4 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bill. 43 



rative with the official documents. Even the Margry version of Peni- 

 caiit, which is that ordinarily used by the writer, is utterly disor- 

 ganized as to its chronology and not above suspicion in other par- 

 ticulars, though at the same time it contains important information 

 not found elsewhere which is confirmed inferentially from other 

 sources or by circumstantial evidence. La Harpe's Historical Nar- 

 rative in the French edition of 1831 is, on the other hand, chronolog- 

 ically accurate. Its author evidently had access to many of the official 

 records, besides which he himself was often a party to the events 

 described, notably the exploration of Red river and the attempts to 

 establish a French post in Galveston bay. He makes mistakes occa- 

 sionally, but the substantial correctness of his work is beyond ques- 

 tion. Charlevoix's History of New France has been used to some 

 extent, especially his account of the last Natchez war, which has been 

 inserted verbatim, but his Journal contains more material of strictly 

 ethnological interest. 



Works regarding the customs and beliefs of individual Louisi- 

 ana and Mississippi tribes are few and confined chiefly to the 

 Natchez. About half of the quoted ethnological material used in 

 this bulletin is from one writer, Le Page du Pratz, while the 

 greater portion of the remainder is contained in Dumont's Memoires 

 Historiques sur La Louisiane. As to accuracy, there is little to choose 

 between these two, the latter being better, perhaps, on points connected 

 Avith the material culture of the people, and the former on questions 

 relating to their religion and social organization. Du Pratz, having 

 a more speculative turn of mind, is occasionally led farther astray 

 in accepting matters received on the authority of another person, 

 but on the other hand this tendency placed him more closely in touch 

 with the esoteric lore of his Natchez neighbors and preserved for us 

 facts that would otherwise have been irrevocably lost. If we except 

 one important letter from the missionary St. Cosme, our next best 

 source of information regarding the Natchez is a description con- 

 tained in Charlevoix's Journal and again in a letter from the Jesuit, 

 Le Petit, to D'Avougour. Le Petit's account being later, it might be 

 assumed that the description was taken from Charlevoix, but credit 

 is given neither to him nor to any other Avriter, and we are left in 

 doubt as to its true authorship. No one on reading the latter part of 

 the tAvo accounts can doubt, however, that they are from the same 

 source, and apparently an authoritative one, though the first part 

 of Le Petit's narrative, purporting to be a description of the Natchez 

 temple, really applies to that of the Taensa. A confusion between 

 the Natchez and Taensa, owing to similarities in their customs, arose 

 at a very early date and reappears in the work of most of the 

 later French writers. It thus happens that many accusations of false- 

 hood made by one writer against another resolve themselves into sim- 



