- Timuquana, Smith in Hist. Magazine, II, 1, 1858 (a notice of
the language with vocabulary; distinctness of the language
affirmed). Brinton. Floridian Peninsula, 134, 1859 (spelled also
Timuaca, Timagoa, Timuqua).
- Timucua, Gatschet in Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., XVI, April 6,
1877 (from Cape Cañaveral to mouth of St. John’s River).
Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend I, 11-13, 1884. Gatschet in Science,
413, April 29, 1887.
- Atimuca, Gatschet in Science, ibid, (proper name).
Derivation: From ati-muca, “ruler,” “master;” literally,
“servants attend upon him.”
In the Historical Magazine as above cited appears a notice of the
Timuquana language by Buckingham Smith, in which is affirmed its
distinctness upon the evidence of language. A short vocabulary is
appended, which was collated from the “Confessionario” by Padre
Pareja, 1613. Brinton and Gatschet have studied the Timuquana
language and have agreed as to the distinctness of the family from
any other of the United States. Both the latter authorities are
inclined to take the view that it has affinities with the Carib
family to the southward, and it seems by no means improbable that
ultimately the Timuquana language will be considered an offshoot of
the Carib linguistic stock. At the present time, however, such a
conclusion would not be justified by the evidence gathered and
It is impossible to assign definite limits to the area occupied by
the tribes of this family. From documentary testimony of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the limits of the family domain
appear to have been about as follows: In general terms the present
northern limits of the State of Florida may be taken as the northern
frontier, although upon the Atlantic side Timuquanan territory may
have extended into Georgia. Upon the northwest the boundary line was
formed in De Soto’s time by the Ocilla River. Lake Okeechobee on the
south, or as it was then called Lake Sarrape or Mayaimi, may be
taken as the boundary between the Timuquanan tribes proper and the
Calusa province upon the Gulf coast and the Tegesta province upon
the Atlantic side. Nothing whatever of the languages 124 spoken in
these two latter provinces is available for comparison. A number of
the local names of these provinces given by Fontanedo (1559) have
terminations similar to many of the Timuquanan local names. This
slender evidence is all that we have from which to infer the
Timuquanan relationship of the southern end of the peninsula.
The following settlements appear upon the oldest map of the regions
we possess, that of De Bry (Narratio; Frankf. a.M. 15, 1590):
(A) Shores of St. John’s River, from mouth to sources:
Homolua or Molua.
(B) On a (fictitious) western tributary of St. John’s River, from
mouth to source:
(C) East Floridian coast, from south to north:
(D) On coast north of St. John’s River:
(E) The following are gathered from all other authorities, mostly
from the accounts of De Soto’s expedition:
Basisa or Vacissa (1688).
Itafi (perhaps a province).
Itara Machaua (1688).
San Juan de Guacara (1688).
|San Mateo (1688).
Santa Lucia de Acuera (SE. coast).
Tucururu (SE. coast) Ucita.
Yupaha (perhaps a province).
Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico, 1891