6 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 43 



have recognized what temple was being described. Possibly this 

 confusion was due to the fact that the Taensa temple was destroyed 

 in ITOO and later writers assumed that the descriptions given of 

 it must apply to the well-known temple of the Natchez. At any 

 rate, this seems to be the only way to account for Le Petit's blunder 

 already alluded to. Both Le Petit and Charlevoix describe the 

 catastrophe which befell the Taensa temple as having happened 

 to that of the Natchez, and in 1702, two years later than the correct 

 date. Confusion between the two tribes must have been encouraged 

 by the manner in which the letters and reports of the first explorers 

 were mangled either during their transmission or by court scribes. 

 Thus, in the Account of the Taking Possession of Louisiana, by 

 M. de la Salle," the narrative jumps from the Taensa to the Koroa, 

 and though the latter are said to be two leagues distant from the vil- 

 lage of the Natchez one is led to suppose, as does Gatschet, that they 

 were above the latter people, when as a matter of fact they were 

 below. The Koroa chief is plainly made to come to La Salle at the 

 Taensa town, when he actually came to the Natchez town. In fact 

 La Salle's visit to the latter people is entirely omitted. Li Tonti's 

 Memoir,'' where, if anywhere, we ought to expect accuracy. La Salle's 

 stay among the Natchez is dealt with at length, but his visit to the 

 Koroa is utterly ignored. Stranger still, the events which on their 

 return trip happened to the exj)lorers among the Koroa are placed 

 in the Natchez town, the Koroa being entirely expurgated from their 

 narrative. Another palpable error « is the statement that the Taensa 

 (spelled Taenca) were "six leagues distant" from the Arkansas. 

 The original was probablj^ " sixty." 



Next to Du Pratz, Dumont, and the Charlevoix-Le Petit manu- 

 script, our largest source of information regarding the Natchez is 

 the Historical Narrative of Penicaut as contained in Margry. As has 

 just been remarked, this writer is a sad failure as a chronologist, but 

 there is reason to think that the date he gives for his Natchez visit 

 (1704) is approximately correct. A short but interesting account of 

 the peojDle, containing the earliest long description of their temple, is 

 that in the Journal of the Voyage of Father Gravier made in the year 

 1700, and many valuable data may be gathered from the rare and 

 little known memoir of Luscemberg. The rest of the material used in 

 this paper consists of short excerpts from the journals and letters of 

 La Salle, Tonti, Tlierville, and others. 



A^Hiile published sources of information dealing with other tribes 

 in tlie area under consideration are fewer, the Payogoula, Acolapissa, 

 Houma, and Tunica were described at considerable length by Peni- 



" French, Hist. Coll. La., 45-50, 1846. 

 "Ujid., 52-78. 

 <' Ibid., Gl. 



