About the Shoshone Indian Tribes

ABOUT THE SHOSHONE INDIAN TRIBES

In his synopsis of the Indian tribes Gallatin’s reference to this great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of “some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshone, living on the waters of the river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his list 

of tribes and vocabularies, he places “Shoshone” among his other families, which is sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group. The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.

Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshonean languages as a northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient. Shoshone Indian Pictures, Images and Photos Here

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.  Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724.  According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande. How 110far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork. The Kwaiantikwoket also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.

A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni extraction.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES AND POPULATION.

Bannock, 514 on Fort Hall Reservation and 75 on the Lemhi Reservation, Idaho.

Chemehuevi, about 202 attached to the Colorado River Agency, Arizona.

Comanche, 1,598 on the Kiowa, Comanche and Wichita Reservation, Indian Territory.

Gosiute, 256 in Utah at large.

Pai Ute, about 2,300 scattered in southeastern California and southwestern Nevada.

Paviotso, about 3,000 scattered in western Nevada and southern Oregon.

Saidyuka, 145 under Klamath Agency.

Shoshoni, 979 under Fort Hall Agency and 249 at the Lemhi Agency.

Tobikhar, about 2,200, under the Mission Agency, California.

Tukuarika, or Sheepeaters, 108 at Lemhi Agency.

Tusayan (Moki), 1,996 (census of 1890).

Uta, 2,839 distributed as follows: 985 under Southern Ute Agency, Colorado; 1,021 on Ouray Reserve, Utah; 833 on Uintah Reserve, Utah.

About the Natchez Indian Tribes

ABOUT THE NATCHEZ INDIAN TRIBES

     The Natchez Indians  according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Natchez was the principal. Natchez Indian Pictures Here

Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.

The linguistic relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long been in doubt, and it is probable that they will ever remain so. As no vocabulary or text of this language was known to be in existence, the “Grammaire et vocabulaire de la langue Taensa, avec textes traduits et commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, Parisot, L. Adam,” published in Paris in 1882, was received by American linguistic students with peculiar interest. Upon the strength of the linguistic material embodied in the above Mr. Gatschet (loc. cit.) was led to affirm the complete linguistic isolation of the language.

Grave doubts of the authenticity of the grammar and vocabulary have, however, more recently been brought forward  The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, at least of a large part of the material. So palpable and gross are these that until the character of the whole can better be understood by the inspection of the original manuscript, alleged to be in Spanish, by a competent expert it will be far safer to reject both the vocabulary and grammar. By so doing we are left without any linguistic evidence whatever of the relations of the Taensa language.

D’Iberville, it is true, supplies us with the names of seven Taensa towns which were given by a Taensa Indian who accompanied him; but most of these, according to Mr. Gatschet, were given, in the Chicasa trade jargon or, as termed by the French, the “Mobilian trade jargon,” which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circumstances we can, perhaps, do no better than rely upon the statements of several of the old writers who appear to be unanimous in regarding the language of the Taensa as of Na’htchi connection. Du Pratz’s statement to that effect is weakened from the fact that the statement also includes the Shetimasha, the language of which is known from a vocabulary to be totally distinct not only from the Na’htchi but from any other. To supplement Du Pratz’s testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, the 97missionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na’htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na’htchi.

The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na’htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Natchez Taensa.

Population.—There still are four Na’htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.

Mayan Language Family

The Maya Language Family.

Whatever the primitive meaning and first application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended sense, in the expression “the Maya language family,” it is understood to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the Maya proper.

Other names for this extended family have been suggested, as Maya-Kiche, Mam-Huastec, and the like, compounded of the names of two or more of the tribes of the group. But this does not appear to have much advantage over the simple expression I have given, though “Maya-Kiche” may be conveniently employed to prevent confusion.

These affiliated languageof Maya tribes are, according to the investigations of Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt, the following:—

1.	The Maya proper, including the Lacandons.
2.	The Chontals of Tabasco, on and near the coast west of the mouth of the Usumacinta.
3.	The Tzendals, south of the Chontals.
4.	The Zotzils, south of the Tzendals.
5.	The Chaneabals, south of the Zotzils.
[18]6.	The Chols, on the upper Usumacinta.
7.	The Chortis, near Copan.
8.	The Kekchis, and
9.	The Pocomchis, in Vera Paz.
10.	The Pocomams.
11.	The Mams.
12.	The Kiches.
13.	The Ixils.		In or bordering on Guatemala.
14.	The Cakchiquels.
15.	The Tzutuhils.
16.	The Huastecs, on the Panuco river and its tributaries, in Mexico.

The Mayan languages of these do not differ more, in their extremes, than the French, Spanish, Italian and other tongues of the so-called Latin races; while a number resemble each other as closely as the Greek dialects of classic times.

What lends particular importance to the study of this group of Mayan languages is that it is that which was spoken by the race in several respects the most civilized of any found on the American continent. Copan, Uxmal and Palenque are names which at once evoke the most earnest interest in the mind of every one who has ever been attracted to the subject of the archæology of the New World. This race, moreover, possessed [19]an abundant literature, preserved in written books, in characters which were in some degree phonetic. Enough of these remain to whet, though not to satisfy, the curiosity of the student.

The total number of Indians of pure blood speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite 200,000, most of them in the political limits of the department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000 of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its own ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and supplant their native speech. It is no uncommon occurrence in Yucatan, says Dr. Berendt, to find whole families of pure white blood who do not know one word of Spanish, using the Maya exclusively. It has even intruded on literature, and one finds it interlarded in books published in Merida, very [20]much as lady novelists drop into French in their imaginative effusions.

The number speaking the different dialects of the stock are roughly estimated at half a million, which is probably below the mark.

Shoshone Indian Tribes, Language and Distribution

SHOSHONE INDIAN FAMILY.

In his synopsis of the Indian tribes78 Gallatin’s reference to this great family is of the most vague and unsatisfactory sort. He speaks of “some bands of Snake Indians or Shoshone, living on the waters of the river Columbia” (p. 120), which is almost the only allusion to them to be found. The only real claim he possesses to the authorship of the family name is to be found on page 306, where, in his list 

9of tribes and vocabularies, he places “Shoshonees” among his other families, which is sufficient to show that he regarded them as a distinct linguistic group. The vocabulary he possessed was by Say.

Buschmann, as above cited, classes the Shoshone languages as a northern branch of his Nahuatl or Aztec family, but the evidence presented for this connection is deemed to be insufficient.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

This important family occupied a large part of the great interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory on about the forty-fourth parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and Clarke79 contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. Their former habitat thus given is indicated upon the map, although the eastern limit is of course quite indeterminate. Very likely much of the area occupied by the Atsina was formerly Shoshonean territory. Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of southwestern Montana,80 whence apparently they were being pushed westward across the mountains by Blackfeet.81 Upon the east the Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country, where they were bordered by Siouan territory, while the Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming.

 Nearly the entire mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian), and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche division of the family extended farther east than any other. According to Crow tradition the Comanche formerly lived northward in the Snake River region. Omaha tradition avers that the Comanche were on the Middle Loup River, probably within the present century. Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas River in 1724.82 According to Pike the Comanche territory bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the head waters of the upper Red River, Arkansas, and Rio Grande.83 How 0far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show that they raided far down into Texas to the territory they have occupied in more recent years, viz, the extensive plains from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was limited generally by the Colorado River. The Chemehuevi lived on both banks of the river between the Mohave on the north and the Cuchan on the south, above and below Bill Williams Fork.

The Kwaiantikwoket also lived to the east of the river in Arizona about Navajo Mountain, while the Tusayan (Moki) had established their seven pueblos, including one founded by people of Tañoan stock, to the east of the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to the Pacific. In their extension northward they had reached as far as Tulare Lake, from which territory apparently they had dispossessed the Mariposan tribes, leaving a small remnant of that linguistic family near Fort Tejon.

A little farther north they had crossed the Sierras and occupied the heads of San Joaquin and Kings Rivers. Northward they occupied nearly the whole of Nevada, being limited on the west by the Sierra Nevada. The entire southeastern part of Oregon was occupied by tribes of Shoshoni extraction.

California Indian Tribes, Language and Distribution

CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

MOQUELUMNAN FAMILY.

Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County, California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is Wakalumitoh.

The Talatui mentioned by Hale as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an incomplete vocabulary.

It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans, Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the next 93group, especially in that of the Ruslen.
” He adds: “Nevertheless, for the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be distinct.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San Francisco Bay and the western half of San Pablo Bay; on the west by the Pacific Ocean from the Golden Gate to Bodega Head; on the north by a line running from Bodega Head to the Yukian territory northeast of Santa Rosa, and on the east by a line running from the Yukian territory to the northernmost point of San Pablo Bay.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Miwok division:
Awani. Chauchila. Chumidok. Chumtiwa. Chumuch. Chumwit. Hettitoya. Kani. Lopolatimne. Machemni. Mokelumni. Newichumni.	Olowidok. Olowit. Olowiya. Sakaiakumni. Seroushamne. Talatui. Tamoleka. Tumidok. Tumun. Walakumni. Yuloni.
Olamentke division:
Bollanos. Chokuyem. Guimen. Likatuit. Nicassias. Numpali.	Olamentke. Olumpali. Sonomi. Tamal. Tulare. Utchium.

Population.—Comparatively few of the Indians of this family survive, and these are mostly scattered in the mountains and away from the routes of travel. As they were never gathered on reservations, an accurate census has not been taken.

In the detached area north of San Francisco Bay, chiefly in Marin County, formerly inhabited by the Indians of this family, almost none remain. There are said to be none living about the mission of San Rafael, and Mr. Henshaw, in 1888, succeeded in locating only six at Tomales Bay, where, however, he obtained a very good vocabulary from a woman.

Iroquois and Cherokee Tribes, Distribution, Language

IROQUOIAN FAMILY OF TRIBES

Derivation: French, adaptation of the Iroquois word hiro, used to conclude a speech, and koué, an exclamation (Charlevoix). Hale gives as possible derivations ierokwa, the indeterminate form of the verb to smoke, signifying “they who smoke;” also the Cayuga form of bear, iakwai. Mr. Hewitt suggests the Algonkin words īrīn, true, or real; ako, snake; with the French termination ois, the word becomes Irinakois.

With reference to this family it is of interest to note that as early as 1798 Barton compared the Cherokee language with that of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a connection between them. Gallatin, in the Archæologia Americana, refers to the opinion expressed by Barton, and although he states that he is inclined to agree with that author, yet he does not formally refer Cheroki to that family, concluding that “We have not a sufficient knowledge of the grammar, and generally of the language of the Five Nations, or of the Wyandots, to decide that question.”

Mr. Hale was the first to give formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made by Mr. Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the relationship of the two languages as affirmed by Barton so long ago.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.

Unlike most linguistic stocks, the Iroquoian tribes did not occupy a continuous area, but when first known to Europeans were settled in three distinct regions, separated from each other by tribes of other lineage. The northern group was surrounded by tribes of Algonquian stock, while the more southern groups bordered upon the Catawba and Maskoki.

A tradition of the Iroquois points to the St. Lawrence region as the early home of the Iroquoian tribes, whence they gradually moved down to the southwest along the shores of the Great Lakes.

When Cartier, in 1534, first explored the bays and inlets of the Gulf of St. Lawrence he met a Huron-Iroquoian people on the shores of the Bay of Gaspé, who also visited the northern coast of the gulf. In the following year when he sailed up the St. Lawrence River he 78found the banks of the river from Quebec to Montreal occupied by an Iroquoian people. From statements of Champlain and other early explorers it seems probable that the Wyandot once occupied the country along the northern shore of Lake Ontario.

The Conestoga, and perhaps some allied tribes, occupied the country about the Lower Susquehanna, in Pennsylvania and Maryland, and have commonly been regarded as an isolated body, but it seems probable that their territory was contiguous to that of the Five Nations on the north before the Delaware began their westward movement.

As the Cherokee were the principal tribe on the borders of the southern colonies and occupied the leading place in all the treaty negotiations, they came to be considered as the owners of a large territory to which they had no real claim. Their first sale, in 1721, embraced a tract in South Carolina, between the Congaree and the South Fork of the Edisto,but about one-half of this tract, forming the present Lexington County, belonging to the Congaree. In 1755 they sold a second tract above the first and extending across South Carolina from the Savannah to the Catawba (or Wateree), but all of this tract east of Broad River belonged to other tribes. The lower part, between the Congaree and the Wateree, had been sold 20 years before, and in the upper part the Broad River was acknowledged as the western Catawba boundary. In 1770 they sold a tract, principally in Virginia and West Virginia, bounded east by the Great Kanawha,but the Iroquois claimed by conquest all of this tract northwest of the main ridge of the Alleghany and Cumberland Mountains, and extending at least to the Kentucky River, and two years previously they had made a treaty with Sir William Johnson by which they were recognized as the owners of all between Cumberland Mountains and the Ohio down to the Tennessee. The Cumberland River basin was the only part of this tract to which the Cherokee had any real title, having driven out the former occupants, the Shawnee, about 1721. The Cherokee had no villages north of the Tennessee (this probably includes the Holston as its upper part), and at a conference at Albany the Cherokee delegates presented to the Iroquois the skin of a deer, which they said belonged to the Iroquois, as the animal had been killed north of the Tennessee. In 1805, 1806, and 1817 they sold several tracts, mainly in 79middle Tennessee, north of the Tennessee River and extending to the Cumberland River watershed, but this territory was claimed and had been occupied by the Chickasaw, and at one conference the Cherokee admitted their claim. The adjacent tract in northern Alabama and Georgia, on the headwaters of the Coosa, was not permanently occupied by the Cherokee until they began to move westward, about 1770.

The whole region of West Virginia, Kentucky, and the Cumberland River region of Tennessee was claimed by the Iroquois and Cherokee, but the Iroquois never occupied any of it and the Cherokee could not be said to occupy any beyond the Cumberland Mountains. The Cumberland River was originally held by the Shawnee, and the rest was occupied, so far as it was occupied at all, by the Shawnee, Delaware, and occasionally by the Wyandot and Mingo (Iroquoian), who made regular excursions southward across the Ohio every year to hunt and to make salt at the licks. Most of the temporary camps or villages in Kentucky and West Virginia were built by the Shawnee and Delaware. The Shawnee and Delaware were the principal barrier to the settlement of Kentucky and West Virginia for a period of 20 years, while in all that time neither the Cherokee nor the Iroquois offered any resistance or checked the opposition of the Ohio tribes.

The Cherokee bounds in Virginia should be extended along the mountain region as far at least as the James River, as they claim to have lived at the Peaks of Otter,54 and seem to be identical with the Rickohockan or Rechahecrian of the early Virginia writers, who lived in the mountains beyond the Monacan, and in 1656 ravaged the lowland country as far as the site of Richmond and defeated the English and the Powhatan Indians in a pitched battle at that place.55

The language of the Tuscarora, formerly of northeastern North Carolina, connect them directly with the northern Iroquois. The Chowanoc and Nottoway and other cognate tribes adjoining the Tuscarora may have been offshoots from that tribe.

PRINCIPAL TRIBES.

Cayuga. Cherokee. Conestoga. Erie. Mohawk. Neuter. Nottoway.

Oneida. Onondaga. Seneca. Tionontate. Tuscarora. Wyandot.

Population.—The present number of the Iroquoian stock is about 43,000, of whom over 34,000 (including the Cherokees) are in the United States while nearly 9,000 are in Canada. Below is given the population of the different tribes, compiled chiefly from the 80Canadian Indian Report for 1888, and the United States Census Bulletin for 1890:

Cherokee:
Cherokee and Choctaw Nations, Indian Territory (exclusive of adopted Indians, negroes, and whites)	25,557
Eastern Band, Qualla Reservation, Cheowah, etc., North Carolina (exclusive of those practically white)	1,500?
Lawrence school, Kansas	6
	27,063?
Caughnawaga:
Caughnawaga, Quebec	1,673
Cayuga:
Grand River, Ontario	972?
With Seneca, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255)	128?
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York	165
Other Reserves in New York	36
	1,301?
“Iroquois”:
Of Lake of Two Mountains, Quebec, mainly Mohawk (with Algonquin)	345
With Algonquin at Gibson, Ontario (total 131)	31?
	376?
Mohawk:
Quinte Bay, Ontario	1,050
Grand River, Ontario	1,302
Tonawanda, Onondaga, and Cattaraugus Reserves, New York	6
	2,358
Oneida:
Oneida and other Reserves, New York	295
Green Bay Agency, Wisconsin (“including homeless Indians”)	1,716
Carlisle and Hampton schools	104
Thames River, Ontario	778
Grand River, Ontario	236
	3,129
Onondaga:
Onondaga Reserve, New York	380
Allegany Reserve, New York	77
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York	38
Tuscarora (41) and Tonawanda (4) Reserves, New York	45
Carlisle and Hampton schools	4
Grand River, Ontario	346
	890
Seneca:
With Cayuga, Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory (total 255)	127?
Allegany Reserve, New York	862
Cattaraugus Reserve, New York	1,318
Tonawanda Reserve, New York	517
Tusarora and Onondaga Reserves, New York	12
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools	13
Grand River, Ontario	206
	3,055?
81St. Regis:
St. Regis Reserve, New York	1,053
Onondaga and other Reserves, New York	17
St. Regis Reserve, Quebec	1,179
	2,249
Tuscarora:
Tuscarora Reserve, New York	398
Cattaraugus and Tonawanda Reserves, New York	6
Grand River, Ontario	329
	733
Wyandot:
Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory	288
Lawrence, Hampton, and Carlisle schools	18
“Hurons” of Lorette, Quebec	279
“Wyandots” of Anderdon, Ontario	98
	683

The Iroquois of St. Regis, Caughnawaga, Lake of Two Mountains (Oka), and Gibson speak a dialect mainly Mohawk and Oneida, but are a mixture of all the tribes of the original Five Nations.