|
|
- Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 218, 569, 1846
(used in family sense).
- Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846
(southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth.
Soc., II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325,
1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map
17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854
(cites Hale’s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74,
1856 (has Shoshoni affinities). Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341,
1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
- Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c,
1848. (after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17,
1852.
- Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402,
1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale’s Palaiks).
- Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three
principal tribes: Achomáwes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or
Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives
habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc.,
439, 1877.
- A-cho-mâ´-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs.
of A-cho-mâ´-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general
account of tribes; A-cho-mâ´-wi, Hu-mâ´-whi, Es-ta-ke´-wach,
Han-te´-wa, Chu-mâ´-wa, A-tu-a´-mih, Il-mâ´-wi).
- Klamath, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So.Am.),
460, 475, 1878 (includes Palaiks).
- Shasta, Bancroft, Nat. Races, III, 565, 1882 (contains
Palaik of present family).
Derivation: From the Klamath word p´laikni, signifying
“mountaineers” or “uplanders” (Gatschet).
In two places73 Hale uses
the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on
page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages,
he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the
shorter form of the name.
Though here classed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit
River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers
speaks of the language as “hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and
sesquipedalian,” * * * “utterly unlike the sweet and simple
languages of the Sacramento.” He adds that the personal pronouns
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.
Principal Tribes
Powers, who has made a special study of the tribe, recognizes the
following principal tribal divisions:74
Achomâ´wi.
Atua´mih.
Chumâ´wa.
Estake´wach.
Hante´wa.
Humâ´whi.
Ilmâ´wi.
Pakamalli?
Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico, 1891
Linguistic
Families
 |
