The more important of existing tribes and organized bands into which the nation is now divided are given below, being the dislocated remains of the “Seven Great Council Fires,” not only famed in tradition, but known to early white pioneers:
Yankton and Yanktonai or Ihañkto^nwa^n, both derived from a root meaning “at the end,” alluding to the former locality of their villages.
Itaziptco, Without Bow. The French translation, Sans Arc, is, however, more commonly used.
Minneconjou, translated Those who plant by the water, the physical features of their old home.
Santee, subdivided into Wahpeton, Men among Leaves, _i. e._, forests, and Sisseton, Men of Prairie Marsh. Two other bands, now practically extinct, formerly belonged to the Santee, or, as it is more correctly spelled, Isanti tribe, from the root _Issan_, knife. Their former territory furnished the material for stone knives, from the manufacture of which they were called the “knife people.”
Ogallalla, Ogalala, or Oglala. The meaning and derivation of this name, as well as the one next mentioned (Uncpapa), have been the subjects of much controversy.
Uncpapa, Unkpapa, or Hunkpapa, the most warlike and probably the most powerful of all the bands, though not the largest.
Hale, Gallatin, and Riggs designate a “Titon tribe” as located west of the Missouri, and as much the largest division of the Dakotas, the latter authority subdividing into the Sichangu, Itazipcho, Sihasapa, Minneconjou, Oheno^npa, Ogallalla, and Huncpapa, seven of the tribes specified above, which he calls bands. The fact probably is that “Titon” (from the word _ti^ntan_, meaning, “at or on land without trees, or prairie”) was the name of a tribe, but it is now only an expression for all those tribes whose ranges are on the prairie, and that it has become a territorial and accidental, not a tribular distinction. One of the Dakotas at Fort Rice spoke to the writer of the “hostiles” as “Titons,” with obviously the same idea of locality, “away on the prairie;” it being well known that they were a conglomeration from several tribes.
It is proper here to remark that throughout the charts the totem of the clan of the person indicated is not generally given, though it is often used in other kinds of records, but instead, a pictorial representation of his name, which their selection of proper names rendered practicable. The clans are divisions relating to consanguinity, and neither coincide with the political tribal organizations nor are limited by them. The number of the clans, or distinctive totemic groups, of the Dakota is less than that of their organized bands, if not of their tribes, and considerably less than that of the totems appearing on the charts. Although it has been contended that the clan-totem alone was used by Indians, there are many other specimens of picture-writings among the Dakota where the name-totem appears, notably the set of fifty-five drawings in the library of the Army Medical Museum narrating the deeds of Sitting-Bull. A pictured message lately sent by a Dakota at Fort Rice to another at a distant agency, and making the same use of name-signs, came to the writer’s notice. Captain Carver, who spent a considerable time with these Indians (called by him Nadowessies) in 1766-’77, explains that “besides the name of the animal by which every nation or tribe [clan] is denominated, there are others that are personal, which the children receive from their mother. * * * The chiefs are distinguished by a name that has either some reference to their abilities or to the hieroglyphic of their families, and these are acquired after they have arrived at the age of manhood. Such as have signalized themselves either in their war or hunting parties, or are possessed of some eminent qualification, receive a name that serves to perpetuate the fame of their actions or to make their abilities conspicuous.” The common use of these name-signs appears in their being affixed to old treaties, and also to some petitions in the office of Indian Affairs. Their similarity in character, use, and actual design, either with or without clan designation, affords an instructive comparison with the origin of heraldry and of modern surnames. Further remarks about the name system of Indians appear on page 169.