11 Comments

  1. David Heath

    Thank you for the wonderful write-up discussing the Ne-Pe-Chuck people. I’m of the opinion that the “Ne-Pe-Chuck” Band (Chinookan) where most likely the remaining families Multnomah (Wapato, not proper) Tribe. The 1839 HBC census for Cathlacanasese (near present day Hewett’s Point, Clark Co., WA) records both Chief Kiesno and Chona Chona. T. Smith’s 1856 census records Chona Chona as Chief, which strongly suggests he assumes the role of principle man among the Wakanasissi after Kiesno’s death in 1848 (see Boxberger “HBC 1839 Ft. Vancouver Census, V46:2012 Journal of NW Anthropology). Kiesno, the Cathlacomumup Band (Nipitchak?) and some of families of the Cathlaminamin Band relocate to Cathlacanasese on the N. shore of the Big River (….about the time HBC moves their center of operations to the bluffs above present day Ft. Vancouver). William McKay states, “the Wakanassisi were of the Multnomah people, which consisted of numerous bands from villages below the Washougal and extending as far as Kalama.” The territory described for the Wakanasissi (McKay) is essentially the same territory described for the Ne-Pe-Chuck {Multnomah (Wapato) => Wakanassisi => Ne-Pe-Chuck}.

    Discussion of the Cowlitz Tribe on the N. shore of the Big River and claims to territory historically documented as belonging to the Multnomah Tribe is interesting and even has implications to this day (ilani). The historical record regarding Chief Umtux at Cathlapotle in 1855 is confusing at best, with references that claim affiliation to the Cowlitz, the Klickatat (Xwalxwaipam), and sometimes the Taidnapam. I’m of the opinion that Umtux was likely Xwalxwaipam and this perhaps accounts for why Umtux and the Cathlapotle families headed towards the open valley at the head of the Klickatat trail east of Battle Ground Lake and near Bell Mountain (note the families did not turn west towards the Cowlitz River or North to Walupt Lake on the upper Upper Cispus). They were headed towards Mount Adams and would have had the ability to reach the Yakima reservation or the Watlala Bands of the lower Cascades. Wawalux and Wahlla-Luk Umtux, decendants of Umtux stated the Cathlapotle tribe were Klickitat. In 1915, George Umtux (George Charley), the grandson of Umtux, was reported as hereditary chief of the Cathlapotle. The Cowlitz also claim Umtux as a hereditary chief, but the information I’ve reviewed suggests Cathlapotle was a Multnomah Chinook village that later came to be occupied by Xwalxwaipam people.

    Thanks and keep-up the great work!
    David

    • The territorial description of the Ne-pe-chuck here in the 1856 letter appears to me to closely parallel the Skilloot (various spellings) territory. I will look into the various territorial descriptions but the lands from Cathlamet to just south of the Cowlitz river on the Columbia, and Milton is just south of that also, and appears to match Skilloot territory closely. By this time it may have been the case that the Multnomah and the Skilloot had already confederated together. In 1855-56 confederation may have occurred in the 1840s, and there is some indication that the Clatskanie may have also joined with the Skilloot by then. So two good working theories. thanks your your input. I will continue to work on the piece to include more connetions, thanks for reminding me of the Boxberger article.

  2. David Heath

    Wakanasisis, gaɬákʼanasisi (wákʼanasisi, Cathlacanese) Wakanasisi discussions/descriptions seem to include Skilloot and Ne-Pe-Chuck peoples.

    > Lewis, “…The territorial description of the Ne-pe-chuck here in the 1856 letter appears to me to closely parallel the Skilloot (various spellings) territory…”

    > Palmer, “…“I have learned that the Indians on Souvies Island claim a tract north of the River…”

    > Smith, “… The section of country claimed by these two bands extends from Cathlamett on the Columbia River to the head of Sauvie’s Island and back as far as the sumit of the mountains dividing the river bottoms from the Falatuie [Tualatin] plains. In addition to the above the Ne-pe-chuck Indians claim a strip of country on the north side of the Columbia River. They live principally by hunting and fishing but some few of the number cultivate small patches of vegetables. They have quite a number of large Chinook Canoes, and are very expert in navigating them….”

    > Boyd, “…After 1835, most riverbank villages were abandoned, and non-Chinookan interior peoples moved closer to the rivers. Villages of Chinookan survivors, often mixed with newcomers, continued at Wakanasisse below present-day Vancouver, West Linn, Gladstone (Clackamas), and the Upper Cascades.” “…Between Cathlamet and The Cascades in 1854 the only surviving settlement that might be termed Chinookan was the village of Wakanasisis or ‘the fishery. In 1838 there had been 37 Indians (HBC Census) at this location; in 1854 there were 30 (reference to Thomas Smith’s Ne-Pe-Chuck census).

    > William Tappan, Indian agent for southern Washington, stated Wakanasisi were “a mixed race, nearly all the tribes are here represented” (1854). These include some 4 or 6 from the former Wappato village of Kalama (gaɬákʼalama). The name ‘Klikitats’ frequently given to the fishery villagers indicates their hybrid nature…”

    > Spier (1936) reports the Wakanasisi reside on the north side (whose tribal name was Gā´L!akanasisi) nearly opposite the mouth of the Willamette.

    > Zenk, “…It is possible that the name “Skilloot(s),” one of the great mysteries of lower Columbia ethnohistory, belongs to another Chinookan-Salishan pair, although documentation is insufficient to support more than a hypothesis to that effect. The name is from Lewis and Clark, who used it with reference to
    Native people along a long stretch of the lower river, but most especially, to the people known in Kiksht Chinookan as itgígʷalatkš ‘downstreamers’. It is the lack of any subsequent unambiguous attestation of “Skilloot(s)” that renders it such a mystery. Scholars have proposed several explanations of the term over the years, and some additional candidates have since come to our attention (see figure 6). One of these candidates presents coincidences of form and meaning that Zenk finds compelling: squlút (Skulut), recorded by Harrington as a Salmon River Tillamook term meaning ‘valley’ and applied by those coast-dwelling Salishan speakers to interior valley-dwelling Kalapuyan peoples who lived to their east. In Zenk’s judgment, this raises the possibility that a Salishan term like squlút was at some time in wider use, presumably with reference to foreign-speaking people living in a valley or interior location, and only had dropped out of use on the lower Columbia by the time the linguists arrived on the scene….”

    – David

    • Hajda gives significant attention to the linguistics of the major tribal names. Of the Skilloot, Hajda has gathered these additional variants.

      Skillute, Skilloot, Chilute, Chilook, Hellwitz, CXhilwits, Whill Wetz, Kreluit

      Hajda labels the Skilloot as upper river Chinooks. In Hadja’s variant list are “Chilute” and Chiloot, suggesting that “Skilloot” may be a variant of “Chinook”. The variant chain may be;

      Chinook…..>Chinoot….>Chilute….>Skilloot/Skillute

      In this scenario, it is probable that all of the Chinookan tribes, Lower/middle/upper, identified as Skilloot/Chinook in some variant, dependent on the dialect of the speaker.

      Hajda suggests further that Skilloot is the word for “they are travelers” which she gathers from communications with linguist David French. In this case, it would suggest that there was a class of travelers or traders who regularly travelled beyond their lands and throughout the Chinookan areas of the Columbia River.

      Additionally the upriver Skillute of Lewis and Clark may be a confusion of a variant “Echelute.” This very much may be the case when considering the fact that members of the Corps of Discovery may have written their accounts days or years later, thereby perhaps causing a confusion of tribal names in the journal entries.

  3. David Heath

    RE: Wakanasisi: By June of 1856 the Wakanasisi had been removed from Hewitt’s point and surrounding areas. Boxberger, “…During the removals of 1856 the residents of both Cath la-cana-sese and Cath-lal-shlalah were removed to the Grand Ronde Reservation as opposed to the White Salmon Reservation. There was obviously a great deal of confusion on the part of the US officials in trying to sort out the various groups in the vicinity of Fort Vancouver and a great deal of rumor as to what would become of them. Evidence of this confusion comes from a letter from William Dillon (DLC on Wakanasisi ceded lands and was apparently concerned that the Klickitat (Taidnapam?) would be settled there. To Isaac Stevens dated 8 June 1856. “…I am informed by Mr. Fields who has charge of the Indians at Vancouver that the authorities at that place intends to send those indians which they have in charge down her to occupy ‘the old fishery’ 7 miles below Vancouver and Cituate on my land claim . . . it has been the general understanding of the American Citizens that this band of clickitat Indians did not own the land there. It is known that they have never pretended to own or occupy the fishery aforesaid but it has bin occupied every year since the year 1848 by a small band of indians who deny any one relation or joint occupancy with the Clickitats and the said small band is now on the grand rond reserve in Oregon Territory, or so it is stated…” (Dillon 1856) – David

Leave a Reply