Bright - p.

THE NAPUS PROJECT (NATIVE AMERICAN PLACENAMES OF THE UNITED STATES):

PRINCIPLES AND PROBLEMS

William Bright

[This paper was read in 1996 at a meeting of the Western Conference on Geographical Names at

Flagstaff, Arizona. It is to be published in a volume on the lexicography of American Indian languages,

edited by William Frawley, Pamela Munro, and Kenneth Hill, to be published by the University of

California Press.]

I. Introduction. This paper is, in part, the story of my on-going involvement with the field of

American Indian place names; and, in part, a progress report on the current project, acronymically

known as NAPUS, to which my involvement has led me. I have dabbled in name studies over the years

(e.g. Bright 1984), but it was only after retirement from teaching that I undertook more extensive work

on toponomy - revisions of George Eichler’s book Colorado place names (1977), and E. G. Gudde’s

book on California (3rd edn., 1969). Now I have undertaken a new, five-year project for the University

of Oklahoma Press: a large, comprehensive dictionary of the origins of US place names, used in English,

which have American Indian origins. (I include here origins in Latin America, e.g. terms like coyote,

borrowed through Spanish from Aztec.) The aim is to produce a work which will consolidate data from

existing publications on the topic, but also add authoritative etymological information based on current

field research by anthropological linguists. A consulting editorial board of 10 linguists, each responsible

for particular native language families or cultural areas, has been appointed; but I also solicit and

welcome input from all interested toponymists, local experts, and tribal scholars. Figure 1 is a

prospectus which has already been published in the journal Names and elsewhere.
 Bright - p. 2

FIGURE 1: PROSPECTUS

NATIVE AMERICAN PLACENAMES OF THE UNITED STATES

to be published by the University of Oklahoma Press

This is to announce the preparation of Native American Placenames of the United States (NAPUS), a
large reference book in dictionary format, to be published by the University of Oklahoma Press. The
work is to be prepared under the editorial direction of William Bright, of the University of Colorado,
during the period 1997–2002, and is planned for publication in 2003.
GOAL. The emphasis in the book will be on the origins of US placenames, used in English,
which derive from Native American languages. The aim is to produce a work which is responsible to
existing placename scholarship, but which will provide authoritative etymological information based on
current linguistic research.
CONTENT. Among published reference works on American placenames, there are a few which
cover the entire US, and many devoted to particular states; but in general these do not give special
attention to Native American names. A handful of books deal with Native names in particular states, but
all existing works are grounded primarily in historical and literary research. The aim of NAPUS is to
supplement such materials by drawing on published and unpublished research by linguists who
specialize in Native languages, in order to create a volume which will be comprehensive and definitive
for the entire nation.
THE EDITOR. William Bright is Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Anthropology, UCLA,
and Professor Adjoint of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder. His specialties include
anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, and American Indian languages. In the field of toponymy,
he has authored a book on Colorado Place Names (1993), has edited a special issue of the journal
Names on American Indian placenames (1996), and most recently has prepared a revised 4th edition of
E. G. Gudde’s California Place Names (to appear).
EDITORIAL BOARD. The Editor will be joined in the preparation of the volume by a board of
Consulting Editors who are outstanding researchers in the field of Native American linguistics. These
scholars will take responsibility for language families and/or areas in which each has expertise. The
following have agreed to serve:

Wallace Chafe, Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (Iroquoian, Caddoan)

Ives Goddard, Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (Algonquian)
Jane H. Hill, Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ (O’odham, Southwest)
Kenneth C. Hill, Tucson, AZ (Hopi, Southwest)
 Bright - p. 3

Lawrence Kaplan, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK (Eskimo-
Aleut)
James Kari, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK (Athabaskan)
M. Dale Kinkade, Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Salish, Northwest)
John McLaughlin, English, Utah State University, Logan, UT (Uto-Aztecan)
Marianne Mithun, Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA (Iroquoian)
Pamela Munro, Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA (Yuman, Muskogean,
Southeast)
David Pentland, Linguistics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg (Algonquian)
Robert Rankin, Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (Siouan, Plains)

CONSULTANTS. Information regarding particular languages and areas will be obtained by

consultation with a large number of native speakers, linguistic specialists, and onomastic scholars
throughout the nation. The participation of all interested parties is welcomed!
 Bright - p. 4

II. Materials. No comprehensive work of the type I propose has been carried out up to now, but

four main kinds of published information are especially relevant to the project:

A. GNIS. My basic inventory of terms will be drawn from the Geographical Names Information

System (GNIS), the digital database of placenames which is available on CD-ROM from the US Board on

Geographic Names. However, I do not mean to include every possible Indian name that occurs in that

database or on available maps. Some entries in the GNIS or on maps are erroneous; or they refer to long-

vanished railroad sidings where no one ever lived, or otherwise have neither significant historical

associations nor modern currency. What I would like to include are the names that people are likely to

encounter – in books, on maps, or on the land – and about which they feel curious. The other sources that I

will list below will help me decide what names to include.

B. US placename dictionaries. Another source consists of placename dictionaries of the US as a

whole, such as those by George Stewart (1970) and by Kelsie Harder (1976); these give some information

about the best-known names such as Chicago and Oklahoma, but since they try to cover placenames of

every type, they can’t devote much attention to lesser-known names.

C. Regional placenames dictionaries. Still another consists of placename dictionaries of individual

parts of the US, such as well-known state placename books; good examples are Granger’s work for

Arizona (1983) and McArthur’s (1992) for Oregon. However, these books vary in the attention they give

to names of Native American origin. A problem with both these types of dictionaries is that most of the

compilers had little specialist knowledge about American Indian languages, and often were not able to

make use of existing linguistic resources on those languages. As a result, the information that all these

sources provide on placenames of Indian origin is likely to be somewhat deficient.

D. Regional Indian placename dictionaries. A final source comprises a relatively limited number of

volumes devoted specifically to place names of Indian origin in particular states of the US, or other

defined geographical areas, such as the excellent volumes published by Virgil Vogel for Illinois (1963),

Iowa (1983), Michigan (1986), and Wisconsin (1991). (See the bibliography at the end of this paper, in

which some other relevant works are also listed.) These works are usually quite comprehensive for the
 Bright - p. 5

areas they cover, and in some cases they have been prepared by scholars with considerable sophistication

in American Indian linguistics; I can especially mention the older books by William A. Read on Louisiana

(1927), Florida (1934), and Alabama (1937, revised 1984), and the very recent work on names of the

Navajo Reservation, by Alan Wilson (1995).

III. Procedures.

A. The database. My current procedure begins with consolidating material from sources of all

these types into a single computerized database. I estimate that this work will not be completed until early

1999, but Figure 2 is a sample printout from that file. These data are “raw” in the sense of coming from

many sources, which sometimes contradict each other, and of being so far unedited.

B. Comprehensive bibliography. Concurrently with this compilation, I am also compiling a unified

computerized bibliography of all my published sources; and Figure 3 is a sample printout of that.

C. Assignment to consulting editors. The next major part of the project, starting in 1999, will be to

send relevant portions of my data base, on diskette, to my ten consulting editors, asking for input derived

from their personal knowledge of various languages, and from information they can obtain from

consultants as mentioned above.

D. Consolidation and editing. As my consulting editors return such input to me over the following

three years, I will consolidate the entire body of data, and edit it to create entries for the final dictionary.

Figure 4 is a sample printout of some California place names, illustrating a POSSIBLE format that those

entries may take.

 Bright - p. 6

FIGURE 2. SAMPLE PRINTOUT FROM DATABASE.

BALLY; BOLLY; BULLY (CALIF, Gudde/Bright 1997) [bal !e@, bol !e@, bo*o*l !e@] all occur.
Wintu buli ‘mountain’ forms part of the names of several mountains in northern California.The
English pronunciations. In Wintu, Bully Choop means ‘mountain peak’; Winnibulli is ‘middle
mountain’, and Yolla Bolly is ‘snow mountain’.
BALUKAI (ARIZ, Wilson 1995) MESA: Baalók’aa’í ¶ baa - near it, alongside it ¶ lók’aa’ - reeds ¶
Reeds near it or alongside it. The mesa, west of Salina (Tsé Lání), is 20 miles in length from north to
south, and is separated from Black Mesa (Dzi£íjiin) on the north by Burnt Corn Wash (Naadá4á4’
Díílid).
BANNOCK (CALIF, San Bernardino Co., Gudde/Bright 1997) [ban !´k]. From the name of a Numic
Indian tribe in Idaho, panna!kwatî‹ (HNAI 11:306).The term was changed by folk etymology to
“Bannock,” after a kind of Scottish flapjack much used by early traders and settlers. ¶¶ (WYO, Teton
Co., Urbanek 1988) FALLS. Named for the western Indian tribe who once roamed here in Gallatin
Range, but was finally placed on a reservation in Idaho. Bannock Peak, 10,323, YNP: named for
Bannock Indians who entered Yellowstone Park in 1877.
BANTAM (CONN, Trumbull 1881) (-om, -um), Bantaham, etc.: a name given to the place at which
Litchfield was settled; afterwards, to 'The Great Pond' and river in that township. This name does not
appear in the Indian deed of the territory, 1715-16, but the order of Court, May, 1719, authorizes the
settlement of "a place called Bantam; " and in the first deed recorded in Litchfield town records, May,
1719, the plantation is called Bantaham. "Bantam river" was so denominated in 1720, but the pond, in
the early records, is simply 'the Great Pond.' The Rev. Azel Backus (ms. Hist. of Bethlem, 1812) states
that "Shippaug or Great Pond was the Indian name of Litchfield pond and gave the name to the river."
¶ If Bantaham or Bantam is of Indian origin—which is nearly certain—it must be a corruption of
peäntam (Narr. peyaun´tam) 'he prays' or 'praying,' a word used to designate a Christian Indian; and it
may have been an appellation of the local sagamore, or of Weramaug, the sachem of New Milford. As
a place-name, it is analogous to Nonantam, i.e. 'he blesses,' the village in which Eliot's first Indian
converts were gathered.
BASHI (ALA, Read 1984) [bash !î@] 1. A creek flowing into the Tombigbee from the east. 2. A village
which takes its name from that of the creek; recorded on the Smith map, 1891. ¶ Bashai C. La
Tourrette, 1844. ¶ Bashi may be from Choctaw bachaya, "line," "row," "course" —hence Line Creek.
{...}
 Bright - p. 7

FIGURE 3. SAMPLE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PUBLISHED SOURCES.

Badenoch, Alex. 1976. Past and Present place names and post offices of Forest County, Pennsylvania.
[s.l.]: Forest Press. 52 p. {Worldcat Pennsylvania}
Baile, Laurel Elizabeth. 1974. The origins of many Tulsa County place-names [S.l.: s.n.] 15, [3] leaves.
"A winter term project for Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio." Reproduced from typescript. {Worldcat
Oklahoma}
Bakeman, Mary. 1991. Minnesota places: now and then. St. Paul, MN (P.O. Box 16069, St. Paul
55116-0059): Minnesota Genealogical Society. 6, 56 p. {Worldcat Minnesota}
Baker, Jim. 1973. How our counties got their names. Worthington, Ohio: Pioneer Press Service. [94] p.
{Worldcat Ohio}
Baker, Ronald L. 1995. From Needmore to Prosperity: Hoosier place names in folk history.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 371 p. {Indiana, have}
Baker, Ronald L., & Marvin Carmony. 1975. Indiana place names. Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press.
xxii, 196 p. ¶ 2271 names in this study, with a brief section on pronunciation and on classification of
names. ¶ Review: Donald Zimmer, Indiana magazine of history 72:360-61, Dec. 1976; Arthur F.
Beringause, Names 24:216, Sept. 1976. {Sealock Indiana}
Ballard, Edward. 1900. Geographical names on the coast of Maine. Washington, DC: United States
Coast Survey. 19 p., 30 cm. {Worldcat Maine}
Barbour, Philip L. 1967. Chickahominy place names in Captain John Smith's True relation. Names
15:216-27. ¶ Deals with the Indian nomenclature of the Chickahominy River basin in 1607. The
guest editor of this issue, Hamill Kenny, raises several questions, p. 225-26. {Sealock Virginia}
Barbour, Philip L. 1971. The earliest reconnaissance of Chesapeake Bay area: Captain John Smith's map
and Indian vocabulary. Virginia magazine of history and biography 79:280-302. ¶ Bibliography: p.
283-84. ¶ The Indian place-names recorded by Smith in his writings and on his map are listed,
roughly located, and analyzed where possible. Most are in the language called Powhatan. Names are
mainly in Virginia and Maryland, with a few in Delaware and Pennsylvania. {Sealock Maryland}
Barge, William D. 1936. Illinois place names. Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 29:189-311.
{Illinois, Callary 1985:74}
Barnes, Arthur M. 1948. Pronunciation guide to Iowa place names. Iowa City: State University of Iowa,
School of Journalism. 2, 8, 8 leaves; 28 cm. {Worldcat Iowa}
Barnes, Arthur M. 1959. Pronunciation guide to names of places and state officeholders in lowa.
Prepared in cooperation with the Iowa Radio-Telegraph News Association. 2d ed. Iowa City, State
Univ. of lowa. 12 p. {Sealock Iowa}
 Bright - p. 8

FIGURE 4. POSSIBLE FORMAT FOR FINAL DICTIONARY

Bannock (Calif., San Bernardino Co.) [ban !´k] From the name of a Numic Indian tribe in Idaho, panna!
kwatî‹ (HNAI 11:306).The term was changed by folk etymology to “Bannock,” after a kind of Scottish
flapjack much used by early traders and settlers (Gudde/Bright).
Bohemotash (Calif., Shasta Co.) [bo@ he@ !m´ tash] From Wintu bohema thoos, lit. ‘big camp’
(Shepherd).
Bolinas (Calif., Marin Co.) [bo@ le@ !n´s]. A map of 1834 has the word “Baulenes” on the peninsula
which now includes Bolinas Point, Duxbury Point, and the town of Bolinas. The name Baulenes,
possibly from a Coast Miwok word of undetermined meaning, probably referred to the Indians who
inhabited the region (Gudde/Bright).
Bollibokka (Calif., Shasta Co.) [bol e@ bok !´] Apparently from Wintu buli ‘mountain’ and phaqa
‘manzanita’ (Shepherd).
Bully Choop (Calif., Shasta & Trinity Cos.) [bo*o*l e@ cho@o@p !]. Represents Wintu buli c&’uup
‘mountain peak’, from buli ‘mountain’ and c&’uup ‘sharp point, awl’ (Shepherd). The name has
sometimes been folk-etymologized as “bullet shoot.”
Buriburi (Calif., San Mateo Co.) [buflr e@ buflr !e@, byo@o@ re@ byo@o@ !re@]. Mentioned in
mission records of 1798. From a Costanoan name, perhaps related to Rumsen purris ‘needle’
(Harrington; Callaghan).
Cabazon (Calif., Riverside Co.) [kab !´ zon]. The name of a Cahuilla Indian chief who lived in this area
in the 1860s; from Spanish cabezón ‘big head’. (Gudde/Bright)
Cachuma (Calif., Santa Barbara Co.) [k´ cho@o@ !m´]. From Span. Aquitsumu, borrowed in turn from
Chumash ’aqitsu’m ‘sign’ (Applegate 1975:27).
Cahto (Mendocino & Humboldt Cos.) [ka‹ !to@]. From Northern Pomo khat5o ‘lake’, containing khá
‘water’ (Oswalt).
Cahuenga (Calif., Los Angeles Co.) [k´ hun© !©´, k´ wen© !©´]. Documented in Spanish from 1802.
From Gabrielino kawé’nga (Munro); possibly cognate with Luiseño qawíinga ‘at the mountain’,
from qawíicha ‘mountain’, and Cahuilla qáwinga’ ‘at the rock’, from qáwish ‘rock’.
Cahuilla (Calif., Riverside Co.) [k´ we@ !´]. The place name, first recorded in the 1830s as Cagüilla, is
the Spanish and English name of the Cahuilla Indian tribe (Takic family). The tribal name is
sometimes thought to be from Cahuilla qáwiy’a ‘leader, chief’; but in fact it is borrowed from local
Spanish Cahuilla ‘unbaptized Indian’; this term, used in Mission days, was itself apparently derived
from an extinct language of Baja California (Bright 1977). As a geographical term, the name was
used in 1859 for the valley northeast of the San Jacinto Mountains, with the spelling Cohuilla; in
 Bright - p. 9

1873 with the spelling Coahuila; and with similar spellings on all maps published before 1891
(Gudde/Bright). Cf. also Coachella.
 Bright - p. 10

IV. Questions from the Devil’s Advocate. When I submitted my proposal for this project to the

University of Oklahoma Press, they naturally sent it for evaluation to two referees – scholars who may

well be now in this very room. The evaluation of one was entirely positive; the other also made some

favorable comments, but in addition raised important questions, to which the Press asked me to respond.

I think of this evaluator as the “Devil’s Advocate,” since his questions were challenging, and forced me

to think hard about some problems. Some very basic questions raised by him were the following:

A. “Why hasn’t anyone done anything like this ever before?” The suggestion, of course, is that it

hasn’t been done because it might be impossible. I can think of several possible answers to this question.

One is that most people working in the field have been writing for local audiences, frequently defined in

terms of state university presses, or state and county historical societies; and their ambitions have been

correspondingly restrained. Another point is that local writers who have studied regional toponymy have

generally not had access to the research methods of American Indian linguistics, or to the bibliographical

resources available in that field; this is a major respect in which I hope to contribute something new.

Finally, a possible reason why there has been no American Indian Placenames volume to date is that, if one

thinks of a totally comprehensive and perfect work, the job is indeed too daunting for anyone to undertake.

But that is not what I have in mind. I am proposing a large reference work, but not necessarily the largest

or most complete that could ever be published. I want to finish this in my lifetime! This is related to a

second question —

B. “Will you settle all the problems?” The referee asks whether I would “repeat the thousands of

errors already in print” – or if, rather, I would “settle all the problems of Amerind topoynymics.” Both of

these are extreme statements. Of course I will not knowingly repeat old errors. Of the errors already in

print, it’s clear that many have resulted from ignoring available knowledge of American Indian languages;

with the help of linguist colleagues, i feel confident of resolving many such problems – as i have already

done for Colorado and California. But especially in eastern states, where many Native languages have

been long extinct, some problems can never be solved with certainty; in such cases I can only cite

etymologies have been suggested by earlier writers, adding appropriate qualifiers such as ‘perhaps’. I will
 Bright - p. 11

always prefer to admit a gap in knowledge rather than to offer unqualified speculations like some which

have appeared in print. Given these limitations, I believe that I can produce a new and useful type of

reference work.

C. “What to put in?” Finally, the referee asks: “How will you decide what to put in, and what to

leave out?” The problem has of course been faced by earlier collectors of Indian-related toponyms,

especially by Vogel - whose Wisconsin dictionary, for instance, casts a very wide net, and classifies

names under chapter headings such as “Tribal names, Personal names, Names from fauna, Names from

flora,” etc. Yet such all-inclusive compilations contain some fairly uninteresting items; e.g., many states

have an “Indian Creek,” perhaps so named because some one arrived there and encountered an Indian,

or a group of Indians, or an Indian village - but the name carries little information of a cultural or

historical sort. The general question remains: What are the criteria for inclusion?

V. A typology and its elaboration. While I was thinking about criteria for including or

excluding materials from the NAPUS project, and pondering possible typologies for that purpose, Grant

Smith had the kindness to send me a copy of his recent article, “Amerindian place names: A typology

based on meaning and form” (1996). I was delighted to find that he had come up with criteria for

classification which were extremely useful for my purposes. However, as I considered how my data

could be classified in terms of Smith’s typology, I also began to think of ways in which his typology

could be elaborated and possibly supplemented. So I would like to review Smith’s system here today,

and add my own observations. I hasten to emphasize that I am not trying to criticize or supersede

Smith’s proposal, but only to offer comments which may prove relevant to further discussion. My view

of typologies, I would emphasize, is that they should never be carved in stone; they have value only to

the extent that they are helpful in research, and any proposed typology needs to be tested in terms of its

continuing usefulness.

Smith’s categories, then, are as follows:

A. “Amerindian oral names” are defined as “those terms presumably used in Amerindian

languages to designate places” (55). I have two comments on this category:

 Bright - p. 12

(1) Oral vs. written languages. Some Native American languages are now frequently written;

they have official, standardized orthographies, and materials are published in them. An example is

Navajo, and the official orthography is used in the book by Wilson (1995) that I’ve already

recommended. This fact makes the term “oral” seem inappropriate for this category; I suggest instead

something like “AMERINDIAN TRADITIONAL NAMES,” meaning all the names traditionally used, in situ,

by American Indian languages of the past or present. Of course some such names have also come to be

used in English, such as Chicago or Tucson. But as defined here, the category comprehends an immense

number of names – tens of thousands, at the very least - which have never entered English usage;

indeed, only a relatively small number of them have been recorded, typically by anthropologists, under

the heading of ETHNOGEOGRAPHY. Exemplary works of this genre include Waterman’s Yurok geography

(1920, for a tribe of California) and Eugene Hunn’s recent Nch’i-wana, "the big river”: Mid-Columbia

Indians and their land (1990). Several American Indians have told me that their tribes need research on

their native placenames, and have asked whether I will be able to help them. I agree that such work is

important, and I have in fact done such research for the Karuk tribe in California. But unfortunately the

NAPUS project will not be able to address this need; since the scope of NAPUS is very broad in one

sense, namely that of covering the entire US, it has to be limited in another sense, namely to those Indian

placenames which have entered English usage.

(2) English < Indian < European. A problem that occasionally arises is that we are not sure

whether an ostensible Indian placename may have a European source. For instance, Galice is the name

of an Athabaskan Indian tribe, a settlement, and a creek in Oregon, and it is explained by McArthur

(1992) as a French surname. However, in the 1950s the last surviving speaker of the Galice language

told the anthropologist Harry Hoijer that the name represented an Indian pronunciation galiis of the

English word Kelly’s; i.e., the settlement was named after a miner called Kelly. To the extent that this

latter etymology may be valid, then we have the possibility of a placename which has an Indian history,

although its ultimate source is European.

B. “Indigenous derivations” are defined by Smith as “terms derived from languages indigenous

to the geographic areas in which they are used by Eng. speakers” (56). This clearly includes a large
 Bright - p. 13

number of the placenames to be covered by NAPUS. But several subcategories can be distinguished,

each with its own type of motivation.

(1) As already mentioned, some terms are genuine native placenames, borrowed into English and

still used in situ, such as Chicago or Tucson.

(2) Some are names of prominent Indian individuals, such as Seattle or Spokane.

(3) Some are derived from other words of local Indian languages, e.g. Chittamo (Wisc.), from

Ojibway ac&itamo:n? ‘red squirrel’. It should be noted, however, that the English word chipmunk,

found in placenames both of Wisconsin and other states, is itself derived from the same Ojibway word.

In the case of a particular place called Chipmunk Rapids, we may not be able to tell whether the word is

borrowed directly from Ojibway, or from the English word.

(4) A special category consists of placenames in which White explorers evidently interpreted

Indian generic terms as if they were specific, and adapted the Indian terms into English accordingly.

Thus in 1844, when John C. Fremont’s party first saw Lake Tahoe, they asked a Washo Indian what it

was called, and the Indian said, dá’aw ‘a lake’; this was written down in English as “Tahoe”. In 1877,

in the same area, the Wheeler surveying party asked another Washo to identify a California mountain,

and the Indian said dalá’ak ‘a mountain’; this became Mount Tallac.

C. “Pidgin derivations” are “derived or borrowed from Amerindian-based pidgins [i.e. mixed

languages] developed to facilitate contact between the indigenous people and European immigrants”

(Smith, 57). Many cases involve the Chinook Jargon, a trade language of the Pacific Northwest,

containing elements of several Native languages, especially Chinookan and Salishan, as well as French

and English. Again some subcategories can be distinguished:

(1) A name may come from the pidgin, which in turn takes it from a native language. Thus the

word Skookum, occurring in many Northwestern placenames, represents the Chinook Jargon for ‘strong,

powerful’, borrowed in turn from a Salishan language.

(2) A name may come from the pidgin, but have its ultimate origin in a European language. Thus

the word Siwash, again occurring in many Northwestern placenames, represents the Chinook Jargon

word for ‘Indian’, borrowed from French sauvage.

 Bright - p. 14

D. “Transferred derivations” are defined as “terms that have been borrowed into English or

French and then applied as place names outside the geographic regions of the languages from which

they have been borrowed” (Smith, 59). These are very common, and will constitute a large body of the

data included in NAPUS. Again some subcategories can be distinguished:

(1) Common nouns, used in English, are often carried from one region to another, e.g. Teepee

Flats (Wash.) uses the Siouan term tipi ‘house’, which is native to the Great Plains. The Pogonip, a

frequently foggy hillside overlooking Santa Cruz (Calif.), is an application of a word which English

speakers in the Great Basin had borrowed from Numic pakïnappï ‘fog’.

(2) Transferred place names are common, e.g. Milwaukee, transferred from Wisconsin to

Oregon, and Chicago, as applied to Port Chicago in California, were originally Algonkian place names.

(3) Some names are locally thought to be of Indian origin, but actually have European origins:

thus Calumet (Ill., Mich.), understood as a word for ‘Indian pipe’, is borrowed by English from a

Norman French dialect word for ‘pipe’, related to Standard French chalumeau ‘type of flute’. Such a

word, then, does not actually have an Indian origin, but was applied as a placename because of its Indian

cultural associations.

E. “Pseudo-Amerindian terms” are defined as “imaginative imitations of presumed Indian speech

or coinages usually interpreted as such” (Smith, 60). Again there are subcategories:

(1) Complete inventions sometimes are found. An example is Lake Itasca, the Minnesota origin

of the Mississippi river; the name was coined by Henry R. Schoolcraft, who also gave imaginary Indian

names to several counties in the state of Michigan. In the case of Itasca, he took letters from an intended,

but ungrammatical, Latin phrase: veritas caput , supposed to mean ‘true head(waters)’. (Cf. Vogel 1991;

better Latin would be verum caput.)

(2) Some supposed Indian names are those which were originally given currency by literary

works, especially in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s Hiawatha. An example was the word Hiawatha

itself, now found as a placename in many states. In this case the name was not originally fictitious; it

was borne by a famous Iroquois leader in New York state, but apparently the poet liked the sound of it,

and applied it to the hero of his epic, who was supposed to be an Algonkian of the Great Lakes area.
 Bright - p. 15

F. “Translations” are defined by Smith as “English terms that are presumed to be literal

translations of indigenous place names, descriptions, or associations, or of symbolic features in

Amerindian legends” (61). We may perhaps distinguish two varieties:

(1) One type consists of what linguists call “calques” (derived from a French term meaning ‘a

tracing or copy’). Thus the Medicine Bow Mountains (Colo., Wyo.) are thought to translate a Shoshone

term, referring to a bow used for magical purposes; Pipestone Lake (Wisc.) is supposed to translate an

Algonkian word for a type of stone from which the Indians made pipe-bowls. However, in most such

cases it is difficult to confirm the original Indian name of the place; Whites could have simply adapted

“medicine bow” and “pipestone”, as common nouns, from Indian usage, and later applied them as

placenames.

(2) Some cases have still more dubious origins. A widespread name like Badger Creek is

sometimes assumed on very little evidence (e.g. by Vogel) to represent a translation of an Indian name.

A particular stream may or may not have had an Indian name meaning ‘badger creek’; but if it was

frequented by badgers, it was very likely to be given such a name in English. If a name has no clearly

documented Indian association, either linguistic or cultural, I feel reluctant to include it in the coverage

for NAPUS.

G. “Adopted European Names” are defined as “commemoratives and possessives of [the names

of] indigenous people who have adopted European names” (Smith, 62). In this category falls a

placename like Adams (Mass.), named for an otherwise obscure Indian with that family name. However,

other types of adopted names may be of greater linguistic or historical interest:

(1) Some names reflect cases where English has borrowed an Indian personal name, which was

borrowed in turn from a European language; an example is Lolo (Mont.) from a Salish personal name

Lolo, from French Laurent. (Since Salish has no r sound, it replaces French r with l. ) A somewhat

more complex case is Stanislaus (River and County, in California), an English adaptation of Estanislao,

the Spanish baptismal name of an Indian who became famous for his successful raids on Spanish

missions.
 Bright - p. 16

(2) Other names are calques, as in F(1); thus Black Hawk, Big Foot (Wisc.) are translations of

the names of Algonkian leaders.

(3) In some cases it must be recognized that placenames are of ambiguous Indian origin. For

instance, is St. Germain (Wisc.) named after the French soldier Jean François St. Germain who arrived

in the area in the 17th century, or after one or more of his mixed-blood descendants who have lived in

Wisconsin ever since?

In addition to Smith’s categories, it is possible to suggest two others:

H. English < Spanish/French < Indian. Some placenames are borrowings from Spanish or French

common nouns which are in turn borrowed from Native languages. We can recognize the following

categories.

(1) Some placenames are borrowed through Spanish or French, but ultimately come from Indian

languages of the same area, e.g. Abalone Point (Calif.), from Cal.Sp. aulón(es), from Rumsen aulon.

(2) Some placenames are transferred, through Spanish or French, from some other colonized

area, e.g. Temescal Canyon (Calif.) < Mex.Sp. temescal ‘sweathouse’, from Aztec temexcalli. A

possible example involving French is Muskellunge (Michigan, Wisconsin), from the English name of a

type of fish resembling a pike, from French maquinonge, from Ojibwa maazhi-gnoozhe ‘evil(-looking)

pike’.

(3) Some names involve transformation via folk-etymology in Spanish or French, based on an

earlier Indian name; thus Temetate Creek (Calif.) takes its name from the Mex.Sp. word temetate ‘stone

grinding-slab’, ostensibly from Aztec temetlatl; but this is probably in fact a reworking of the original

Chumash placename, which was stemeqtatimi, of unknown meaning. Another example is the name of

the Canadian River (Colo., Okla.), from Sp. canadiano, seemingly from the name of the country Canada

(transmitted through French, but originally Iroquoian); however, the name is probably in fact a

reshaping of Caddo káyántinu’ , the name of the nearby Red River.

(4) Some names, borrowed by English through Spanish or French, are specifically derived from

American Indian placenames in colonies outside the US; thus is then a special category of TRANSFER

placenames, of two types:

 Bright - p. 17

(a) Names borrowed through Spanish from Latin America include placenames such as

Mexico and Lima.

(b) Names borrowed from French Canada include familiar ones like Quebec and Ontario.

These names require some special attention, however, since most of them come from Iroquoian or

Algonkian languages which are spoken in both Canada and the US; there may therefore be doubt in

some cases as to whether a name was first borrowed on the US or the Canadian side of the border.

I. Hybrid Indian names are those coined from parts of two or more other names, one or more of

which are of Indian origin. The motive for such coinages is usually that the place is located in or near the

places whose names are represented in the hybrid; examples are Texarkana (Tex., Ark.) and Clackamette

(Ore., from Clackamas and Willamette). Such names of course have no motivation in American Indian

culture or history. They may be candidates for inclusion in NAPUS, however, because of their interest as

curiosities, or because they may occasionally be mistaken for genuine Indian names.

VI. Conclusion. As regards the question of what should ultimately be included in NAPUS, I feel

no urgency to reach a final decision. For the time being, my motto is “Put in everything,” on the

principle that later on it will be easier to take things out than to put them in. However, thinking about

Grant Smith’s typology has been very helpful to me in formulating some tentative criteria. The final

NAPUS compilation should clearly include placenames, used in English, which have actual etymologies

in American Indian languages; I believe it should also include those which have associations with

American Indian history and culture - either historically valid, or locally believed. In short, it should

include the names which people interested in American Indian traditions might look up in a book such as

NAPUS.
 Bright - p. 18

REFERENCES

Beauchamp, William M. 1907. Aboriginal place names of New York. Albany: New York State Museum.

Bright, William. 1984. Place names of American Indian origin. In his American Indian linguistics and

literature, 63-75. Berlin: Mouton.

——. 1993. Colorado place names. Boulder, CO: Johnson. [Revision of Eichler 1977.]

Donehoo, George P. 1928. A history of the Indian villages and place names in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg:

Telegraph Press.

Eichler, George. 1977. Colorado place names. Boulder, CO: Johnson. [Revised as Colorado place

names, by William Bright. Boulder: Johnson, 1993.]

Granger, Byrd H. 1983. Arizona’s names: X marks the place. Tucson: Falconer.

Gudde, Erwin G. 1969. California place names. 3rd edn. Berkeley: University of California Press. [4th

edn., revised by W. Bright. Berkeley: University of California Press, to appear, 1998.]

Harder, Kelsie. 1976. Illustrated dictionary of placenames: US and Canada. New York: Van Nostrand &

Reinhold.

Huden, John C. 1962. Indian place names of New England. New York: Museum of the American

Indian, Heye Foundation.

Hunn, Eugene S. 1990. Nch'i-wana, "the big river": Mid-Columbia Indians and their land.

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kenny, Hamill. 1961. The origin and meaning of the Indian place names of Maryland. Baltimore,

Waverly.

McArthur, Lewis A. 1992. Oregon geographic names. 6th edn., ed. by Lewis L. McArthur. Portland:

Oregon Historical Society Press.

Pukui, Mary K., et al. 1974. Place names of Hawaii. 2nd edn. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Read, William Alexander. 1927. Louisiana place-names of Indian origin. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State

University Press.
 Bright - p. 19

——. 1934. Florida place-names of Indian origin and Seminole personal names. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University Press.

——. 1937. Indian place-names in Alabama. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. [2nd edn.,

revised by J. M. Macmillan. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1984.]

Rydjord, John. 1968. Indian place-names: their origin, evolution, and meanings, collected in Kansas

from the Siouan, Algonquian, Shoshonean, Caddoan, Iroquoian, and other tongues. Norman,

University of Oklahoma Press.

Smith, Grant. 1996. Amerindian place names: A typology based on meaning and form. Onomastica

Canadiana 78:53-64.

Stewart, George R. 1970. American place-names. New York: Oxford.

Tooker, William W. 1911. The Indian place-names on Long Island and islands adjacent. New York:

Putnam.

Vogel, Virgil J. 1963. Indian place names in Illinois. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library.

——. 1983. Iowa place names of Indian origin. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

——. 1986. Indian names in Michigan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

——. 1991. Indian names on Wisconsin's map. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Waterman, T. T. 1920. Yurok geography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wilson, Alan. 1995. Navajo placenames. Guilford, CT: Audio-Forum.