SWANTON] INDIAN TRIBE? OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VAI.Li:V 9 



tion, live <,n"'»il)s may I)o, distin^niisluHl which, with the tiilx's Ix'long- 

 ing uiulor each, are as follows: 



(1) Natchez group, inchuling the Natchez, Taeiisa, and Avo^el. 



(2) ;>[iiskhogean group, including the Washa, Chawasha, Okelousa, 

 Quinipissa (or Mugulasha), Tangipahoa, Bayogoula, Acolapissa, 

 Chakchiunia, Ilounia, Taposa, Ibitoupa, Pascagoula, MobiU-, To- 

 home, Naniaba (or Gens des Fourches), Pensacola, Chatot, Tawasa, 

 and the allies of the two last. 



(3) Tunican group, including the Tunica, Koroa, Yazoo, Tioux, 

 and Grigra. 



(4) Chitimachan group, including only the Chitimacha. 



(5) Atakapan group, including the Atakapa, Akokisa, Opelousa, 

 and perhaps Bidai and a few other tribes of which we have little 

 more than the names. 



As stated above, the first and second of these are known to be 

 related, and it may be added that relationship probably exists be- 

 tween the fourth and fifth, with which the Tunican group also shows 

 certain points of resemblance, while they are perhaps responsible 

 for the non-Muskhogean element in Natchez. 



This classification is not final, and rests in part on circumstantial 

 evidence only; therefore it will be proper for the writer to give his 

 reason for placing each tribe in the group assigned to it. It should be 

 understood that the only ones among them from which we have 

 vocabularies approaching completeness are the Natchez, Tunica, 

 Chitinuicha, and Atakapa. In 1907 the writer collected about eighty 

 words from an old Ilouma w^oman, and a few words are to be found 

 in the writings of French authors and elsewhere. The language of the 

 remainder can be determined only by means of statements of early 

 travelers and scanty bits of circumstantial evidence. 



The relationship of Taensa to Natchez was affirmed by all French 

 writers who speak of their language, and no question would probably 

 have been raised regarding it had it not been singled out about thirty 

 years ago by an ambitious French youth as an occasion for putting 

 forth a fraudulent grammar and dictionary. The story of this fraud 

 and the controversy^ to which it gave rise is as follows: 



At the commencement of the year 1880 the publishing house of 

 Maisonneuve et Cie. received by mail a manuscript of six leaves en- 

 titled Fragments de Litterature Tansa, sent by M. J. Parisot, rue 

 Stanislas, 37, at Plombieres (Vosges). This manuscript was trans- 

 mitted with a request to utilize it for the Revue de Linguistique. It 

 was accordingly submitted to Prof. Julien Vinson, one of the editors 

 of that publication, who wrote M. Parisot for further particulars 

 regarding it and received a reply at some length in which the latter 

 explained how the manuscript had come into his possession. 



