* * * "utterly unlike the sweet and simple languages of the Sacramento."

He adds that the personal p.r.o.nouns show it to be a true Digger Indian tongue. Recent investigations by Mr. Gatschet lead him, however, to believe that ultimately it will be found to be linguistically related to the Sastean languages.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The family was located by Hale to the southeast of the Lutuami (Klamath). They chiefly occupied the area drained by the Pit River in extreme northeastern California. Some of the tribe were removed to Round Valley Reservation, California.

PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.

Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the following princ.i.p.al tribal divisions:[74]

Achoma'wi.

Atua'mih.

Chuma'wa.

Estake'wach.

Hante'wa.

Huma'whi.

Ilma'wi.

Pakamalli?

[Footnote 74: Cont. N.A. Eth. vol. 3, p. 267.]

PIMAN FAMILY.

= Pima, Latham, Nat. Hist. Man, 898, 1850 (cites three languages from the Mithridates, viz, Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve). Turner in Pac. R.

R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 1856 (Pima proper). Latham in Trans.

Philolog. Soc. Lond., 92, 1856 (contains Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papagos). Latham, Opuscula, 356, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 427, 1862 (includes Pima proper, Opata, Eudeve, Papago, Ibequi, Hiaqui, Tubar, Tarahumara, Cora). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (includes Pima, Nevome, Papago). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (defines area and gives habitat).

Latham used the term Pima in 1850, citing under it three dialects or languages. Subsequently, in 1856, he used the same term for one of the five divisions into which he separates the languages of Sonora and Sinaloa.

The same year Turner gave a brief account of Pima as a distinct language, his remarks applying mainly to Pima proper of the Gila River, Arizona. This tribe had been visited by Emory and Johnston and also described by Bartlett. Turner refers to a short vocabulary in the Mithridates, another of Dr. Coulter's in Royal Geological Society Journal, vol. XI, 1841, and a third by Parry in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes, vol. III, 1853. The short vocabulary he himself published was collected by Lieut. Whipple.

Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family is included within the United States, the greater portion being in Mexico where it extends to the Gulf of California. The family is represented in the United States by three tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila, but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more extensive and extends to the south across the border. In recent times the two tribes have been separated, but the Pima territory as shown upon the map was formerly continuous to the Gila River.

According to Buschmann, Gatschet, Brinton, and others the Pima language is a northern branch of the Nahuatl, but this relationship has yet to be demonstrated.[75]

[Footnote 75: Buschmann, Die Pima-Sprache und die Sprache der Koloschen, pp. 321-432.]

PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.

Northern group: Opata.

Papago.

Pima.

Southern group: Cahita.

Cora.

Tarahumara.

Tepeguana.

_Population._--Of the above tribes the Pima and Papago only are within our boundaries. Their numbers under the Pima Agency, Arizona,[76] are Pima, 4,464; Papago, 5,163.

[Footnote 76: According to the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890.]

PUJUNAN FAMILY.

> Pujuni, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 80, 1856 (contains Pujuni, Sec.u.mne, Tsamak of Hale, Cushna of Schoolcraft). Latham, Opuscula, 346, 1860.

> Meidoos, Powers in Overland Monthly, 420, May, 1874.

= Meidoo, Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.

> Mai'-du, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 282, 1877 (same as Mai'-deh; general account of; names the tribes). Powell, ibid., 586 (vocabs. of Kon'-kau, Hol-o'-lu-pai, Na'-k.u.m, Ni'-shi-nam, "Digger,"

Cushna, Nishinam, Yuba or Nevada, Punjuni, Sek.u.mne, Tsamak).

> Neeshenams, Powers in Overland Monthly, 21, Jan., 1874 (considers this tribe doubtfully distinct from Meidoo family).

> Ni-shi-nam, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 313, 1877 (distinguishes them from Maidu family).

X Sacramento Valley, Keane, App. Stanford's Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (Ochec.u.mne, Chupumne, Sec.u.mne, Cosumne, Sololumne, Puzlumne, Yasumne, etc.; "altogether about 26 tribes").

The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham: Pujuni, Sec.u.mne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a tribe given by Hale.[77] This was one of the two races into which, upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana, all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. "These races resembled one another in every respect but language."

[Footnote 77: U.S. Expl. Exp., VI, p. 631.]

Hale gives short vocabularies of the Pujuni, Sek.u.mne, and Tsamak. Hale did not apparently consider the evidence as a sufficient basis for a family, but apparently preferred to leave its status to be settled later.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth, and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit River, where they met the tribes of the Palaihnihan family. Upon the east they reached nearly to the border of the State, the Palaihnihan, Shoshonean, and Washoan families hemming them in in this direction.

PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.

Bayu. Olla.

Boka. Otaki.