H. H. Miller, of Owyhee,
Nevada, show these two tribes, whose original habitat unfortu-
nately is not exactly known, but who probably lived not far from
the present reservation, to belong respectively to the Mono-
Pa viotso and Shoshoni- Comanche groups. A similar list obtained
through the courtesy of Miss J. E. Wier and Mrs. H. H. Coryell
at Wells, definitely establishes the dialect spoken there as Sho-
shoni. Finally, a third test list, from the Shoshoni and Sheep-
eaters of Lemhi reservation, Idaho, secured through the kindness
of Superintendent C. C. Covey, determines a Shoshoni dialect in
this region.

The limits of this group can only be approximated. The

1 Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im Norden, Abh. Akad. Wiss. Berlin
for 1854, 2nd Suppl. vol., 1859, p. 643; reprinted from: Gallatin, Arch.
Amer., 1836, II, 378.

2 Ibid., from Pr. Max. zu Wied, Eeise in das Innere Nordamerikas, 1841,
II, 635, and Schoolcraft, I, 216.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 113

Comanche were active raiders. Their territory is shown on
Powell's and Mooney's maps. Part of the Shoshoni, at least
those known as Washakie's band, held the Wind river country
east of the Rockies in Wyoming, where they now are on a reserva-
tion with the northern Arapaho. West of the Rockies there are
now Indians classed in the reports of the Indian Department as
Shoshone, and speaking Shoshoni-Comanche dialects, on Fort
Hall, Lemhi, and Western Shoshone or Duck river reservations.
Powell and Ingalls speak of the northwestern and of the western
Shoshone. The northwestern seem to have come mainly under
the jurisdiction of the Fort Hall and perhaps in part of other
reservations, such as Wind river and Lemhi, but included four
tribes at Cache Valley, Goose Creek, and Bear Lake in south-
easternmost Idaho. The western Shoshone are placed in north-
eastern Nevada. The Powell and Ingalls list brings the Shoshoni
as far south in Nevada as Spring Valley in southern White Pine
county, Hot Creek and the vicinity of Tybo, Belmont, and Big
Smoky Valley in northern Nye county, and as far west as the
Reese river valley and Battle Mountain. From Battle Mountain
east tribes are given at a number of points on the Central Pacific
railroad. It is probable that these tribes held also the territory
north of the railroad from these points, since no tribes are men-
tioned by Powell and Ingalls in this region. The southern limits
of these western Shoshoni tribes agree well with the northern
limits of the range of the true Nevada Paiute as given by the
same authors. Their western limit is less definite, but seems
likely to have been the first or second range west of Reese river,
and, north of the railroad, a line from Battle Mountain to the
present Western Shoshone reservation, or a short distance west
of these two places. Indian place names in Nevada, including
two Shoshone ranges adjacent to Reese river, and two places
called Shoshone, one on the Central Pacific railroad, and the
other in southern White Pine county, agree quite closely with
the distribution of the Shoshoni as given by Powell and Ingalls.
Toiyabe, the name of a range at the head of Reese river, is the
Shoshoni word for mountain, instead of which both Mono-
Paviotso and Ute-Chemehuevi use kaiba. In the region west of
Great Salt Lake, in Utah and southern Nevada, were the Gosiute.

114 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Powell and Ingalls declare these to be related in language to
the Shoshoni, as indeed would seem probable from their location ;
but state that their cultural and political affiliations were with
the Ute.

The subdivisions, territories, and numbers of the Gosiute, the
western Shoshoni, and the northwestern Shoshoni of southern
Idaho, are given in the report of Powell and Ingalls1.

MONO-PA VIOTSO GKOTJP.

The Shoshoni-Comanche is the only one of the eight principal
groups, other than the Hopi, which does not extend into Cali-
fornia. On the other hand the Mono-Paviotso division, although
it covers large areas in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada, is the group
to which most Shoshoneans of northern and central Califor-
nia belong. The name Mono or Monaehi is that generally applied
to most of the Shoshoneans of the Sierra Nevada. Paviotso is the
term used by Powell and Ingalls to describe the Indians of west-
ern Nevada, who are popularly known as Paiute. The name
Paviotso has been so little employed outside of the report of
Powell and Ingalls that it is doubtful how far it was ever actually
used by any large body of Indians as a group name. It is how-
ever an exceedingly convenient term by which to distinguish the
so-called Paiute of this western part of Nevada from the so-
called true Paiute of southern Nevada and southwestern Utah.

The Mono-Paviotso group, although it extended from the
thirty-sixth to the forty-sixth degree of latitude, is very imper-
fectly represented by linguistic material. The present San
Joaquin Mono and Endimbich vocabularies seem to be the first,
except for a list of numerals given by Stephen Powers2, that
have been published from the Mono west of the crest of the Sierra
Nevada, while the Inyo Mono and Shikaviyam lists at least repre-
sent new localities east of this range. Of the Paviotso there is a
single vocabulary available, the one collected by the indefatigable
Loew and printed by Gatschet as number twelve in the previously
cited linguistic appendix of the Archaeological volume of the

1 Rep. Comm. Ind. Aff. 1873, 51.

2 Contrib. N. A. Ethn., Ill, 399, said to be from Millerton, on the San
Joaquin, which is, however, Yokuts territory.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 115

reports of Wheeler's Survey. This vocabulary is also discussed
by Gatschet in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 18761 ;
from which it appears to have been obtained at Benton, near
the railroad and the Nevada line in southern Mono county, Cali-
fornia, and at Aurora, in Inyo county, California, or in Esmer-
alda county, Nevada. Brief test vocabularies obtained through
the courtesy of several inhabitants of Nevada from Walker River
and Western Shoshone reservations, and from Reno and Yering-
ton, as well as Mooney's glossary2 from Walker River reserva-
tion, show the language of all this portion of the state to be
essentially the same, and to belong to the same dialectic group
as Loew's material from Benton and Aurora and the four new
vocabularies. There is some difference between the Nevada dia-
lects and those in the Sierra Nevada in California, since the
Mono and allied vocabularies agree in a few words, such as
mountain and star, with Shoshoni-Comanche, whereas the cor-
responding Paviotso words either agree with Ute-Chemehuevi or
are distinct from both it and Shoshoni-Comanche.

Powell and Ingalls extend tribes allied to the Paviotso north
into Oregon to the Malheur lake region. They also say that
the Bannock speak the same language3, which is corroborated by
Mooney on Paviotso information4. This seems probable for the
greater part of the Indians known as Bannock. It must however
be borne in mind that the vocabulary here given from the Ban-
nock of Fort Hall reservation is of the Ute-Chemehuevi group
of dialects. The ten-word test vocabulary from Lemhi reserva-
tion shows that the Bannock there speak a dialect which is prob-
ably most closely related to Mono-Paviotso, but is almost as near
to Shoshoni-Comanehe ; so that it forms something of a transition
between the two groups. It may be concluded from this, not
that the Bannock immediately north or northeast of the Paviotso
spoke a different language from the Paviotso, but rather that
several loose bodies or tribes belonging to at least two dialectic
groups have gone under the name Bannock.

The several short test vocabularies from the Paviotso and

1 III, 559.

2 Ghost-Dance Religion, Ann. Kep. Bur. Ethn., XIV, 1056.

3 Op. cit., 45.

4 Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., XIV, 1048.

116

University of California, Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Shoshoni, which have been mentioned as received through the
courtesy of several persons, are here reproduced in verification
of various of the statements made as to the affiliations of the
Nevada and Idaho Indians.

One

Shoshoni, Belmont

sim-ah

Shoshoni, Duck V. Ees.

sim-it-zy

Shoshoni, Wells

cimche

Shoshoni, Lemhi, Idaho

sim '-ah

1 Paiute, ' Duck V. Ees.

sa-ma'-ah

'Paiute, ' Eeno

sim' mie

'Paiute,' Walker B.

sooma-yu'

'Paiute,' Yerington

sur-mur'u

'Bannock,' Lemhi, Idaho

sim'-oi-thu

Star

Deer

totz ume be

so go doo yah

tah'-ze-numbe

to-hu'-ah

dotsube

socukrea

ta'-se-noomp

too'-he-yah

pa'-too-so-ba

to-her'dzy

do hoo'yah

pah-too-zuba

tue-huea-da

partz'-ero

ter-he'dar

ta'-se-nd

so-go-too'-he-yah

Snow

Earth

tock oh be

sho co be

da-ka-bee

so-gah

tuckup

obakin

ta-ca'-vit

so-goaf

ne-ba-be

to-eep'

teep(?)

near va bee

tiep

ner-bub'e

tepe

mv-Ife

so-go-av'-e

You
uhr
ehr

ehr

ill

oue

sma'-at

Mountain
toyab be
to-yah'-by
dorup
td-ya'-be
ki-bah

kleba

ki'-bar

ki-ave

Man

tunnup

ten-na

dinup

ten'-ap-pehr

ni-nah

ni'na

nana

nun-na'h

na-nak'

House
con na
kahne
gonie
ca-han'
no-be
kno'be
nobe
nu be
ca-ha'-ne

Tobacco

pah'-hy

bah

pa'-ha-mo-o

pah-mah

pam'mu

pah moo

parh mo'-war(?)

pa'-ham-o

Kill

bacon'

deine

teh-bak

pot'-you

put'ya

o-batza

putz'ah

paht'-sah

The vocabulary given by Hale as from the Shoshoni proper,
whom he places east of the Snake river and in part east of the
Rocky mountains, is, like the language of the Lemhi Bannock
of to-day, a transition dialect between Mono-Paviotso and Sho-
shoni-Comanche1.

1 Trans. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 88, from Eep. U. S. Expl. Exped. In the
following words this "Shoshoni" dialect agrees radically with Mono-
Paviotso and differs from Shoshoni-Comanche ; earth, snow, star, house. In
the word for mountain its radical affinity is the reverse; but the weight of
this affinity is weakened by the fact that in this word Mono, which cannot
be suspected of being a Shoshoni-Comanche dialect, also differs from
Paviotso and agrees with Shoshoni-Comanche. As regards radical differ-
ences in common words, Hale's Shoshoni therefore is nearer Mono-Paviotso
than Shoshoni-Comanche. On the other hand it agrees with Shoshoni-Com-
anche in a number of words for which the two groups show the same stems
but different forms; such are one, two, eye, tongue, fire. In mouth, fish
and star it resembles Ute-Chemehuevi more nearly than either Mono-Paviotso
or Shoshoni-Comanche.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 117

Bale's Wihinasht, placed by him west of Snake river in the
region of Malheur lake and river in Oregon, is clearly Mono-
Paviotso. The name Wihinasht has not been used subsequently.
The Shoshoneans of the Wihinasht region, that is to say all east-
ern Oregon not occupied by the Sahaptin, appear in literature
most frequently under the special names Walpapi and Yahuskin,
when they are not simply known as Snakes or Paiutes. Mooney,
in his map of the Columbia river tribes1, shows not only the
Walpapi, whom he places in the region usually assigned them,
but the Lohim2, occupying a small territory on the southern side
of the Columbia, at Willow creek.

Southward of the desert region of Oregon, and east of the
Sierra Nevada, the Paviotso or related tribes held a narrow fringe
of easternmost California, adjacent to the Lutuami, Achomawi,
and Maidu. The surroundings of Honey Lake in Lassen county,
California, have generally been assigned to these Shoshoneans,
but Dixon states this territory to have been Maidu3.
Farther south, in the Tahoe and Carson region, the Shoshoneans
are separated from the Californian Maidu by the small interven-
ing stock of the Washo, whose territory may be described as
having been east of that of the southern Maidu, separated from
it mainly by the watershed between the Sacramento valley and
the Great Basin. The Nishinam or southern Maidu, according to
Powers, called the ' ' Paiuti ' ' known to them Moanauzi, that is to
say Monachi or Mono. South of the Washo the Mono-Paviotso
were again in direct contiguity with California Indians, the crest
of the Sierras separating them from the Miwok or Moquelumnan
family. In this region Mono lake and Mono county take their
name from Shoshoneans of the present group.

South of the Miwok, where the Yokuts replace them in the
San Joaquin valley, from Chowchilla and Fresno rivers to the
Kern, the Mono-Paviotso and other Shoshoneans lived both west
and east of the Sierra watershed. Throughout this region, from
the head waters of the San Joaquin on one side and Owens river
on the other, to, but probably excluding, the upper Kern river

1 Ann. Kep. Bur. Ethn., XIV, pi. 88.

1 Ibid., 743.

1 Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XVII, 124, and map, PI. XXXVIII.

118 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

drainage, the habitable portion of the higher Sierra was every-
were held by the Mono or Monachi or by small groups at times
called by this name. On the San Joaquin they extended as far
down-stream as North Fork, which was in their possession. On
Kings river they held Big, Sycamore, and at least the greater
part of Mill creek drainage. On Kaweah river the Mono occu-
pied the North Fork and at least the upper part of Lime Kiln
or Dry creek. The Kaweah drainage marks the southern exten-
sion of the Mono on the western side of the Sierra. Tule river
was held to its headwaters by Yokuts, while to the south Sho-
shoneans of other groups, the Kern river and Ute-Chemehuevi,
took the place of the Mono west of the watershed. East of the
Sierra, however, the Owens valley Indians, whom Dr. C. Hart
Merriam calls Petonoquats1, are known by the Yokuts and the
Kern river Shoshoneans as Monachi. Monachi is also the name
of a peak in the Sierras near the southern end of Owens lake.
The Shikaviyam, Sikauyam, Sikaium, Shikaich, Kosho, or Koso
Indians south and southeast from Owens lake, west of the Pana-
mint range, evidently in the vicinity of the Koso mountains, also
speak a Mono-Paviotso though somewhat divergent dialect.

Kern river, which flows in two main branches between par-
allel ranges of the southern Sierra and finally drains into Tulare
lake in the southern end of the great valley of California, appears
to have been held everywhere, so far as inhabited by Shoshoneans,
by the Tiibatulabal, Shoshoneans of an entirely distinct dialectic
branch from the Mono ; but this is not altogether certain for the
upper part of the streams, where the Mono may have had some
territorial rights.

The Panamint Indians of the region of the Panamint range,
east of Owens lake and of the Shikaviyam or Kosho, are Shoshon-
eans, but their dialectic affiliations are not known. Their dialect
is said by the Tiibatulabal to differ more or less from that of
the Shikaviyam. If they are Mono-Paviotso, they probably mark
the southernmost ^extension of this group. To the east and south-
east of the Panamint Indians, in the Amargosa and Kingston
mountain region, were the Paiute or Chemehuevi tribes mentioned
before. To the south was the Mohave desert, across the northern-
Science, 1904, XIX, 912.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 119

most region of which these Paiute tribes may have extended and
connected territorially with the Ute-Chemehuevi Kawaiisu in the
Tehachapi mountains. The southern part of the Mohave desert,
through which the Mohave river flows, was in possession of Sho-
shoneans belonging to the Serrano group of the Southern Cali-
fornia branch of the family. The name Panamint, it is true,
appears in this southern part of the Mohave desert as the name
given by the Chemehuevi, the Yuman Mohave, and probably
other tribes, to these Serrano ; but unless the Panamint Indians
spoke a Serrano, that is to say Southern California, dialect,
which is unlikely, the speech of the two groups in the Panamint
mountains and on the Mohave river was dissimilar and only the
same name was applied to them, probably by tribes or races not
well acquainted with either.

The Mono adjacent to the Yokuts are generally called by them
Monachi or Monad ji, a term of unknown significance; or Nut'aa,
plural Nuchawayi, a word meaning easterners or mountaineers
and applied at times also to Yokuts tribes living in the hills.
The similarity of the terms Mono and Monachi to the Spanish
word for monkey and to the word monai, monoyi, meaning fly in
certain Yokuts dialects, is probably only coincidence, and explan-
ations of the application of these terms to the people are appar-
ently only folk etymology. The form Mono is used by the Yokuts
chiefly or only as they have learned it from the whites, Monachi
being their own proper form.

Under the Mono or Monachi are to be included the five
"Paiute tribes" enumerated by Dr. C. Hart Merriam1 as extend-
ing along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada from the San
Joaquin to the Kaweah river: the Nim or Pazo-ods or Kasha-
wooshah, the Holkomah or Holokommah or Towincheba, the
Kokoheba, the Entimbitch, and the Wuksache. Information
obtained chiefly from Yokuts Indians by the author, in part sub-
sequent to the publication of Dr. Merriam 's list, makes the Mono
tribes of this region appear to be as follows.

For the Indians in the vicinity of the North Fork of the San
Joaquin, who are represented in this paper by a vocabulary, no
name could be obtained. Nim is not a tribal name but the

120 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

word for person, num, which occurs also in other Mono dialects
as far south and east as Kings river and Owens river, so that it
cannot be regarded as distinctive of these people north of the San
Joaquin. As to the name Pazo-ods given them by the Holkoma,
nothing was ascertained. The people called Kashawooshah by
the Waksachi, whose territory is some distance to the south, are
probably not Mono but the Yokuts Gashowu, plural Gashwusha,
of Dry creek, who now live for the most part near the San
Joaquin.

The Poshgisha, Posgisa, Boshgesha, or Bosgisa lived on small
streams draining into the San Joaquin from the south, above the
head of Dry creek. The Yokuts mention Hebeyinau on Big
Sandy, and Bohintau, about a mile to the north, as two sites
occupied by the Poshgisha some miles from Auberry.

The Kokohiba are given by Dr. Merriam as in Burr valley
with one village over the divide looking into the valley of Syca-
more creek. The streams drain from the north into Kings river,
which they enter after uniting with Big Creek, some distance
above the mouth of Mill creek. The Yokuts seen by the author
were able to give no information as to the Kokohiba, except that
they lived not far from Toll House or Pine Ridge. Dr. Mer-
riam states that Kokohiba is originally a place name. The end-
ing -ba occurs as a locative in other Shoshonean dialects, such
as those of the Ute-Chemehuevi group. It occurs again in
Towincheba, which is therefore probably only a village in thre
territory of the Holkoma.

The Holkoma, plural Holokami, are given by Dr. Merriam as
on Sycamore and Big creeks just mentioned. He states that
there is some doubt as to the proper name of this tribe. The
Yokuts who were interviewed by the author were familiar with
the name, but could give no more precise information as to the
location of the tribe than that they were situated on the north
side of Kings river above the Yokuts.

The Endimbich, Indimbich, Entimbich, or Endembich1, plural
Enatbicha, occupied Mill creek except near its mouth. At the
junction of Mill creek with Kings river is Tisechu, the principal

1 The names of these Mono tribes, and their plurals, are Yokuts, and vary
somewhat according to the dialect of the informant.

VOL. 4] Krocber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 121

rancheria of the Yokuts Choinimni. According to the Yokuts,
the Endimbich held Dunlap, which was called Kicheyu; Chida-
dichi, also on Mill creek; and Drum valley, the name of which
was given both as Djeshiu and Yunabiu. These place names are
all Yokuts forms. The language of the Endimbich is said by the
Yokuts to be somewhat different from that of the three groups
here following. This was especially stated of the Wobonuch, who
are neighbors of the Endimbich.

The Wobonuch, Wobunuch, or Wobonoch, plural Wobenchasi,
are farther up in the mountains than the Endimbich, on or
among the pine ridges beyond Dunlap. Shokhonto is a place held
by them to the east or north of Dunlap.

The Waksachi, plural Wakesdachi, occupied Long valley,
(which is south of Mill creek), Ash Springs, Eshom valley,
Badger Camp, and Dry or Lime Kiln creek, which enters the
Kaweah river near Lemoncove. This territory seems to comprise
the head waters of Dry or Rattlesnake creek, which formerly
drained into Tulare lake through the Kaweah delta, and of Lime
Kiln creek and North Fork, two northern confluents of Kaweah
river, the three streams mentioned holding almost due south
parallel courses. Long valley or a site in it is called by the
Yokuts Tushau, and Eshom valley Chitatiu, which means "at
clover. ' '

The Balwisha, Baluusha, Badwisha, or Palwisha seem to have
been on Kaweah river itself above the mouth of Lime Kiln creek
and North Fork. The river up to and at the mouth of Lime
Kiln creek was in the possession of the Yokuts Wukchamni. The
Balwisha were at Three Rivers at the mouth of North Fork, and
thence up to or toward Mineral King. Their dialect with that
of the Waksachi was similar to that of the Wobonuch, at least
as compared with the dialect of the Endimbich. All the other
Mono tribes here listed still survive in part, but the Balwisha
are said to be extinct. One or two old women were found living
among the Yokuts who were of Balwisha blood, but they had
been brought up with the Yokuts and stated that they no longer
knew their native language.

To what degree the dialects of these tribes, especially those
characterized as most divergent, such as the Endimbich and

122 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Wobonuch, differed, can only be surmised, as vocabularies have
been obtained from the Mono on the west side of the Sierra only
among the people north of the San Joaquin and the Endimbich.
It is probable that the differences were not very great, as the
more distant Mono across the Sierra in Inyo county speak closely
related dialects. The definite tribal organization apparently
existing among the Shoshoneans of this region, and exemplified
by the existence of distinct tribal instead of merely local names,
is found also in the adjacent Yokuts linguistic family, but does
not extend beyond this. Usually in California the village and
the language are the only units of classification.

The Tiibatulabal of Kern river call the Monachi of Inyo
county Yiwinanghal. The Waksachi they appear to call Winang-
hatal.

Two facts become clear as to the Mono-Paviotso group from
the foregoing discussion. First, as to the geography, that their
territory is west of that of the two other groups of the Plateau
branch and that it has the shape of a long belt extending more
than five hundred miles from north to south. Second, as to lan-
guage, that there are outcroppings of Shoshoni-Comanche resem-
blances, not only in the north along the line of immediate con-
tact of the two groups, where Hale's Shoshoni and the Bannock
of Lemhi reservation show actual dialectic transitions, but even
in the southwest, across the Sierra, among the Calif ornian Mono.

KERN EIVEE GROUP.
Tiibatulabal.

The Tiibatulabal are a small tribe on Kern river, California,
who constitute, together with only the still less numerous Banka-
lachi, one of the four principal co-ordinate branches of the Sho-
shonean family. Their speech is about equally different from
that of the Plateau groups and from that of the Southern Cali-
fornia groups. It appears to be fully as near to Hopi as is either
of these two larger branches.

The great specialization of the small Tiibatulabal dialect into
a distinct branch of the family indicates its separation from the
remainder of the stock for a considerable period of time, and

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 123

therefore makes for the probability that the people speaking it
have long been inhabitants of California. The divergence of the
dialect is the more remarkable in that the Tiibatulabal were
directly adjacent to Shoshoneans of two Plateau groups, the
Mono-Paviotso and the Ute-Chemehuevi, and only a short dis-
tance, perhaps a day's journey, away from the nearest Serrano
of the Southern California branch.

The territory of the Tiibatulabal centered about the junction
of the main fork and south fork of Kern river. They extended
up both these streams at least some distance and perhaps to the
head waters. At any rate no other occupants of the upper parts
of these streams are known. It is however probable that this
remote region, if it belonged to the Tiibatulabal, was visited by
them rather than regularly inhabited. Below the junction of the
two forks the Tiibatulabal held Kern river to a point some miles
above Gonoilkin, as the Yokuts call a fall in the river some
miles above Bakersfield. From this place down, Kern river did
not form part of their territory, and the statements made as to
their descending into the plains about Tulare lake, conquering
these from the Yokuts, and finally retreating on account of the
ravages of malaria to their present location, have no foundation
except in imagination, based on occasional visits of the tribe into
the territory of its Yokuts neighbors.

Powers1 has misunderstood and largely reversed the distribu-
tion of Shoshoneans and Yokuts at the southern end of the
Tulare basin. Lower Kern river, at least parts of Poso creek
and White river in the hills, and all the plains about the southern
end of Tulare lake, were held by the Yokuts, both when the
Spaniards first entered the country and when the Americans
came. The "mountain nook at Tejon" was not the only place
in this region where an isolated fragment of the Yokuts main-
tained themselves. The upper part of Tejon creek and the
mountains in the vicinity belonged to the Gitanemuk, a Serrano
tribe to be discussed presently. It was in or immediately adja-
cent to their territory that Tejon reservation, on which most of
the Yokuts from the region of the southern end of Tulare lake
were placed subsequent to the occupation of the country by the

I0p. cit., 369, 393.

124 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Americans, was established. The accounts of Garces, who visited
this region in 1776, and whose Cuabajai are the Gitanemuk, his
Noche the Yokuts, tally exactly with the statements of the
Indians to-day as to the territory of the two stocks. The Cali-
fornia Indians do not migrate, but are extremely sessile; and
unless they have been actually moved or deported by the whites,
it is always safe to assume that the habitat of any tribe before
the coming of the Spaniards or Americans was the region it still
occupies. Neither were the Shoshoneans of the southern Sierras
warlike, nor did they make ' ' incursions " or " invasions ' ' for the
conquest of territory. They were California Indians, and, like
all such, no doubt had neighbors whom they disliked and would
have been glad to exterminate, if they could; but the idea of
making war for the purpose of conquering land or raiding to
acquire property, probably did not even occur to them. Powers'
whole story of the overrunning of this southern part of central
California by intrusive Shoshoneans, which has been repeated so
often, seems to be nothing but an unconscious fabrication due to
his knowledge that these people, like the Athabascan Hupa in the
north, belonged to a large and widespread linguistic family cer-
tain distant tribes of which were more warlike and aggressive
than the majority of the California Indians.

The Tiibatulabal call themselves by this name. They also call
themselves Bakhkanapiil, which is said to designate those speak-
ing their language. They are usually called Pitanisha by the
Yokuts, from Pitnani-u, the place-name of the forks of the Kern.
Sometimes they are spoken of as Wateknasi, said to mean pine-
nut eaters, from watak, pine-nut. Their own name seems to be
derived from the Shoshonean name for pine-nut, obtained as
diiba in Shikaviyam and dupat in Bankalachi1.

The Tiibatulabal call the Monachi Yiwinanghal, the Waksachi
group of the Monachi Winanghatal, the Gitanemuk-Serrano
Witanghatal, the Kawaiisu Kawishm, the Bankalachi, who are
the most closely related to themselves of any Shoshoneans,
Toloip or Toloim. Of the Yokuts they call the Wiikchamni,
plural Wiikachmina: Witskamin; the Yaudanchi and allied

1 C. Hart Merriam, op. cit. : Tebotelobelay, said to mean pine-nut eaters,
Pakanepul, and Wahliknasse.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 125

foothill tribes: Yokol, the proper Yokuts name of one of these
tribes on Kaweah river ; the Paleuyami : Paluyam. These three
Yokuts groups are west of the secondary range of the Sierra
which divides the Kern drainage from the immediate Tulare
lake drainage. For the southernmost Yokuts, those farther down
than themselves on Kern river and in the vicinity, the Tubutu-
labal have the general name Molilabal.

The Yuman Mohave are called Amakhaba by the Tiibatu-
labal, which agrees closely with the Mohaves' name for them-
selves, Hamak-have.

The following Tiibatulabal place names were learned. These
appear to follow in order down the south fork of Kern river
to the junction and then up the main fork : Cheibiipan (Roberts),
Yitiamup, Shaiamup, Doshpan (Weldon), Yahauapan (Isa-
bella, at the forks), Ukhkawalanapiiipan, Kiighiinulap, Piliwm-
ipan (opposite Whiskey Flat), Muhumpal, Wokinapiiipan, Holo-
tap, Ponganatap, Khaklamup, Kalakau, Yulau, Panoghoino-
ghoiapun, Otoavit (Mt. Whitney). Havilah is Aniintap. Walk-
er's Basin, belonging to the Kawaiisu, is Yutp. Bakersfield, in
Yokuts territory, is Baluntanakamapan. Owens lake is
Batsiwat1.

1 Powers, Tribes Cal., Contr. N. A. Ethn., Ill, 393, mentions a number
of Shoshonean tribes at the southern end of the San Joaquin-Tulare basin.
The Palligawonap ("from palup, stream, and ekewan, large,") he places
' ' on Kern River. ' ' The Tipatolapa ' ' on the South Fork of the Kern ' ' are
the Tiibatulabal ; the Winangik, ' ' on the North Fork, ' ' recall the Winang-
hatal (the Waksachi Mono as called by the Tiibatulabal), and the Yi-
winanghal (the Mono generally). "Another name for the Tipatolapa was
the Kuchibichiwanap Palup (little stream)." The "tribe at Bakersfield
called by the Yokuts Paleummi ' ' are not Shoshonean at all ; they are the
Paleuyami of Poso creek, of the Yokuts family. The tribe in Tehachapi
pass calling themselves ' ' Tahichapahanna, ' ' known to the Kern river
Indians as "Tahichp" and to the Yokuts as "Kawiasuh, " and "now ex-
tinct," are the Kawaiisu. Pitannisuh, the Yokuts name for the Kern river
Indians, is Pitanisha. Palwunuh, "which denotes 'down below'," the
Yokuts name of the Kern lake Indians, is Paluunun, dialectically Padu-
unun, from palu, down-stream or west, and the ending -inin, people of. The
Kern lake people were Yokuts, not Shoshonean. "On Kern river slough
are the Poelo ; at Kern river falls, the Tomola ; on Poso creek, the Beku, ' '
Poelo can not be identified, Tomola and Beku, properly Tomolami and
Bekiu, are not tribes, but Yokuts names of places in Yokuts territory.
Tomolami is not actually at Kern falls, which are called Gonoilkin, but
some miles below; Bekiu is on Poso creek in Paleuyami territory. Gatschet,
Wheeler Survey, VII, 411, gives, besides the " Pallegawonap, " the "Tillie
and P 'hallatillie, in southwestern portions of Kern county." The Palliga-
wonap can not be exactly identified; if Shoshonean, the name is probably
from pal, water; if Yokuts, from pal-, down stream or west.

126 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Bankalachi.

The Bankalachi, plural Bangeklachi, variously placed by dif-
ferent informants on upper Deer creek, upper White river, and
upper Poso creek1, all small streams west of upper Kern river
and draining directly into Tulare lake, are the only tribe known
who are nearly related in speech to the Tiibatulabal. On the
streams north and south of them, Tule and lower Kern rivers,
as well as everywhere westward in the plains, were Yokuts tribes.
Bankalachi is the Yokuts name of these people, and the term
they applied to themselves is not known, other than that ang-
hanil signified person: The Tiibatulabal seem to call them Toloip
or Toloim. The Bankalachi have disappeared as a tribe. A
number of the Yokuts on Tule river reservation are part Banka-
lachi by descent, but scarcely any know the language. This is
said to have been at least dialectically different from Tiibatu-
labal. The vocabulary obtained is so similar to Tiibatulabal that
the possibility is not excluded that its differences are due to its
having been obtained from another individual and that it is
really only Tiibatulabal.

GIAMINA.

The oldest Indian among the Yokuts on Tule river reserva-
tion, who speaks the Yauelmani and Paleuyami dialects, fur-
nished some fragmentary and perplexing information as to a
Shoshonean tribe, which he called the Giamina, in the vicinity of
Poso creek. No informant has yet been found who was able to
corroborate or deny this information, except that one old man,
the Yokuts who furnished part of the Gitanemuk vocabulary
here printed, recognized the name and agreed as to the general
locality of the Giamina. When interviewed a few years previ-
ously as to the tribes of the southern Tulare basin, the informant
who first spoke of the Giamina did not mention them. When the
information regarding them was more recently secured from
him, his mental condition, on account of extreme old age, was

1 The Yokuts informant from whom the Bankalachi vocabulary was ob-
tained said that his mother, who was of this tribe, belonged to Kelsiu,
which was situated in the White river drainage, about as far back in the
hills as is Tule river reservation.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 127

such as to make systematic questioning impossible, and it was
necessary to be content with such fragmentary statements as he
volunteered or as could with difficulty sometimes be extracted
from him. It is not unlikely that some of the Tiibatulabal on
Kern river may still be able to supply information as to this
tribe. The name Giamina seems Yokuts, the ending -mina, -mani,
or -amni occurring on a number of other tribal names, such as
Chukaimina, Choinimni, Telamni, Yauelmani, Tulamni, and
others. The informant stated that his mother was Giamina and
his father Paleuyami.

The Giamina are said to have lived on or near Poso creek.
Daishdanku was the name of one of the principal sites occupied
by them. This was near Kern river, a few miles above Bakers-
field, but below Gonoilkin, where Kern river has a fall. The
Kumachisi have been mentioned in literature as one of the tribes
of the region between Tule and Kern rivers. According to
Yokuts informants they were Yokuts, some stating that their
dialect was similar to that of the valley tribes, such as the Yauel-
mani, and others, including the Giamina informant himself at
the earlier interview, that their dialect was akin to the Paleuyami
of Poso creek. In subsequently mentioning the Giamina, how-
ever, the informant insisted that they were identical with the
Kumachisi, this being only the name given them by the Paleu-
yami. The Giamina language, he said, was different from Banka-
lachi. He was able to remember a few words, and these fully
bear out his statement. The twenty words obtained from him
clearly belong to a much specialized dialect which has its nearest
affiliations in Mono-Paviotso and Tiibatulabal, but is very differ-
ent from both; so much so that it seems not unlikely to have
constituted a distinct group. But the vocabulary secured is so
small as to allow no more exact conclusions as to the relations of
the dialect. Further material might show it to be a much special-
ized Mono or Tiibatulabal dialect altered perhaps through inti-
mate contact with Yokuts. Accordingly all that can yet be said
of the obscure Giamina is that a small body of people, called at
least sometimes by this name, lived somewhere in the vicinity of
Poso creek and spoke a very much specialized Shoshonean dialect,
of which only a nominal number of words are known.

128 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

tcupu

house

ni-ku

hewe

water

bal, bal-aku

pohoim

road

bekt

wadja

mountain

tabakwan

madjindji

across

dab-iku

pabahai

hahitcu, ahitciwa

person

xoxinil, xaxinil

much, many

man

muut

drink

Imwka

woman

wi'ct

kill

mik'an

deer

piat

DISTRIBUTION OF SHOSHONEANS IN THE SAN JOAQUIN-
TULARE VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA.

As just stated, it has been said many times on the authority
of Stephen Powers that Shoshonean tribes related to the so-called
Paiuti had in comparatively recent times passed over the Sierras
and invaded the territory of the Yokuts in the Tulare basin,
possessing themselves of the plains south and east of Tulare lake1
as far north as Deer creek or Tule river. Actually, it appears,
the plains in this basin were nowhere in the possession of the
Shoshoneans, who only held the mountains, and in some parts
the foothill region, to the south and east. The recency of
the Shoshonean invasion even of these parts must be regarded
as entirely hypothetical, and the general distribution of the Sho-
shonean tribes and dialects about the southern end of Tulare
basin, — where members of three of the four main branches of the
stock, comprising four entirely distinct dialectic groups, are
assembled within a range of a hundred miles, — makes it probable
that some of them at least are not new-comers in this part of
California.

To make this point clear, the facts given elsewhere on the
Shoshoneans in this region are here brought together and
restated.

In the northern part of the San Joaquin valley the Sho-
shoneans apparently do not live west of the main divide of the

1 Powell, Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. VII, 91 : " Occupying one-half of the
western (sic) and all the southern shore of Tulare lake."

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 129

Sierras. In the southern part of the valley, where their neigh-
bors are the Yokuts, they everywhere hold the higher portions
of the western slope of the mountains, the Yokuts being confined
to the plains and lower foothills. On the San Joaquin, the Kings,
and the Kaweah rivers, the upper waters are in possession of a
number of groups or tribes bearing different local names, but all
comprised under the Monachi or Mono and popularly known as
such. Tule river is entirely held by Yokuts, but is separated by
a secondary range from Kern river farther east, which flows
southward to emerge into the valley at a considerable distance
below, and which in its upper and middle course is Shoshonean,
being held by the Tubatulabal. Deer creek, White river, and Poso
creek, the next streams south of Tule river, were partly Sho-
shonean along their upper courses, Yokuts tribes like the Paleu-
yami living in this region with Shoshonean groups like the Bank-
alachi, who were separated by the secondary mountain-divide
from their near kinsmen the Tubatulabal. In this region also,
especially towards Kern river, were the problematical Giamina,
of Shoshonean affinity, but of unknown place in the family. On
lower Kern river the Yokuts appear to have held Bakersfield and
everything below and* to have extended up stream several miles
to above Gonoilkin or Kern Falls, where they met the Tubatu-
labal. In the mountains south of Kern river, and stretching
westward to Tehachapi pass, were the Shoshonean Kawaiisu,
belonging to the Ute-Chemehuevi dialectic group and quite iso-
lated in speech from their nearest Shoshonean neighbors. Still
farther along the mountains to the south and west, on upper
Tejori and Paso creeks, were the Gitanemuk, a part of the Ser-
rano group of the Southern California branch of the Shoshon-
ean family, although the territory of the Serrano, except in this
one confined case, was south of the Tehachapi watershed. The
lower parts of these streams, where they passed through the first
foothills and the plains, seem to have been held by the Yokuts.
It thus appears that three Shoshonean dialectic groups, stretch-
ing mainly over large areas to the east and south, extended also
over the crest of the Sierras into the San Joaquin valley drain-
age, and that a fourth group was entirely confined to this region ;
but that yet it was only the foothill and mountain regions which

130 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

these four Shoshonean groups held, the plains being everywhere
in the possession of the purely Californian Yokuts. Actual evi-
dence as to the movement of any of these Shoshonean groups into
their California territories is totally wanting.

The Shoshoneans in the San Joaquin valley may therefore
be classified as follows :

1. Mono or Monachi, including Poshgisha, Holkoma, Endim-
bich, Wobonuch, Waksachi, Balwisha, and others, along the upper
western slope of the Sierra Nevada, from the San Joaquin south
to the Kaweah river: Mono-Paviotso group of the Plateau
branch.

2. Tiibatulabal, Bakhkanapiil, or Pitanisha, on Kern river
in the region of the forks, and Bankalachi on upper Deer creek
or the streams to the south ; Tiibatulabal group, constituting the
Kern River branch.

3. Kawaiisu, Kaweisa, or Newooah, in the Tehachapi range
from the pass northeastward : Ute-Chemehuevi group of the Pla-
teau branch.

4. Gitanemuk, Gikidanum, Mayaintalap, or Tejon Indians,
in the vicinity of upper Tejon creek southwest of Tehachapi
pass : Serrano group of the Southern California branch.

In addition the little known Giamina are said to have been
on or near Poso creek : their affiliation is doubtful.

SOUTHERN CALIFOENIA BRANCH.

In contrast with the five hundred and thousand mile stretches
occupied by the Plateau branch, the three groups of the South-
ern California branch are crowded into a territory not more than
two hundred miles in any direction. Although the areas are
small, the several dialects however are not less different from one
another than those on the Plateau. It is another case of the
linguistic diversity characterizing California. Elsewhere in the
state many distinct families of very limited extension follow one
upon the other within short distances; here there are in close
contact divergent languages of one family, wrhose dialects in
other regions usually extend over much greater distances. The

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 131

first instance of the kind encountered among the Shoshoneans
was the Tiibatulabal.

The Southern California Shoshoneans were however not lack-
ing in numbers. To-day, after their general diminution, and
with the island people gone and the Gabrielino virtually so, they
still comprise two-thirds or more of the three thousand ' ' Mission
Indians."

The Shoshoneans of Southern California collectively have been
called Kauvuya by Gatschet1, Tobikhar by Powell2, and "Coa-
huillan linguistic family" by Barrows3.

SEERANO GROUP.

Perhaps the central home of the Serrano, the first and north-
easternmost of the three groups of the Southern California
branch to be considered, was the San Bernardino range of moun-
tains. In addition, they lived along the Mohave river, both where
this emerges from the San Bernardino mountains, and far out in
the Mohave desert about Barstow and Daggett and below. They
occupied apparently all of Los Angeles county north of the San
Bernardino range, unless portions of the middle Santa Clara
river valley were occupied by the Gabrielino. One Gitanemuk
Serrano gave Camulos on this stream as being in Fernandino
territory, that is, within the Gabrielino group. The place where
Shoshoneans and Chumash met in this region is not certain. It
was probably not far from the present boundary between Ven-
tura and Los Angeles counties. North of the Tehachapi range
a Serrano tribe calling themselves the Gitanemuk, and known
by their Yokuts neighbors as Mayaintalap or large-bows, lived on
upper Tejon, Paso, and possibly Pastoria creeks draining into
the Tulare basin ; but they did not extend into the plains. The Ser-
rano extension eastward is not exactly known, but they did not
reach across the state, for before the Colorado river is reached
the Chemehuevi are encountered in the mountains west of this
stream.

'Wheeler Survey, VII, 412.
'Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn., VII, 110.
3 Op cit., 22.

132 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

San Bernardino valley has been attributed both to the Ca-
huilla and the Serrano. The Indians now living in the valley
are mainly Serranos, and the statements of Indians in other parts
of Southern California also give this fruitful region to the
Serrano as part of their original habitat. Gatschet has placed
the Serrano, whom he calls Takhtam, "at San Bernardino, Col-
ton, and Riverside1". On the other hand, in another publica-
tion, the Magazine of American History for 1877, he places the
Cahuilla "in and around San Bernardino valley." The Rev.
Father Juan Caballeria in his History of San Bernardino Valley2
mentions Guachama as the aboriginal name of a spot near San
Bernardino and gives a vocabulary, which is Cahuilla, of the
Guachama language. The Indians from whom this vocabulary
was obtained have now however left the region, Father Caballeria
thinks for the south. Barrows3 says that the last villages of the
Cahuilla "in the San Bernardino and San Jose valleys were
broken up thirty years or so ago" and adds that "they were
driven from the San Timoteo canon in the forties by the ravages
of smallpox, and the first reservation to be met now as one rides
eastward through the pass where they once held sway, is below
Banning." Even here, he says, the Cahuillas and Serranos are
intermarried. Reid4, who actually lived in the country and was
married to an Indian woman, says, speaking of the Gabrielino,
that " Jurupa and San Bernardino, etc., belonged to another dis-
tinct tribe possessing a language not at all understood by the
above lodges . . . and named Serranos." As the various
statements placing the Cahuilla in San Bernardino valley and
San Gorgonio pass are all comparatively recent, but, like Powers '
statements about the Shoshoneans on Tulare lake, refer to the
past, and as these places are now actually occupied, so far as
there are Indians at them at all, by Serranos, it seems more prob-
able that they were originally Serrano territory. This is the

1 Wheeler Survey VII, 413. He says that this Serrano dialect is ' ' almost
identical with Kauvuya, " which is, however, not borne out by the vocabu-
laries given.

2 No date, no place (republished from the San Bernardino Times-Index),
pp. 39, 53.

3 Op. cit., 32.

* In Taylor, Gal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861. Hoffman, Bull. Essex
Instit., XV11, 3, 1885, quoting the same, gives Irup for Jurupa.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 133

more likely from the fact that the former reservation on the site
of which Banning is situated was called Morongo or Maronge,
which is a form of the name Maringayam, Maringints, Marayam,
Marangakh, by which the Serrano are known by their southern
and other neighbors. Dr. John R. Swanton of the Bureau of
American Ethnology has kindly furnished the information, sup-
plied him by a Serrano school girl named Morengo, on the author-
ity of her uncle, that her people formerly occupied San Ber-
nardino valley and San Gorgonio pass to a point eastward just
beyond Banning, but not the San Jacinto mountains. It is
very likely as a matter of general probability that Cahuilla
Indians were brought by the Franciscans to the San Bernardino
mission station attached to mission San Gabriel, and this fact
may be responsible for the statements assigning this region to
the Cahuilla1.

Statements made by the Yuman Mohave strengthen the prob-
ability that San Bernardino belonged to the Serrano. San Ber-
nardino and Colton, they say, belonged to the Hanyuveche, the
Serrano. The Hakwiche or Cahuilla were not there. The San
Bernardino mountains as far east as north or northeast of Indio
belonged to the Serrano and not to the Cahuilla. The San
Jacinto mountains were Cahuilla.

The following names of places, in or near Serrano territory,
were mentioned by Jose Varojo, the Gabrielino informant seen
at Highland in San Bernardino valley :

Wachbit, San Bernardino valley.

Nilengli, San Bernardino mountains.

Hisakupa, western San Bernardino mountains.

Yamiyu, San Jacinto mountains.

Puwipui, part of the San Jacinto range.

1 Mollhausen, Wanderungen durch die Prairien und Wiisten des west-
lichen Nordamerika, 1860, 439, mentions three or four families of Kawia
Indians in a state of peonage on an estate some miles west of the mouth
of Cajon pass in 1854. Whipple, Pac. E. E. Eep., Ill, 1856, part I, 134,
III, 34, describes these people as at Cucamonga ranch, and calls them
Cahuillas. The vocabulary given part III, p. 71, as ' ' Cahuillo ' ' is Cahuilla.
It was obtained from the chief, who had been baptized at San Luis Eey.
He, and by presumption his people, were therefore very probably not native
at this place but from farther south. An Indian born at Cucamonga would
not have been attached to San Luis Eey but to San Gabriel.

134 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

The following names of places about San Bernardino are
given by Rev. Father Caballeria1 :

Guachama (Wachama), "eat plenty," "abundance to
eat, ' ' all San Bernardino valley ; more espe-
cially, the name of a rancheria near Bunker
Hill, between Urbita and Colton.

Cucamungabit, Cucamonga.

Jurumpa, Riverside (cf. Jurupa grant).

Tolocabi, San Timoteo (Redlands).

Homhoabit, Homoa.

Yucaipa, Yucaipa.

Muscupiabit, Muscupiabe.

The ending -bit is evidently locative, (Caballeria: "place
of"), corresponding to Gabrielino and Luiseno -nga and Ute-
Chemehuevi -ba.

The names that the Serrano apply to themselves have not
been ascertained. Boas2 gives Maringayam, which may have been
meant to be applied only to those about San Gorgonio pass, but
has corroboration in the names used by other tribes. Barrows
gives Cowangachem3. Gatschet, on the authority of Loew, gives
Takhtam, persons, from takhat, person. This may be a satisfac-
tory name for use, but, as Barrows has pointed out, it must not
be regarded as a tribal name.

The Luiseno of San Luis Rey river call the Serrano of whom
they know Marayam, and their language Marangakh. The allied
Agua Caliente division according to Boas1 call them Tamankam-
yam, northerners.

The Chemehuevi call those of the Serrano north of the west-
ern part of the San Bernardino range, toward and probably over
the Tehachapi range, including the Gitanemuk: Panumits or
Banumints, a form of the well-known name Panamint. Those
on the Mohave river in the desert north of the more easterly part
of the San Bernardino range, who are considerably nearer the
Panamint mountains and Panamint Indians of the whites than
these last people, they call Pitanta. The Serrano proper, in the

1 Op. cit., 39.

2 Proc. A. A. A. S., 44, 261, 1895.

3 Op. cit., 19.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Slwshonean Dialects of California. 135

usual local sense of the term, namely those in the San Bernar-
dino range or south of it, they call Maringints. The ending
-ints of these names occurs in many Ute-Chemehuevi tribal names,
such as Shiv-its, and Nov-inch, the name for themselves of the
Ute.

The Mohave call the Serrano proper, whose home they con-
sider to be the San Bernardino mountains, Hanyuveche, the
Jenigueche of Garces. The Serrano of Mohave river, more speci-
fically those along its lower course about Daggett, they call
"Vanyume." This name is unquestionably the Chemehuevi
' ' Panumints, ' ' but seems to be applied to the people of a different
locality, just as the Panamint of the Americans are in a third
region and probably belong to an entirely different branch of
the family. The Benerne of Garces is the Mohave Vanyume1 ; he
applied it to any Indians speaking Serrano; as in fact he states
that the Beneme "nation" is "bounded by San Gabriel and
Santa Clara [river], and by the Chemeguabas and Jamajabs
[Mohave]2."

Gitanemuk.

The Serrano of upper Tejon and Paso creeks in the San
Joaquin valley drainage call themselves Gitanemuk, Gitanemok,
Gidanemuik, Gitanemum, or Gikidanum, a term the meaning of
which is unknown. Analogy with other tribal names makes it
possible that it is derived from the stem for house, gi- or M-.
These Indians have no current name other than the indefinite
' ' Tejon Indians. ' ' The southern Yokuts call them Mayain-talap,
large bows; the Tiibatulabal, Witanghatal. The Chemehuevi
seem to apply to them, or to their Serrano neighbors on the south
and southeast, the name Panumits. The Mohave call them
Kuvahaivima, not to be confused with Kuvakhye, their name for
the adjacent Kawaiisu. On Kuvahaivima is based the Cuabajai
of Garces, who traveled with Mohave guides. The Mohave visited
this region either to trade or from curiosity, and speak of three

1 Mohave v is bilabial and approaches b.

2 Op. tit., 444. Elsewhere, p. 238, he says that the ' ' Benem6 nation ' '
begins at the Pozos de San Juan de Dios, which are five leagues east of Soda
lake or the sink of the Mohave river and ten leagues west of Cedar Springs
(?) in the Providence mountains, and probably are the modern Marl
Springs. To the east is ' ' Chemehuevi ' ' territory.

136 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

tribes: the Kubahaivima ; the Gwalinyuokosmachi or tule-sleep-
ers, living on a large lake in tule houses, who are no doubt the
Yokuts on Kern, Buena Vista, and possibly Tulare lakes; and
the Kwiakhta Hamak-have, or like-Mohaves, who are probably
Chumash but cannot be positively identified, and whom the
Mohave erroneously believe to resemble themselves to the extent
of dressing and tattooing in the same way, practicing agricul-
ture, and making pottery. The name Kuvahaivima they declare
to have the meaning of naked in some language other than their
own, and to have been applied because these people habitually
wore no clothes. The Mohave seem to have been on friendly
terms with these several tribes of the Tehachapi region, as with
the intervening Vanyume of the Mohave river and with the still
nearer Chemehuevi; but the Serrano proper, those of the San
Bernardino mountains whom they call Hanyuveche, they looked
upon as enemies.1 The Mohave are still known to the Tehachapi-
Tulare tribes as people living on a distant large river, from
whom visitors occasionally came. The Yokuts informant from
whom part of the Gitanemuk vocabulary was obtained called
them Amakhau, the Tiibatulabal informant Amakhaba ; the latter
regarded their language as similar to Gitanemuk, from which of
course it is utterly distinct. Of the two Yokuts informants at
Tejon, who also called them Amakhaba, one characterized them
as "muy bravos;" the other classed their language as distinct,
with some words somewhat resembling Gitanemuk. It is curious
that this belief that there is in the Tejon region a tribe similar
or linguistically related to the Mohave, should exist both
among the Mohave themselves, the Yokuts, and the Shoshoneans,
without the least apparent basis.

The distribution of tribes, that is to say, linguistic groups,
in the Tejon region has been misunderstood in the past and is
not altogether clear yet. As one stands at Bakersfield and looks
southward, an almost semicircular wall of mountains, presenting
to the eye the aspect of an unbroken range, meets the view at
the distant end of a level plain. It is these mountains, with
their general east and west direction, that connect the parallel
Sierra Nevada and Coast Range and so distinctively shut off

1 Garces says the same thing, op. cit., 45.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 137

the great interior valley of California from the southern part
of the state. It has generally been believed that the northern
slope of these mountains, the side draining into Tulare lake, was
occupied by Yokuts and Shoshonean Indians only ; but it appears
that to these must be added certain branches of the Chumash
family, a preeminently maritime or littoral group, occupying
Ventura, Santa Barbara, and southern San Luis Obispo counties,
with the three principal northern Santa Barbara islands. The
distribution of the representatives of these three families is as
follows. The Yokuts were nowhere in the mountains, but held
all the plains north of them. Two of their tribes lived respect-
ively on Kern and Buena Vista lakes, at least the latter, the
Tulamni, ranging also northwestward along the sloughs extend-
ing toward Tulare lake. Another Yokuts tribe, the Yauelmani,
also called Yawelmani and Yowedmani, who occupied the plains
and the lower lands along Kern river or to the north, lived
intermittently on lower Tejon and Paso creeks. It was on these
streams that Tejon reservation was established, on which the
Yauelmani were confined with other tribes, and some confusion
of information may be due to this fact. There are however living
Yauelmani Indians who were born at this spot before the coming
of the Americans, and there can be little doubt that these streams
at least as far up into the foothills as the country was open (that
is to say, to include the present ranch house and store on Rancho
Tejon), were regularly visited and probably inhabited by these
Yokuts in native times. The upper courses of all the streams
draining northward from the range, to be lost in the dry plains,
or in times of flood to reach Kern and Buena Vista lakes, were
held only by Shoshoneans and Chumash. Tehachapi creek, which
is. followed by the railroad in its southeastward ascent to cross
the mountains, belonged to the Kawaiisu. Bear mountain, a bold
mass projecting somewhat into the plain, and separating lower
Tehachapi creek from Comanche, Tejon, and Paso creeks to the
southwest, was in the territory either of the Kawaiisu or the
Gitanemuk. Tejon and Paso creeks were Gitanemuk ; Comanche,
which rises much nearer the plains, may have been. Tejon creek
is longer than Paso creek, and along it goes a road that crosses
the mountains in Fremont 's pass. Just where the stream emerges

138 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

from the mountains to spread over a flood-plain in the lower
open foothills, is the present Tejon rancheria. This site is Nak-
walkive, and is old Gitanemuk territory. Most of the Indians there
to-day are Gitanemuk. On Paso creek a few miles away, in the
open almost level country, is the Tejon store and ranch house,
said to have been so far toward the plains as to be in Yokuts
territory. Southwest of Paso creek are three small streams, the
middle and principal one known as Pastoria creek. These were
held by Shoshoneans also, but of what division is not certain.
The Gitanemuk are said by some to have extended to these
streams. One informant placed on Pastoria creek Indians speak-
ing a language similar to that of San Fernando, that is to say,
of the Gabrielino group. West of these streams are a number
draining almost due northward, the principal of which are
Canada de las Uvas and Tecuya, Plato, and San Emidio creeks.
These, as far as they were within the mountains, were all in the
possession of Chumash. The dialect of this region is said to have
differed from those of San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara.
Canada de las Uvas leads to Fort Tejon, Castac lake, and Tejon
pass. This Tejon fort and pass must be distinguished from the
Tejon ranch, reservation, and stream farther east. Tecuya is
Tokie or Tokya, the Yokuts name of the Chumash in general.
San Emidio creek also led to a pass southward over the moun-
tains. The Chumash of these regions were evidently in close
relations with the adjacent Yokuts of the lakes into which the
drainage of their territory found its way. Their dialect seems
not to have been recorded, and as a tribe they are extinct. A
few individuals familiar with the language may survive.

The Gitanemuk or their language are frequently called the
Haminat, which is said to be a phrase in their language meaning
"What is it?" or "What do you wish?" They called the site
of their present rancheria Nakwalkive ; Comanche creek, Chivut-
pave; Rancho de la Lliebre, across the mountains to the south,
also occupied by Serranos, Huitohove; Fort Tejon, in Chumash
territory, Tikitspe. The site of Tejon ranch house is Wuwopra-
have. Honewimats is about a mile downstream. Mavin is in
the mountains, in Gitanemuk territory, perhaps Tehachapi peak.
On the road from Fort Tejon to Los Angeles were Guchayik,

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 139

said to mean in the timber, at Gorman's; Patawopin; and Siv-
ingadapin. Poipin, in the same region, was Chumash. Camulos
or Piru was Akawaik; the Fernandino language is said to have
been spoken there. Mupoo is San Gaetano, near Santa Paula.

The Yokuts call Paso creek Tinliu, at the hole, from tinil,
hole, and -u, locative. Daal is the form in the dialect of Kern
and Buena Vista lakes. Pohalin tinliu, at the ground-squirrels'
holes, is a flat but slightly elevated, probably gently sloping,
piece of country south of Kern lake. Tejon creek, or perhaps
specifically the present village site upon it, is Pusin tinliu, at the
dog's hole, in the lake dialect Tseses daal. Comanche creek is
Sanchiu. A mountain north of Tejon creek, probably Bear or
Tehachapi peak, is Chapanau. Pastoria creek is Chipowi or
Chipohiu. On Canada de las Uvas, below Fort Tejon, is Lapau.
Castac lake is Sasau, at the eye. San Emidio is Tashlibunau.
Along Paso creek from its source to where it was lost in the plain
were the following places: Watskiu, Tsututaiwieyau, Tipniu or
Tripniu (at the above, or at the supernatural), Toineu lomto
(lomto, at the mountain), Tenhanau, Chakhiau toltiu (toltiu, at
the stream), Natin tinliu (at the rattlesnakes' holes), Laikiu (the
site of the present ranch house), and Tsuitsau. The names are
all Yokuts; at least the first designate places in Gitanemuk ter-
ritory.

Mohineyam.

The old Serrano woman among the Mohave from whom the
Mohineyam vocabulary given was obtained, was a rather conflict-
ing informant. She is generally known by the Mohave as being
a Vanyume, a term translated into English as "Tejon Indian."
She stated that the Hanyuveche of the San Bernardino moun-
tains, the people ordinarily known as Serranos, lived along the
Mohave river as far down as Daggett. Below this point were
the Vanyume, a distinct tribe, but "like a brother," and speak-
ing the same language. Mohave informants make the Vanyume
extend to the head waters of the Mohave river and put the
Hanyuveche on the southern side of the watershed. She belonged
to a place called Hamukha,1 not far from and west of Daggett,

1 A Mohave informant in another connection mentioned Ahamoha as a
place north of Daggett, in the Vanyume country.

140 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

in the heart of the desert1. It was on account of the name of
this place that the Mohave gentile name Moha was given
her. She corroborated the Chemehuevi statement that the
Chemehuevi called her people Pitanta. She gave Mohine-
yam or Mohinyam as the name of her people for themselves.
This name recalls the Hiniima or Hinienima obtained from
the Chemehuevi as the name of a Shoshonean tribe in the
Tehachapi region, probably the Kawaiisu. She called the
whites haiko-yam, a name of wide distribution in Southern
California, Nevada, and Arizona; the Mohave Hamahava-yim,
the Chemehuevi Yuaka-yam, the Cahuilla Kawiya-yam, the
Kawaiisu, whose language, like the Mohave, she correctly stated
to resemble Chemehuevi, Agutush-yam, the Yokuts ' ' tule-sleep-
ers" Tatavi-yam. The ending -am in these words is the plural
suffix.

It is doubtful how far this informant really discriminated
between the several Serrano branches.

The term Serrano as here used as the name of a group of
people speaking very nearly the same dialect, must not be con-
fused with its common signification, which restricts it to the
Indians about San Bernardino and the adjacent mountains. For
instance the Gitanemuk, in spite of the similarity of their speech
to that of the people of the San Bernardino region, are not ac-
cording to ordinary usage called Serrano. The information and
vocabularies obtained, however show all the divisions of this
group to have been very closely related dialectically.

GABEIELINO GEOUP.

The word Gabrielino, meaning the people of San Gabriel, the
Franciscan Mission near Los Angeles, has generally been applied
by the Spanish-speaking people of California to the majority
of the Indians of this group. The term Tobikhar, introduced by
Loew and Gatschet2 and extended by Powell3 to include all the
Shoshoneans of Southern California, cannot be positively identi-
fied. Gatschet 's interpretation of "settlers" seems to be only

1 Her mother 'a people were from a place called Aviahnalye, gourd-moun-
tain, by the Mohave; her father's from Chokupaye, also a Mohave name.

2 Eep. Chief Eng., 1876, III, 556, and Wheeler Survey, VII, 405, 413.

3 Ann. Eep. Bur. Ethn., VII, 110.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 141

a surmise1. There is no evidence except Loew's that the word
was used by any Indians as a tribal name ; nor has it been used
even in books except on the authority of Loew2. Its application
to all the Shoshoneans of Southern California is certainly with-
out warrant. Buschmann, following Hale, has called the Gabriel-
ino language Kizh, also written Kij. This term is evidently
related to the Gabrielino word for house, kikh or kigh, also given
as kich. The Luisefio call the Gabrielino Tumangamal-um,
northerners, and their language tumangangakh.

The territory of the Gabrielino group comprised all the pres-
ent Los Angeles county south of the San Bernardino mountains,
except probably the narrow coast strip west of Santa Monica. It
covered also the greater part of what is now Orange county,
extending as far as Alisos creek, north of San Juan Capistrano.
To the east it reached a short distance beyond the limits of Los
Angeles county, but without including San Bernardino or River-
side. Informants at Tejon place Shoshoneans speaking a dialect
related to that of San Fernando at Camulos and Piru, i.e., the
mouth of Piru creek in Santa Clara river, in eastern Ventura
county; but confirmation is required. Practically nothing is
known as to the distribution of Indians in this interior region.

Besides San Gabriel, Mission San Fernando was in Gabrielino
territory. The Spaniards, following their custom, speak of the
Indians attached to this mission as Fernandenos or Fernandinos.
The vocabularies that have been given show that there was no
dialectic difference of consequence. So the Indians also state;
Taylor3 and Gatschet4 say and Reid5 implies the same thing ; and

1 From toba, sit. Cf ., however, Hale, Tr. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 128, Gabrie-
lino: earth, touanga (=towa-nga); and Keid, in Hoffman, Bull. Essex In-
stit., XVII, 6, 1885 ; tobagnar, the whole earth, lahur, a portion of it, a piece
of land. Other vocabularies give for earth: oxar, or olkhor. Barrows, op.
tit., 19, recalls that Reid, in Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861,
gives the name of the mythological ''first man" as Tobohar. Taylor, on
his own authority, Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860, gives Toviscanga
as the name of the site of San Gabriel. Cf. Tuvasak below.

"Reid, in Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861; "It probably
may not be out of place here to remark, that this tribe" (the 'Indians of
Los Angeles county' or Gabrielino) "had no distinguishing appellation."

3 Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860.

4 Wheeler Survey, VII, 413.

8 Quoted by A. Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861; also
reprinted from Reid's manuscripts by W. J. Hoffman, Bull. Essex Instit.,
XVII, 2, 1885. Reid's material was originally printed in the Los Angeles
Star.

142

University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Pimentel's1 comparison of the Lord's prayer from the two mis-
sions is further evidence that the dialects, though distinct, were
nearly identical.

The list of place names given by Reid3 as the "principal
lodges or rancherias" of the "Indians of Los Angeles county"
seems to be reliable. It is here reprinted in slightly altered
transcription, except for two words, evidently misprinted, which
are quoted.

Los Angeles

San Gabriel

Mission Vieja2

Pear Orchard

White's Farm

The Presa

Azuza

Cucamonga

Rancho del Chino

La Puente3

Jaboneria

Carpenter's Farm

Santa Catalina Island4

Rancho de los Ybarras

San Jose

Santa Ana Yorbas

Santa Anita5

Rancho de los Felis

Rancho de los Verdugos

Cahuenga6

San Fernando

Ranchito de Lugo7

Ya-ngna

Siba-gna

"Isanthca-gna':

Sisitkano-gna

Sona-gna

Akura-gna

Asuksa-gna

Kukomo-gna

Pasino-gna

Awi-gna

Chokish-gna

Nakau-gna

Pimu-gna

Pimoka-gna

Toibi-pet

Hutuk-gna

Aleupki-gna

Mau-gna

Hahamo-gna

"Cabeu-gna"

Pasek-gna

Hout-gna

Sua-ngna

Pubu-gna

Suanga
Alamitos

1 Cuadro Descriptive y Comparative de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico,
1875, II, 56.

2 Hoffman gives ' ' Isanthcog-na. ' '
8 Hoffman gives ' ' Awiz-na. ' '

4 From Hoffman ; correct. Taylor gives ' ' Pineugna. ' '

8 Hoffman gives ' ' Almpquig-na. ' '

8 Hoffman gives ' ' Cabueg-na. ' ' Probably Kawe-ngna was meant.

7 Not given by Hoffman.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 143

Tibaha-gna Serritos

Chowi-gna Palos Verdes

Kinki-par San Clemente Island

Haras-gna ?*

Several of these places are not now readily identified. Most
of them can be found on maps showing the Spanish land-grants.
The native ending -gna is locative. It is perhaps intended for
-ngna. In current Spanish and English form such of these
names as have passed into geography appear with the ending
-nga: Cahuenga, Cucamonga, Topanga. It is to be noted that
Eeid does not expressly state that the Indians of all these locali-
ties spoke the same dialect ; but such seems to be his implication,
and with one or two exceptions the places are all in territory
assigned by the modern Indians to the Gabrielino. Kinki-par,
San Clemente Island, is one of the two in the list that do not
end in -gna. The dialectic affiliation of its inhabitants is not
certain. The modern Luiseno claim that they were Luisefio.
Toibi-pet, San Jose, near San Bernardino, is in territory that
was more likely Serrano than Gabrielino. The ending -pet is the
-bit occurring on a number of San Bernardino Serrano place
names. Cucamonga is given both in this list and in Caballeria's
Guachama-Cahuilla list of place names about San Bernardino;
the place was probably very near the boundary between the two
groups. Whipple in 1854 found Cahuilla peons on Cucamonga
ranch.

The author's Gabrielino informant gave the following names
of places :

Pimu Santa Catalina Island

Kinki probably San Clemente Island

Ongoving Salinas (Redondo)

Chowi a place (Reid: Palos Verdes)

The following names of places in Gabrielino territory were
obtained from an old Luiseno informant on the San Luis Rey
river. They agree in part with those given by Reid, the stems
of which are added in brackets. Some of the names may be

1 Not given by Hoffman.

144 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Luiseiio equivalents of Gabrielino forms. lyakha and Yangna,
the two forms for Los Angeles, agree quite closely.1

Moyo Sauc,al, San Joaquin

Lukup Las Bolsas

Ahauwit Los Alamitos, Cerritos [Pubu-, Tibaha-]

Masavngna San Pedro

Unavngna Palos Verdes [Chowi-]

Engva Salinas, Eedondo

Saan Ballona

Tuvasak San Gabriel [Siba-; Taylor: Toviska-]

Pashingmu San Fernando [Pasek-j

lyakha Los Angeles (poison oak, iyala in Luiseiio)

Hutuk Santa Ana [Hutuk-]

Sekhat Los Nietos (willow, sakhat in Luiseiio)

Pipimar Santa Catalina island [Pimu-]

Pakhavkha Temescal creek, part Gabrielino

Taylor2 gives Pasheckna as the native name for San Fernando
and mentions Okowvinjha, Kowanga, and Saway Yanga as
Gabrielino rancherias, apparently near San Fernando. He places
"the Ahapchingas" between Los Angeles and San Juan Capis-
trano. He gives the name of San Gabriel as Toviscanga, of Los
Angeles as Yang-ha, of the beach or plaza at San Pedro as
Sowvingt-ha. Duflot de Mofras3 mentions Juyubit, Caguillas,
and Sibapot as "tribes" the site of whose villages was occupied
by the Mission San Gabriel. The Caguillas are of course the
Cahuilla. Juyubit has the Serrano place-ending -bit, and Sibapot
seems to be Siba-, given by Reid as the name of San Gabriel,
with the same Serrano ending instead of the Gabrielino -gna.
Reid's Muhuvit, behind the hills of San Fernando, that is, in or
north of the San Bernardino range in Serrano territory, has the
same Serrano ending. It has no connection with Mohave, as
Hoffman thinks4.

1 -kha is probably one of the characteristic Uto-Aztekan noun endings lost
before suffixes or possessive prefixes, like -la of corresponding Luiseno
iyala; -ngna being the locative suffix, the stems are iya and ya. Taylor,
on his own information, Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860, gives Yang-ha.

2 Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860.
1 1, 349.

4 Bull. Essex Instit., XVII, 18, 1885. Also, Cal. Farmer, XIV, 162.

VOL. 4] Krocber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 145

LUISESO-CAHUILLA GEOUP.

The Luiseno-Cahuilla group may be described as the southern
one of the three in Southern California, the Serrano being north-
eastern and the Gabrielino northwestern. In distinction from
these two groups, which are each dialectically nearly uniform,
the Luiseno-Cahuilla comprises at least four subdivisions. These
are Luisefio and Cahuilla, numerically the most important ; Agua
Caliente, intermediate geographically and linguistically between
Luiseno and Cahuilla; and San Juan Capistrano, related most
nearly to Luiseno, and perhaps forming somewhat of a transi-
tion to Gabrielino.

Luiseno.

The Luiseno have been called Kechi. They seem sometimes
to call themselves Ghecham or Khecham, Ghech being the name
of San Luis Rey Mission. With this term should be compared
Khechmai, the Luiseno name of San Onofre in the territory of
the closely related San Juan Capistrano Indians, and Gaitchim,
which is given by Loew as the name of the Indians of this mis-
sion. How far the words like Khech-am are true tribal names,
or only local names occasionally applied to larger groups of
people, is not certain. Kicha, objective kish, stem ki-, plural
kicham, means house in Luiseno, and it seems that words such
as ghecham and gaitchim are derived from this root. The
Luiseno call their language cham-tela, "our speech," which is a
description rather than a name, like the "Netela" of San Juan
Capistrano, correctly conjectured by Gatschet to mean "my lan-
guage."

The territory of the Luiseno included all the drainage of the
San Luis Rey river except the head waters, which were held by
the Agua Caliente Indians of this same Shoshonean group and
by the Diegueno of Yuman stock. The statement of Powell1
that the mission of San Luis Rey, which is near the mouth of
this river, was at the time of its foundation in Yuman territory,

»Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn.; VII, 138.

146 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

is incorrect.1 Luiseno territory extended south to include Agua
Hedionda, San Marcos, Eseondido, and Valley Center. South
of these places Batiquitos, Encinitas, San Dieguito, San Ber-
nardo, San Pasqual, Guejito, and Mesa Grande were held by the
Diegueno. Up San Luis E.ey river the Luiseno extended to
Puerta Noria or Ygnoria and Puerta de la Cruz. Above these
places San Jose was held by the Diegueno. On the coast north-
ward the Luiseno extended to between Las Flores and San
Onofre, the former belonging to them, the latter to the closely
related Juaneno of Capistrano. Northward in the interior
Temecula, Santa Kosa, Aguanga, Pauba, Elsinore lake, and San
Jacinto were Luiseno, although at least at the last place with
some change of dialect. The principal village or ' ' tribe ' ' at San
Jacinto is Saboba, called by the southern Luiseno Sovovo, the
people Sovovoyam. Temescal creek, flowing out of Elsinore
lake, was partly Luiseno and partly Gabrielino. The Luiseno
apparently nowhere reached the crest of the San Jacinto divide,
the upper waters of San Luis Rey river being held as stated
by the Diegueno and the Agua Caliente people, the head waters
of Santa Margarita river by the Cahuilla on the site of the
present Cahuilla reservation, and the San Gorgonio mountains
farther north being occupied either by Serrano or Cahuilla or
both.

Bergland's "Kechi" vocabulary from San Luis Rey, Gat-
schet's number twenty-two2, seems to be really Cahuilla. Gatschet
observes3 that it differs from other Luiseno vocabularies.

The following are Luiseno names of places in their own ter-
ritory.

Ngorivo Puerta de la Cruz

Kheweyu Puerta Noria

Huyulkum La Jolla

Puchorivo San Luis Rey Canyon

1 It may have originated from the statements of Taylor, Cal. Farmer,
XIII, 90, May 11, 1860, in connection with a vocabulary from San Luis
Eey, which is as a matter of fact Yuman. The informant from whom this
was obtained may have been Yuman, but either he or Taylor was in error
in placing San Luis Eey in Yuman territory.

2 Wheeler Survey, VII, 405, 413, 424.

3 Ibid., 475.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

147

Waskha

Paumo

Taghanashpa

Pala

Malamai

Tomkav

Opila, Kwalam

Wakhaumai

Wiasamai

Gheech, Kheish,

Ghesh
Wiawio
Palamai

Panak're, Rome
Shikapa
Mekhelom pom-

pauvo
Soumai
Temeku
Toatwi
Sovovo
Paiakhche
Pakhavkha
Dapomai
Mekha
Ushmai
Chakapa
Awa

Rincon
Pauma
An old village site at the graveyard near

the present Pauma rancheria.
Pala

Agua Tibia
Monserrate
Bonsall
Guajome
Below Guajome
San Luis Rey or three miles below San Luis

Rey1

Oceanside
Agua Hedionda
San Marcos
Cerro de las Posas
Escondido (doves drink)

Valley Center

Temecula

Santa Gertrudis, near Temecula

San Jacinto (Saboba)

Lake Elsinore

Temescal Creek

Santa Margarita

Santa Rosa

Las Flores

Las Pulgas

Aguanga

The Luiseno of the mountains sometimes call those nearer the
coast Payamguehum, westerners.

The Diegueno of San Felipe, who call the Luiseno Kokhwaiu2,

1 Cf . the discussion above regarding the ' ' tribal ' ' name. Taylor, Gal.
Farmer, XIII, 17, February 22, 1860, gives Icayme as the native name of
San Luis Key.

"Boas, op. tit., 261, probably in the dialect of Tekumak (Mesa Grande) :
Okhoe.

148 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

call Puerta Noria Khanat, Puerta de la Cruz Pekat, Aguanga
Kilyewai, Escondido Kwaiyutlp1.

The Luiseno call the two villages of the Agua Caliente people
Gupa, Agua Caliente (Gupa), and Wolak, San Ysidro
(Wilakal).

For places in and near Cahuilla territory they have the fol-
lowing names :

Pawi Cahuilla valley

Wakwi El Toro, Cabezon

Hulawona Los Coyotes

Sapela San Ygnacio

Yamiwo San Jacinto mountain

Piwipui San Gorgonio mountains

The last two names are almost identical with those obtained
among the Serrano.

Luiseno names for places in Gabrielino territory have been
previously given.

Tova2, near Maronge, in Serrano or Cahuilla territory, across
the San Jacinto mountains, is mentioned as the place where the
creator-culture-hero Wiyot died.

The following are Luiseno names of places in Diegueno terri-
tory. Diegueno equivalents are given in parentheses.

Paskwa San Jose on upper San Luis Rey river

(Tawi)

Kulaumai South of Agua Hedionda, on the coast

(little woody)

Piiv Batiquitos

Kulau San Elijo

Unuv Las Chollas (Cf. San Dieguito)

1 Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860, gives the following place
names in connection with a vocabulary from San Luis Rey. Like his vocab-
ulary, these names seem to be Diegueno (Yuman) ; the places are likely
to have been in Luiseno territory. Ene kelkawa (near the mission),
Mokaskel, Cenyowpreskel, Itukemuk, Hatawa, Hamechuwa, Itaywiy, Milk-
wanen, Ehutewa, Mootaeyuhew, Hepowwoo.

2 Cf . Hale, Tr. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 128, Touanga, earth, instead of oxar,
olkhor, of other vocabularies; Reid, in Hoffman, Bull. Essex Instit. XVII,
6, 1885, and Cal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861, tobagnar, the whole
earth as opposed to a district, and Tobohar, the first man; Loew and
Gatschet, Tobikhar, tribal name of the Gabrielino; also Barrows, op. cit.,
33, Tova, the present Cahuilla village of Agua Dulce.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 149

Shukutpupau La Tinaja

Pohiksavo San Buenaventura

Chatumpum- Canada de las Llehuas (owls' eyes)

puly 'mai

Aoyi Carrizal

Paulpa ' ' el Puerto " ( of San Diego )

Pushuyi San Diego

Totakamalam La Punta

Unov San Dieguito (Sinyaupichkara)

Panau Encinitas

Huike San Bernardo

Pawai Somewhere south of Escondido, where

the supernatural being Dakwish
was born.

Yangiwana Mesa Grande (Tekumak, Tukumak)

Malakash Santa Ysabel (Tlkwananu)

Pakhwa San Felipe (Hitltekwanak, Patltoko-

nak)
Toov Matajuai (Amat kokhat, earth- white)

Sakishmai Guejito

The Luiseno call the Diegueno Kichamguchum, southerners,
and their language Kichamkwangakh.

San Juan Capistrano.

The San Juan Capistrano Indians or Juaneno are regarded
by the Luiseno as quite similar to themselves in speech, and in
fact the two dialects are not very different. These Indians have
been called Gaitchim, and their language Netela, which last
means only "my speech." The native name of San Onofre is
given by the Luiseno as Khechmai, of San Juan as Aghashmai or
Akhachmai, the equivalent of Juaneno Acagchemem or Akatchma
mentioned by Boscana1 and Gatschet. Taylor gives the name of
the site of San Juan Capistrano as Quanis Savit2. The San Juan
Capistrano Indians lived in the coast region of southernmost
Orange and northwesternmost San Diego counties, from between
San Onofre and Las Flores creeks on the south, to Alisos creek
on the north. Their territory was thus enclosed by that of the
Gabrielino, the Luiseno, and the ocean.

1 Chinigchinich, in A. Kobinson, Life in California, New York, 1846.

2 Cal. Farmer, XIII, 17, February 22, 1860.

150 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Luiseno names for places in Juaneno territory :
Khechmai San Onofre

Pankhe San Mateo

Aghashmai, Akhachmai San Juan Capistrano

Palabasichash Resimbon

Alona Trabuco

Piwiva Mision Vieja

Huumai near the last

Palasakeuna Agua Caliente de San Juan

Boscana mentions Sejat and Pubuna, seven or eight leagues

to the northeast, and Niguiti or Putuidem, near the mission.
Vocabularies of the Capistrano dialect are given by Hale,1

Gatschet,2 and Scouler.3 None was obtained by the writer. A

Luiseno informant gave the following words to illustrate the

degree of difference between the two dialects.

English Luiseno Juaneno

man yaash yiich

woman shungal shungal

house kicha kicha

yes oho oho

no kai kayon

earth ekhla ekhel

tomorrow ekhngai putokala

Agua Caliente.

The small Agua Caliente "tribe" of the Luiseno- Cahuilla
group inhabited only two villages, both in the region of the head
waters of San Luis Rey river. These villages are Gupa, Agua
Caliente, and Wilakal, San Ysidro, called respectively Gupa and
Wolak by the Luiseno4. The Agua Caliente Indians call their
language Panakhil. Those of the village of Agua Caliente call
themselves Gupa-nga-git-om, Gupa people. They are called
Hekwach or Khaguach5 by the Diegueno of San Felipe and of
Mesa Grande. This is the same word as the Hakwiche of the
Mohave, applied by them to the Cahuilla, whom the Diegueno,

1 Trans. Am. Ethn. Soc. II, 128.

2 Wheeler Survey, XII, 405, 413, 424.

3 Journ. Geogr. Soc. London, XI, 246, 1841.

4 Barrows, op. tit., 34, Kopa and Holakal (probably Cahuilla names).

5 Boas, Proc. A. A. A. S., 44, 261, 1895.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California,. 151

at least those of the present day, call Kawia. The San Felipe
Diegueno call Agua Caliente Khakupin1 and San Ysidro Ephi
or Epkhie. Boas2 gives the following as Agua Caliente names
of neighboring Indians: Serrano, Tamankamyam, northerners;
Cahuilla, Tamikochem; Luiseno, Kawikochem; Diegueiio, Gich-
amkochem, southerners, the same as the Luiseno name.

A second Agua Caliente is in Cahuilla territory, and still held
by the Cahuilla, some distance to the north, on the main line of
the Southern Pacific railroad, and must not be confounded with
the present Agua Caliente. It is the present more southerly
Agua Caliente, until recently regarded as a reservation, which
has come into prominence with the Warner's Ranch eviction. The
Warner's Ranch Indians who were moved to Pala however in-
clude certain Luiseno as well as the Agua Caliente people, besides
the Diegueno of San Felipe3.

CaJiuilla.

The Cahuilla constitute one of the two larger divisions of the
Luiseno-Cahuilla group. Roughly speaking their habitat was
the eastern or desert side of the San Jacinto range north of the
Diegueno. The northern part 6f the low-lying Colorado desert,
which extends between this range and the San Bernardino range,
belonged to them at least as far south as Salton. West of the
mountains they penetrated to direct Pacific ocean drainage in
at least one point, the head waters of Santa Margarita river,
where the present Cahuilla reservation was named after them
and is still inhabited by them. The northwestern limits of the
Cahuilla are as yet indefinite. San Gorgonio or Timoteo pass
and San Bernardino valley have been attributed, as stated above,
both to them and to the Serrano. At present, in any case, the
westernmost territory of the Cahuilla lies east of Banning. A
list of the present day Cahuilla villages is given by Barrows4.

1 Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIII, 90, May 11, 1860, gives Hakoopin.

2 Boas, loc. cit.

3 Barrows, op. cit., 34, says of Agua Caliente that it ' ' seems to have a
mixed population of Diegenos and Coahuillas. ' '

4 Op. cit., 32: Potrero, (Cahuilla and Serrano intermarried), Malki;
Agua Caliente, Sechi ; Indian Wells, abandoned, Kavinish ; Indio, Pal tewat ;
Cabeson, Pal seta; La Mesa, Temalwahish; Torres; Martinez, Sokut Menyil;
Alamo, Lawilvan, Sivel; Agua Dulce, Tova; Santa Rosa, Wewutnowhu; San
Ygnacio, Pachawal; (San Ysidro, Holakal; and Agua Caliente, Kopa; not
strictly Cahuilla) ; Coahuilla.

152 University of California, Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

The Cahuilla have been and are generally known by this
name by both whites and Indians, but its origin is not clear1.
The pronunciation is always Kawia. This being scientifically
the more reasonable orthography is perhaps preferable to
Cahuilla, and in time may come to supplant it; but the latter
form is so well established in literature and geographically that
at present at least it is best to accept it. The spelling Coahuilla,
and still more Coahuila, are unquestionably unorthographical
even in Spanish.

The Luiseno call the Cahuilla Yuhiktom or Kwimguchum
(easterners), their speech Yukhakhonpom or Kwimkwangakh.

The Luiseno name for Cahuilla valley is Pawi, for El Toro
or Cabezon Wakwi (Barrows: Cabeson, Pal seta), for Los Coyotes
Hulawona, for San Ygnacio Sapela (Barrows: Pachawal).

The Chemehuevi call the Cahuilla Kwitanemum (southern-
ers ? ) ; the Mohave river Serrano call them Kawiyayam.

The Mohave call the Cahuilla Hakwiche. This is perhaps the
usual name for the Cahuilla among the Yuman tribes, except
among the adjacent Diegueno divisions, who at least now use this
name for the Agua Caliente people and call the Cahuilla as do
the whites.

A term identical in sound with Cahuilla occurs also in central
California as the name of a Yokuts tribe, the Kawia, from which
is derived the name of Kaweah river and of two small settle-
ments. While the pronunciation of the two words in northern
and southern California is the same, there is nothing to show that
this identity is anything but a coincidence2.

SANTA BAEBAEA ISLANDS.

The six inhabited Santa Barbara islands off the coast of
Southern California were equally divided between Indians of
the Chumash and Shoshonean stocks. The three northern islands,

1 Eeid, in Taylor, Cal. Farmer, XIV, 146, Jan. 11, 1861 : ' ' The so-called
Cahuillas have been named by Spanish missionaries, through the mistake of
taking the word to denote the name of the people. Whereas Cahuilla signi-
fies nothing more than Master. ' ' This in connection with a statement that
the Gabrielino lack a ' ' distinguishing appellation, ' ' and that "it is almost
certain that many other tribes are similarly situated," the Cahuilla being
the instance.

2 Strictly the identity is not absolute. The Shoshonean tribe is Kawi'a,
the Yokuts properly Ga'wia.

VOL. 4] Krocber. — Shoslwnean Dialects of California. 153

San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz, adjoining the coast of
Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, were occupied, like this
coast strip, by Chumash, whose family appellation, which is only
a book name, is derived from the native term for Santa Rosa or
its inhabitants. The three southern islands, Santa Catalina, San
Clemente, and the outlying San Nicolas, were held by Shoshon-
eans.1 Santa Catalina was occupied by people speaking Gabriel-
ino, and its name was Pimu. The Luiseno call the island
Pipimar. The affiliations of the inhabitants of San Clemente are
not certain. Reid includes the island, under the name Kinkipar,
in his list of the principal rancherias of the Gabrielino "Indians
of Los Angeles county." The present Gabrielino Indians call
the island Kinki, the Luiseno call it Khesh ; the latter state that
it was inhabited by people speaking their own language, who,
after having been brought to the mainland by the Franciscans,
were settled at a place three miles below San Luis Rey Mission,
to which they gave the same name, Khesh. That San Nicolas
island was inhabited by Shoshoneans is evident from the four
words preserved of the language of the last survivor, a woman
who was alone on the island for eighteen years and died soon
after being brought to the mainland half a century ago.2 These
four words are: man, nache; sky, toygwah; hide, tocah; body,
puoo-chay. Toygwah is certainly Shoshonean, as will be seen
from a glance at the comparative vocabulary. The place of the
San Nicolas island dialect in the general classification of the
Shoshonean family cannot, however, be determined from this
scanty material, especially as the spelling is English and there is
no evidence that the four words are free from errors of typogra-
phy or copying. It is not impossible that the dialect was fairly
close to Gabrielino or Luiseno8, or, on the other hand, that it
was much differentiated from all others.

1 The map in Powers ' Tribes of California does not commit itself as to
the three southern islands and leaves them uncolored. Powell, Ann. Rep.
Bur. Ethn. VII, 67, states that they were probably inhabited by people of
Chumashan family; but the accompanying map colors them as Shoshonean.

2 History of Santa Barbara County, published by Thompson and West,
Oakland, California, 1883.

8 The statement that Indians from Los Angeles and other places, and
fathers familiar with all the dialects of the coast, could not understand a
word of this woman's language, has the appearance of an overstatement.
It must be remembered that she was brought to Santa Barbara, which is
in Chumash territory, and that there is no evidence that anyone conversant
with Luiseno interviewed her.

154 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

II. RELATIONSHIP OF SHOSHONEAN TO NAHUATL.

Since Buschmann 's monumental work of fifty years ago, Sho-
shoni and the allied native languages in the United States which
were subsequently established as the Shoshonean family, have
generally been recognized by ethnographers and philologists as
genetically related to, and therefore forming a single linguistic
family with, Nahuatl or Mexican and a group of languages in
northern Mexico sometimes known as Sonoran. In more recent
years this large family has been called Uto-Aztekan by Brinton
and others. Some fifteen years ago, however, Powell in his
Indian Linguistic Families denied, or at least regarded as
unproved, the relationship of the Shoshonean languages in the
United States to Nahuatl and the Sonoran group in Mexico. He
explicitly established two and implicitly a third family out of
the languages which had been considered related since Busch-
mann. These were, first, the Shoshonean, with the same tribal
inclusion with which the term has been used in all the preceding
part of this paper; second, the Piman, comprising within the
United States only the Pima and Papago, but extending far
southward through and beyond Sonora as far as the Cora; and
third, by exclusion, the languages of Mexico related to Nahuatl
but not forming part of Piman. On account of the fundamental
importance of this work of Powell and the great influence which
it has exercised on the development of American anthropology,
his conclusion, though stated merely as an opinion and unsup-
ported by any published evidence, has had a wide-reaching
effect; so that most subsequent American publications, from
technical treatises to handbooks and museum labels, have spoken
of Shoshonean and Piman but not of the more inclusive
Nahuatlan or Uto-Aztekan family. The influence of Powell's
classification is illustrated by Leon's recent linguistic map of
Mexico1, which, although an independent work, is supplementary

1 N. Le6n, Familias Lingiiistieas de Mexico, Museo Nacional, Mexico,
1902.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 155

to Powell 's, and in which the Shoshonean, Piman, and Nahuatlan
families are recognized. It is in deference to this prevailing
usage, and to avoid complications, that in all the preceding part
of the present paper the term Shoshonean has been used, and
the Shoshonean group of languages treated as if they indisput-
ably composed a distinct family. It seems, time, however, that
this question, which is of such long standing, on which there is
such an abundance of evidence, and which theoretically does not
present great difficulty, should be settled one way or the other;
especially as the systematization which the Shoshonean languages
have in the present paper undergone, contributes a new element
toward a greater prospect of a definite conclusion.

How, after Buschmann's eight hundred critical pages and
supplementary treatises, Powell could declare against the rela-
tionship of Shoshonean, Piman, and Nahuatl, seems surprising,
but is easily understood. The reason is primarily in the fact
that Buschmann was a linguist and not an ethnologist. He was
actuated throughout his work by purely philological considera-
tions and could approach a problem of linguistic relationship
only with reference to such general questions as the borrowing
of grammatical forms or processes of differentiation, matters
thoroughly justified in a linguistic research but distracting in
the determination of special ethnographical points. The practical
purpose of Powell, to establish as a basis for subsequent ethno-
logical research the relationship or lack of relationship of the
languages of a certain area, was far from Buschmann's mind.
In so far as he drew general conclusions from his material, they
were of philological interest. To establish a great linguistic fam-
ily and definitely draw its limits for the value that this result
in itself might have, was a purpose that scarcely occurred to
him. In consequence, while he is endlessly occupied with verbal
resemblances, he lacks, for ethnological purposes, the practical
definiteness and conciseness that are convincing.1

1 As a matter of fact, in so far as Buschmann comes to any conclusion,
he denies the genetic relationship even of Nahuatl and his Sonoran group,
a fact which has been overlooked by most subsequent writers, who appear
to have been familiar in a general way with the nature of the contents of
his work and to have regarded as his the conclusions which the character of
this material unconsciously impressed upon them; but who have overlooked,
or have misunderstood, the difficult and obscure expression of his opinion

156 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

Pimentel has devoted much effort to showing the relationship
of all the languages in question, and gives extended grammatical
as well as lexical comparisons.1 His work is, however, unsystem-

that relationship between these languages must be denied. As far as the
effect of his work on the world is concerned, current opinion is right in
attributing to Buschmann the establishment of the relationship of Nahuatl,
Sonoran, Pima, and Shoshonean; but so far as his own position is concerned,
opinion is in error. Buschmann 's views as to this relationship were not
opposed to Powell's, but the same. Cf. in the introduction to his Spuren
der Aztekischen Sprache, pp. 8, 9, 10:

Was uns in unsern europaischen Ueberzeugungen am meisten bei dem
hier vorgefiihrten Schauspiel erschreckt, ist die Erborgung von Grammatik
in einer beliebigen Auswahl. Ich wanke in meiner Entscheidung, aber ich
bin nicht unschliissig. Wenn, wie es vom Cora erwiesen ist, Eine Sprache
in grammatischer Ausstattung und der Bekleidung mit grammatischen Lau-
ten aus dem Azteken-Idiom den andern weit voransteht; so finden wir in
dem, was wir so ungern zugeben mogen, eine Waffe der Abwehr. Denn es
ist dadurch die fremde Natur dessen, was uns so sehr zur Annahme der
Sprachverwandschaft drdngt, bekundet; und erwiesen das einheimische
Fundament, wie die Selbststandigkeit der sonorischen Sprachen.

In diesen anomalen Erscheinungen halte ich die hier betrachtete Spraeh-
masse fest. Ich glaube in ihnen eine Aufklarung iiber die unbegreifliche
Vereinzelung und Zersplitterung der Amerikanischen Idiome zu finden. Wird
es dem Ureingebornen des grossen neuen Welttheils so leicht fremden Stoff,
korperlichen wie geistigen, in seine Sprache ein- oder an dieselbe anzuf iigen ?
oder sie abzuandern, ausserlich und innerlich, wie nach einer Laune? Ich
mochte im Hinblick auf die vorliegenden Thatsachen die Frage bejahen;
es giebt in den Lebensverhaltnissen der amerikanischen Menschheit Ele-
mente genug, welche diese lebhafte und plb'tzliche Entwickelung, so wie den
jahen Uebergang in sogar willkuhrliche Formen herbeifiihren und dazu
treiben. Wenn ich mich zu einer Bejahung der kxihnen Frage neige, so ist
es mit aller nothigen Scheu; ich durfte aber nicht davon abstehn den
Gedanken, der so vieles erklart, hier niederzulegen; er wird bei weiteren
Forschungen seine Priifung erfahren. Das, was hier zugegeben werden soil,
wissen wir wohl, diirfen wir sonst nie wagen in Spraehuntersuchungen ein-
zumischen oder gelten zu lassen. Eine Sprache, welche solchen Wortstoff,
als ich in den Sonora-Sprachen und dem nahuatl aufweise, noch dazu ange-
wurzelt, und in vollem Triebe reicher Verzweigung und Weiterbildung, mit
einer anderen gemein hat, muss [i.e., in other cases than this, generally
speaking] stammverwandt mit ihr seyn. Und wiederum kann der gram-
matische Bau und konnen die grammatischen Laute ausserlich so nahe ver-
wandter Sprachen, wie es die 4 Nordwest-Sprachen [i.e., the Sonoran group]
unter einander sind, kaum so von einander abweichen und vereinzelt dastehen
[i.e., theoretically, or in languages in other parts of the world], als sie in
einem grossen Theile ihres grammatischen Stoffes zeigen.

Sind die aztekische und die sonorischen Sprachen stammverwandt?

Der Abstand ist zu gross, des Besonderen und Nationalen auf jeder Seite zu
viel : als dass an diese Entscheidung zu denken ware. Das Volk der Azteken
oder irgend ein nahuatlakischer stamm ist aus der Gemeinschaft sonorisch-
cinaloischer und anderer Volker zu irgend einer Zeit herausgetreten,
nachdem er lange in ihrer Gemeinschaft gelebt und auf ihre Sprachen einen
Tiefgehenden, Tcaum irgendwo bisher von uns wahrgenommenen, charakter-
istisch amerikanischen Einfluss ausgeubt hatte. . . .

Eine grosse Sprachvermischung ist es mir gelungen in den bisher meist
so selbststandig, so unvermischt auftretenden amerikanischen Idiomen
aufzudecken ....

1 Cuadro Descriptive y Comparative de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico,
3 vols., Mexico, 1874-5.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 157

atic, and his inclusion of totally distinct languages into one fam-
ily, such as of Yuman into his Sonoran family, and of Waikuri,
Mut sun, and most of the languages of the southwestern United
States into his Mexican-Opata group, which consists of the Mexi-
can, the Sonoran, the Comanche-Shoshone, and six other "fam-
ilies, ' ' is proof of his uncritical method. Work of the type of his
has done more to discredit than to establish the affinity of Sho-
shonean to Nahuatl.

Brinton devotes two pages of his ' ' American Race 'n to a com-
parative vocabulary and discussion of a number of languages of
his Uto-Aztekan family. In spite of the brevity of his table it
might perhaps contain sufficient material to be convincing, did
it not suffer by containing side by side words in English, Span-
ish, and more phonetic orthographies. In the contiguous pages
of the book, in arguing for family relationships in other groups
of languages, the author also goes dangerously far in seeking
parallels, and so obviously finds the evidence for a favorite dogma
positive when it is at best doubtful, that the conviction brought
by his Uto-Aztekan table, however sound it may be in itself, is
weakened, and has not been general or conclusive.

Among other modern ethnologists belief in the true unity of
the Uto-Aztekan family has been not unusual, and is perhaps
even current; but attempts to finally settle the doubt raised by
Powell do not seem to have been made.

The accompanying table, drawn up to decide this question,
differs from the material of Buschmann and Pimentel in being
more systematic and especially more concise, everything not bear-
ing directly on the problem at issue being omitted; from that
of Brinton in being more extensive both in number of words and
in range of languages included ; and from all three in the follow-
ing points of method.

1. In a rigid attempt to eliminate as far as possible all indi-
vidual elements in the vocabularies, especially by the use of a
uniform orthography, involving some modifications of forms of
words in many vocabularies, — changes which seem not only per-
missible but necessary for the present purpose.

'Pp. 336-7 (1901).

158 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

2. In the generalization and simplification of forms of words,
wherever possible, by the omission or separation of affixes and
by a disregard of finer shades of phonetic variation. This step
is also justifiable because the point at issue in the present instance
is not a linguistic one, such as the determination of phonetic
changes or of exact lexical correspondence, but the primarily
ethnological one of whether the several languages are or are not
related. Whatever will put the evidence on this point into such
shape that a positive conclusion is more readily and cogently
established is desirable.

3. A similar generalization and simplification by substitut-
ing the forms of words which are average or typical of dialectic
groups for the actual but more special forms that they bear in
single dialects; this, so far as it is possible. This process is also
justifiable with the end in view; and has further the linguistic
advantage of making the larger groups, within the array of
languages treated, more conspicuous.

Other than the vocabularies that have been for the first time
printed in this paper and discussed above, no new Shoshonean
material has been used for this table. As a matter of fact Buseh-
mann 's volume alone contains enough evidence to establish a con-
clusion. For Piman the collocated reprint made by Buschmann
of Parry 's vocabulary in Schoolcraf t and of Coulter 's in Scouler
has been drawn upon; for the languages in Mexico Buschmann
has furnished the bulk of the material, supplemented to some
extent by Pimentel,1 F. Miiller,2 Hernandez,3 and Lumholtz.4

1 Op. cit.

2 Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaf t, Wien, 1876-87.

* Las Razas Indigenas de Sonora y la Guerra del Yaqui, Mexico, 1902,
which reprints Cahita material.

* Unknown Mexico, II, 486, 1902.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

159

r— - C3 ^"~l

o ?s cs -3

• »H "* (3

B pfi P

-"I6

VA r* »*

Sl3

cS
rf , B

^ CS CS

.. CS cS

SSSflSBBS

» bW -a _a _* _»

W e Cy « TO CQ

E ? S S S S

a liij

o rt .tr e«

M *"^ ^ ^ vw

03 rt 5 C3 t-*Ji

rt rt "*^

4^> -*^» Cfi

efiilii ll^lsi

~ ~ ~ »J — " ~ " r^ rt ._ ~ ^_i

. g g
c cs cs S S B

S .2

; .jr.*; cs cs

B B B M ft J3

cS cS cS cS cS cS

S B B S E B

a)._~
S C B B B B « i3 O ? O • >fl >« <Pl

o><i)css®.!s«lg^sMK';3csocs

BBBBBBB^cScSV^BBB

.£.;, S e« o3
.^ •« « w cS « o

cS cS S

t£ & p:

cScScScScScS

o --H •-< O

.
£.,2 id

Cojrt'cScScScS^. cS -C gee

cScScScScScScScScScScScS o3cS
BBBBBBBBBBBB BB

160

University of California- Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

M ^2

S "-1 -^

53 "tj _* *^3

>5\ 33 c3 ^ ,

°Q pi 3 be (3 --H

O 03 -g O 03

PJH _W _<D r^j
O> <B W 2

ft ft _ +3 £

cs.S S ft« 2

o3 "3 ^ ^ 3

g g ft ft 0~

r£ 30000333

a 2L® g

l£ii

53 ^ +a 'S

3 03

t* >

3 :0

-LJ1 i_

.. S > .& ^ > S o 2 ^ >

CO TO .,_i P ^ .,-(«-*-> Cg Q ••-( .PH

« •> '3 « M «

03 O it S .3 ±!

~ ^^ '-5 .>» M^^_

-4— * 5 4 0 tf w p9 :^ B flB • • W 5 2
c3 ^3 r=3 cc PH^ Or^ PU Pi P« Pi O« P4 A

U s "i

C 53 be

& o3 ,g

Illl Mill I

»— i o3 cd o3 2 o3 c3 •

S «

o be o o

*- fl -^ S «i

rj •—< t* 1> r3Q •--(

sa 3 s 1 1? la

^ 9 -3 § .2 & 8

02 O -1J CO 02 •»->

ft ^

§.«> 5

3 03

w 3 ~3

ft o 43

Q •— i flj i

fe; s '-S ig -§ £ ^ .3

.2gSSg§5§

sssssssssssssss

- II

P . •_-

o c >"9

»--» M m CO

V 5 /T *3

"S o ^ ^ ^

listil

•S S h ft h 45

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California.

161

1 91

a .„ .-,
Ill

_ K

_ - .-

2 44 44

-4^ " ™ 4 j -^*

.^4 03 -*^ -f-t 03 -^4

_£ 3

s £

3 .
iMiM «.B

s s ,a o

a s 5 e

:O 3

•r ; • T
•*J d *• d

•rf .-i •**
^44 r-,
rt'S^

§-
0._ £

Ik s 1 1 ii in :a| « I

44 444444444444^94444344

« 73 . "3

x ------ c

.2 §§§^

o> -a o fc aT

^5 2" *•

* a -3

44 "f

« 3

- - r: rt ..
44 44 44 44

O g
03 S
3 3

-
>•?

O .

o-g

silica

crt • .**! ^^ ^^ rt W '^

Igiliniliiiil

"^"o

162 University of California Publications. [AM.ARCH.ETH.

As to the conclusions to be drawn from this table there can
be no question. The evidence of the genetic relationship of all
the languages represented, from Nahuatl to Luiseno, is over-
whelming, and leaves room only for wonder how the fact could
ever have been doubted. Others have perhaps had the author's
experience of comparing some particular Shoshonean language
with Nahuatl on the strength of the relationship currently an-
nounced, and of being disappointed at the small number of posi-
tive resemblances visible ; but the present collocation in compact
and unified form of material from all dialectic groups alters this
condition thoroughly, so that identities which before could only
be suspected and seemed exceedingly doubtful, are revealed with
entire certainty.

The very fact that the various larger groups, such as Shosho-
nean, Piman, Sonoran, and Nahuatl, are not always units in their
relations toward one another, but that distinct stems appear with
the same meaning in different dialects of the same group, and
reappear again in dialects of other groups, renders the case for
genetic identity all the stronger. For the word for house, for
instance, two principal stems appear in the Shoshonean dialects,
kan, typical of the Plateau branch, and ki in the Southern Cali-
fornia and Hopi branches. Pima shows ki. In the Sonoran group
Tarahumare and Cahita have the stem kal, Tepehuan and Cora
ki. In the Nahuatl group, Nahuatl itself shows kal and Huichol
ki. The appearance of both stems side by side in all branches
of the family is really better evidence of unity than the persist-
ence everywhere of a single stem would be. It follows that at
least part of the considerable diversity of stems which character-
izes distant dialects when they are individually compared, is not
due to the employment by some of them of words borrowed from
languages of alien stock, but is the result of a dialectic difference
in usage of stems which are older than the origin of the separate
dialects, or which at least were once common to all the dialects.
Thus the fundamental stem of the family for water, pa-, is re-
placed in Nahuatl by a- for the word itself, but appears in pa-ka,
wash, and pa-lti, wet; just as in Tepehuan its place is taken by
suda-, resembling Pima shuti-, while ba-kuane is to wash. And so
the stem i-, to drink, is replaced in the Southern California branch

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — SJivshonean Dialects of California. 163

of the Shoshonean division, and in Tarahumare of the Sonoran
division, by the stem pa, water.1

Among more special results that are apparent is the fact that
the Sonoran or non-Nahuatl languages of Mexico are much nearer
to the Shoshonean division than is Nahuatl; or rather, that
Nahuatl shows more specialization than the majority of Sonoran
and Shoshonean languages. An examination of the relative degree
of similarity of the Plateau, Kern River, and Southern California
branches of Shoshonean to Nahuatl shows no appreciable differ-
ences between them. The Southern California dialects are at
least as near as the others. Hopi, however, is somewhat more
different from Nahuatl than are the other Shoshonean languages,
— contrary to the view of Brinton, who may have been led to
his opposite conclusion by considerations of the generally higher
culture and greater geographical proximity of the Hopi to the
Mexicans. All that can be concluded from the greater diver-
gence of Hopi from Nahuatl — and this greater divergence is not
very considerable — is that Hopi is the most specialized offshoot
of the Shoshonean group. This conclusion has already been
derived from comparisons of the Shoshonean languages among
themselves. Any theories of the derivation of the Hopi or their
culture directly from Mexico are contrary to linguistic evidence.

Under what name this great unit of peoples, which, as Brinton
says, is numerically the largest and ethnologically probably the
most important of the linguistic families of North America, is
to be known, is of little moment as long as the appellation does
not cause confusion between the family as a whole and any of
its parts, especially those divisions which have previously been
separately recognized as families. Brinton 's Uto-Aztekan,
though it goes counter to the rules of artificial nomenclature
adopted by Powell, is free from danger in this direction and well
indicative of the range and constitution of the family; and it
may ultimately prevail. The term Shoshonean, which has deter-
minedly been used through this paper as if the languages com-
prised under it constituted a distinct family, must therefore
henceforward, so far as it may be retained for purposes of con-
venience, be regarded as denoting only a subdivision of this
greater family.

1 Fire, in Nahuatl, in the Sonoran group, in Pima, and in Hopi and
Gabrielino in Shoshonean, is expressed by related t- stems; in other Sho-
shonean dialects by ku-. It is questionable whether this ku- is related
to Athabascan kon.

164 University of California Publications. tAM- ARCH-

III. HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS.

The following conclusions of an ethnological and historical
nature can be drawn from the linguistic material presented in
this paper.

The so-called Shoshonean, Piman, and Nahuatlan linguistic
families in reality constitute only one linguistic family; that is
to say, the languages comprised under them have a common
origin.

The Shoshoneans are at least in great part not newcomers in
California, and the probability is strong that some of them have
been within its territory for a long time. This is especially true
of the Tubatulabal or Kern River branch. The dialectic diver-
gence of this branch from all other Shoshoneans makes it prob-
able that it has long been more or less isolated from them, and
this would be more likely to have happened somewhere near its
present location, in contact with the linguistically distinct and
diverse California tribes, than on the open Plateau in contact
principally with other Shoshonean divisions.

The dialectic diversity among the Shoshoneans of Southern
California argues equally for their protracted residence in this
region. Other things being equal, this diversity, as compared
with the much smaller diversity over equal areas on the Plateau,
would point toward a longer fixed residence of the Shoshoneans
in Southern California than on the Plateau ; but this is counter-
balanced by the difference in ethnological conditions, which,
although better known in effect than in cause, clearly tend with
unusual force to linguistic diversification in California. It may
be added that there is not any direct historical evidence showing
a migration or movement of Shoshoneans either to or from or
in California except in the case of the Chemehuevi.

The Hopi or Pueblo branch of the Shoshonean family does
not stand nearer to the Mexican groups, and especially Nahuatl,
than do the other Shoshonean branches, but is more diverse from
them.

VOL. 4] Kroeber. — Shoshonean Dialects of California. 165

The Hopi are not specially allied to the Paiute or to any other
particular group of their Shoshonean neighbors. The degree of
their dialectic divergence, and the approximate equality of this
divergence, from the other Shoshonean branches, show their lan-
guage to have become separated from the speech of all these
other branches so long ago that these other dialects were not yet
as fully differentiated as now. The language of the Hopi evi-
dently diverged from the common Shoshonean stock when this
was still much more uniform and less divided into distinct
branches. The Hopi have therefore been a separate people for
a considerable period; and this circumstance makes it probable
that they have been a Pueblo people for a very long time.
They are linguistically not directly influenced by the Pima.

Brinton's view that the home of all the Shoshoneans was
between the Rocky mountains and the Great Lakes, that is, not
far from but east of the territory of the present Shoshoni-Com-
anche dialectic group, is highly improbable on account of the
general distribution of dialectic groups that has been set forth,
and is without support on linguistic grounds.

Nahuatl forms a considerably specialized division of the Uto-
Aztekan stock. It is therefore very improbable that the Nahuatl
came from the north, the Sonoran region, where they would have
been in contact with tribes of their own family, so recently as
their historical traditions, which are still often believed even by
ethnologists, pretend.

NOTE. — Since the first portion of this paper was printed, Mr. S. A.
Barrett has been among the Endimbich, whom he finds to inhabit the ter-
ritory accredited to them on page 120, but to be Yokuts, not Shoshonean
Mono. This explains the statements made by the author's informants as
to the difference between Endimbich on the one hand and Wobonuch,
Waksachi, and Balwisha on the other: this difference is not a subdialectic
one within the Shoshonean family, as it was understood to be, but the
radical one between Yokuts and Shoshonean. The informant from whom
the supposed Endimbich vocabulary was obtained appears to be a Wo-
bonuch. Wobonuch should therefore probably be read for Endimbich
throughout the comparative vocabularies.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED)

GRAECO-ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGY. (Large Octavo).

Vol. 1 . The Tebtunis Papyri, Part 1. Edited by Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur
S. Hunt, and J. Gilbart Smyly. Pages 690, Plates 9, 1902
Price, $16.00

Vol. 2. The Tebtunis Papyri, Part 2 (in press).

Vol. 3. The Tebtunis Papyri, Part 3 (in preparation).

EGYPTIAN ARCHAEOLOGY. (Quarto).

Vol. 1. The Hearst Medical Papyrus. Edited by G. A. Reisner.

Hieratic text in 17 facsimile plates in collotype, with introduction and
vocabulary, pages 48, 1905. (J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig, 25 Marks)
Price, $8.00

Vol. 2. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries at Naga-ed-Der. Part I, by G. A.
Reisner (in press).

Vol. 3. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries at Naga-ed-Der. Part II. By A.
C. Mace, (in press.)

Vol. 4. The Predynastic Cemetery at Naga-ed-Der. The Anatomical Material,
by Elliott Smith (in preparation).

Vol. 5. The Cemetery of the Second and Third Dynasties at Naga-ed-Der,
by A. C. Mace (in press).

Vol. 6. The Cemetery of the Third and Fourth Dynasties at Naga-ed-Der,
by G. A. Reisner (in preparation).

Vol. 7. The Coptic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Der, by A. C. Mace (in prep-
aration).

ANTHROPOLOGICAL MEMOIRS. (Quarto).

Vol. I. Explorations in Peru, by Max Uhle (in preparation).
No. 1. The Ruins of Moche.
No. 2. Huamachuco, Chincha, lea.
No. 3. The Inca Buildings of the Valley of Pisco.

SPECIAL VOLUMES.

The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexicans, containing an account of their
rites and superstitions; an anonymous Hispano-American manuscript
preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence, Italy. Repro-
duced in fac-simile, with introduction, translation, and commentary,
by Zelia Nuttall.

Part I. Preface, Introduction, and 80 Fac-simile plates in

colors. 1903.

Part II. Translation and Commentary. (In press).
Price for the two parts $25.00

Facsimile of a Map of the City and Valley of Mexico, by Alonzo de Santa
Cruz, Cosmographer of Philip II of Spain. Explanatory text by Zelia
Nuttall. Map in 7 sheets, 17x20 inches, (in preparation).

The Department of Anthropology, Its History and Plan, 1905. Sent free
on application to the Department, or-to the University Press.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED)

ASTRONOMY.— W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. Hamilton, Cal.)

Publications of the Lick Observatory. — Volumes I-V completed. Volume
VI (in progress).

BOTANY.— W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volume I (pp. 418)
completed. Volume II (in progress).

EDUCATION.— Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50.

ENGINEERING. — Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments.
This series will contain contributions from the Colleges of
Mechanics, Mining, and Civil Engineering. Volume I in progress.

No. 1. Bulletin of the Department of Civil Engineering. I.— Moment
Diagrams and Typical Live Loads, by Charles Derleth, Jr.,
Pages 1-9, Plate 1. January, 1907 Price, .10

GEOLOGY.— Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson, Editor.
Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 428), II (pp. 450),
III (475) and IV (462), completed. Volume V (in progress).

PATHOLOGY.— Alonzo Englebert Taylor, Editor. Price per volume $2.00
Volume I (in progress).

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY.— Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert C.
Nutting, Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (in
progress).

PHILOSOPHY.— Volume I, completed. Price, $2.00.

PHYSIOLOGY.— Jacques Loeb, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I
(pp. 217) completed. Volume II (pp. 215) completed.
Volume III (in progress).

ZOOLOGY.— W. E. Ritter, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp.
317) and II (pp. 382) completed. Volume III in progress.

UNIVERSITY CHRONICLE.— An official record of University life, issued quarterly,
edited by a committee of the faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Current
volume No. IX.

Address all orders, or requests for information concerning the above publications
to The University Press, Berkeley, California.

European orders for numbers of the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology
may be addressed to Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig, or R. Friedlaender & Sohn, Berlin.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Shoshonean dialects of California"

See other formats