- Yuma, Turner in Pac. R. R. Rep., III, pt. 3, 55, 94, 101,
1856 (includes Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave, Diegeño). 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. Stanford’s 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,
Cuchañ, 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, Geografía de las Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
Keane, App. Stanford’s 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, Geografía de las Lenguas de
México, map, 1864.
- Guaicuri, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent. and So. Am.),
476, 1878 (between 26th and 23d parallels).
Ushiti, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856 (perhaps
a dialect of Waikur). Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860.
- Utshiti, Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 423, 1862 (same as Ushiti).
- Pericú, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 88, 1856.
Latham, Opuscula, 353, 1860. Orozco y Berra, Geografía de las
Lenguas de México, map, 1864.
- Pericui, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.),
476, 1878 (from 23° N.L. to Cape S. Lucas and islands).
- Seri, Gatschet in Zeitschr. für Ethnologie, XV, 129, 1883,
and XVIII, 115, 1886.
Derivation: A Cuchan word signifying “sons of the river”
In 1856 Turner adopted Yuma as a family name, and placed under it
Cuchan, Coco-Maricopa, Mojave and Diegeno.
Three years previously (1853) Latham114 speaks of the Dieguno
language, and discusses with it several others, viz, San Diego,
Cocomaricopa, Cuohañ, 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 Diegueño a family name, for in the volume of the
same society for 1856 he includes both the Diegueño 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 Diegueño 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 Turner’s 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 title page of volume,
and that his proof was going through the press during the month of
May, which is the month (May 9) that Latham’s paper was read before
the Philological Society. The fact that Latham’s 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 Latham’s
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.
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.
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:
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 Cañon, Arizona.
Walapai, 728 in Arizona, chiefly along the Colorado.
Diegueño, 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
Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico, 1891