24 ■ BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 43 



been borrowed from any of those tongnes. That it does contain certain 

 features found only in the neighboring but subsequently discovered 

 Tunica, combined with a few lexical similarities with that language, 

 is tlie strongest argument in its favor, but on looking closer these 

 resemblances are found to be ver}' superficial. Finally, the direct 

 statements of several early French writers must be cited, including 

 two missionaries personally acquainted with both tribes, that the 

 Taensa language was identical with that of the Natchez, which we 

 know to have been quite different from the one brought out by 

 Parisot. It may be safely set doAvn, therefore, that if the language in 

 the work under discussion was ever a living speech it was not that of 

 the Taensa, and since, in consequence, the texts, containing as they do 

 references to this tribe, must have been the work of white men, 

 we may conclude with probability that the whole of the material had 

 the same origin and is entirely fraudulent. 



The only direct statement bearing on the relationship of the 

 Avoyel is given by Penicaut, an authority none too accurate, but in 

 this particular borne out by a considerable mass of circumstantial 

 evidence, all of which points in the same direction. He saj^s: 



Tlieir cabins are made like those of the Natchez and covered in the same 

 manner. They have a similar manner of life, having remained a very long 

 time with them, until they were constrained to leave on account of the wars 

 which they have had with each other, which obliged them to seek refuge in 

 this place. '^ 



It will be observed that this does not necessarily assume an organic 

 connection between the tw^o tribes under discussion, but it does not 

 entirely preclude that supposition and, if any credence whatever is 

 to be given to it, it certainly establishes a former proximity. The 

 circumstantial evidence is furnished by their own name and the 

 names applied to them b}^ neighboring tribes and recorded by various 

 Avriters. In the Margry edition of Penicaut, from which the above 

 paragraph is taken, they are called " Toux Enongogoula," but in that 

 translated and published hj French " Tassenogoula," ^ which is evi- 

 dently the name which appears in the journal of Iberville's first 

 vo3^age as " Tassenocogoula " and is applied to Red river.'' Penicaut 

 translates it ' People of the Rocks,' '' but it is evident that it should 

 rather be ' Flint people,' ' flint ' in Choctaw being tasqnnnk, accord- 

 ing to Byington, Avhile ' rock ' is tali. From this it would also ap- 

 pear that Iberville's form of the tribal name is the best. It is fur- 

 thermore significant that this interpretation agrees closely with the 

 Tunica name for the same tribe, ShV xkal-tini^ ' Flint- farrow] -point- 

 people.' La Harpe (1718) refers to them as the " Tamoucougoula, 



" Margry, D^couvertes, v, 497. 

 * French, Hist. Coll. La., 116, 1869. 

 ••Margry, Ddcouvertes, iv, 178-179, 1880. 

 "Ibid., v, 497. 



