A vocabulary of the Yuki tribe is given by Gibbs in vol. III of Schoolcrafts Indian Tribes, 1853, but no indication is afforded that the language is of a distinct stock.
Powell, as above cited, appears to have been the first to separate the language.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the mountains to the coast.
PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.
Ashochimi (near Healdsburgh).
Chumaya (Middle Eel River).
Napa (upper Napa Valley).
Tatu (Potter Valley).
Yuki (Round Valley, California).
YUMAN FAMILY.
> Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101, 1856 (includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeo). Latham in Trans.
Philolog. Soc. Lond., 86, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 351, 1860 (as above). Latham in addenda to Opuscula, 392, 1860 (adds Cuchan to the group). Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 420, 1862 (includes Cuchan, Cocomaricopa, Mojave, Dieguno). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 156, 1877 (mentions only U.S. members of family). Keane, App. Stanfords Comp.
(Cent. and So. Am.), 460, 479, 1878 (includes Yumas, Maricopas, Cuchans, Mojaves, Yampais, Yavipais, Hualpais). Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 569, 1882.
= Yuma, Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 429, 1877 (habitat and dialects of family). Gatschet in U.S. Geog. Surv. W. 100th M., VII, 413, 414, 1879.
> Dieguno, Latham (1853) in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 75, 1854 (includes mission of San Diego, Dieguno, Cocomaricopas, Cucha, Yumas, Amaquaquas.)
> Cochimi, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 87, 1856 (northern part peninsula California). Buschmann, Spuren der aztek. Sprache, 471, 1859 (center of California peninsula). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862. Orozco y Berra, Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, map, 1864. Keane, App. Stanfords Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (head of Gulf to near Loreto).
> Layamon, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (a dialect of Waikur?). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.
> Waikur, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 90, 1856 (several dialects of). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862.
> Guaycura, Orozco y Berra, Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, map, 1864.
> Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanfords Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).
> Us.h.i.ti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps a dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
> Uts.h.i.ti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Us.h.i.ti).
> Peric, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856. Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografa de las Lenguas de Mxico, map, 1864.
> Pericui, Keane, App. Stanfords Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476, 1878 (from 23 N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).
> Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. fr Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883, and XVIII, 115, 1886.
Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying sons of the river (Whipple).
In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.
Three years previously (1853) Latham[114] speaks of the Dieguno language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego, Cocomaricopa, Cuoha, Yuma, Amaquaqua (Mohave), etc. Though he seems to consider these languages as allied, he gives no indication that he believes them to collectively represent a family, and he made no formal family division. The context is not, however, sufficiently clear to render his position with respect to their exact status as precise as is to be desired, but it is tolerably certain that he did not mean to make Diegueo a family name, for in the volume of the same society for 1856 he includes both the Diegueo and the other above mentioned tribes in the Yuma family, which is here fully set forth. As he makes no allusion to having previously established a family name for the same group of languages, it seems pretty certain that he did not do so, and that the term Diegueo as a family name may be eliminated from consideration. It thus appears that the family name Yuma was proposed by both the above authors during the same year. For, though part 3 of vol. III of Pacific Railroad Reports, in which Turners article is published, is dated 1855, it appears from a foot-note (p. 84) that his paper was not handed to Mr.
Whipple till January, 1856, the date of t.i.tle page of volume, and that his proof was going through the press during the month of May, which is the month (May 9) that Lathams paper was read before the Philological Society. The fact that Lathams article was not read until May 9 enables us to establish priority of publication in favor of Turner with a reasonable degree of certainty, as doubtless a considerable period elapsed between the presentation of Lathams paper to the society and its final publication, upon which latter must rest its claim. The Yuma of Turner is therefore adopted as of precise date and of undoubted application. Pimentel makes Yuma a part of Piman stock.
[Footnote 114: Proc. London Philol. Soc., vol. 6, 75, 1854.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila Valleys. At least this is the region where they attained their highest physical and mental development. With the exception of certain small areas possessed by Shoshonean tribes, Indians of Yuman stock occupied the Colorado River from its mouth as far up as Cataract Creek where dwell the Havasupai.
Upon the Gila and its tributaries they extended as far east as the Tonto Basin. From this center they extended west to the Pacific and on the south throughout the peninsula of Lower California. The mission of San Luis Rey in California was, when established, in Yuman territory, and marks the northern limit of the family. More recently and at the present time this locality is in possession of Shoshonean tribes.
The island of Angel de la Guardia and Tiburon Island were occupied by tribes of the Yuman family, as also was a small section of Mexico lying on the gulf to the north of Guaymas.
PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.
Cochimi.
Cocopa.
Cuchan or Yuma proper.
Diegueo.
Havasupai.
Maricopa.
Mohave.
Seri.
Waicuru.
Walapai.
_Population._--The present population of these tribes, as given in Indian Affairs Report for 1889, and the U.S. Census Bulletin for 1890, is as follows:
Of the Yuma proper there are 997 in California attached to the Mission Agency and 291 at the San Carlos Agency in Arizona.
Mohave, 640 at the Colorado River Agency in Arizona; 791 under the San Carlos Agency; 400 in Arizona not under an agency.
Havasupai, 214 in Cosnino Caon, Arizona.
Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.
Diegueo, 555 under the Mission Agency, California.
Maricopa, 315 at the Pima Agency, Arizona.
The population of the Yuman tribes in Mexico and Lower California is unknown.