bwamton] EARLY HISTORY OF THE CREEK INDIANS 41 
eluded if the statement of the Indians quoted by Elvas is to be 
relied upon. The second expedition was a mere recoimoissance and 
the explorers do not seem to have stopped long in any one place. 
The most natural conclusion is that Cofitachequi was not far from 
the point where Ayllon had made his final and disastrous attempt 
at colonization, and, as \ have said, Cofitachequi is not usually 
placed by modern students eastward of the Savannah. Secondly, 
the name (iualdape, containing as it docs the phonetic I, would 
seem not to have been in Siouan territory, but instead suggests a 
name or set of names very common in Spanish accounts of the 
Georgia coast. Thus Jekvl Island was known as Gualdaquini, and 
St. Catherines Island was called Guale, a name adopted by the 
Spaniards to designate the entire province. True, Oviedo seems 
to place Gualdape in N. lat. 33° or even higher, 1 but this was 
evidently an inference from the latitude given for the first landfall 
at the River .Jordan and his supposition that the coast ran east and 
west. All things considered, it would seem most likely that the at- 
tempted settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape was at or near the 
mouth of Savannah River. 
To sum up, then, if my identification of these places is absolutely, 
or only approximately, correct the River of St. John the Baptist and 
the River Jordan would be near the mouths of the Pedee and Santee, 
and any ethnological information reported by the Spaniards from 
this neighborhood would concern principally the eastern Siouan 
tribes, while Gualdape would be near the mouth of the Savannah, 
and any ethnological information from that neighborhood would 
apply either to the Guale Indians or to the Cusabo. 
Regarding the Indians of Chicora and Duhare a very interesting 
and important account is preserved by Peter Martyr, who obtained 
a large part of it directly from Francisco of Chicora himself and the 
rest from Ayllon and his companions. This account has received 
less credence than it deserves because the original has seldom been 
consulted, but instead Gomara's narrative, an abridged and to some 
extent distorted copy of that of Peter Martyr, and still worse repro- 
ductions by later writers. 2 Thus in the French translation of Gomara 
we read that the priests of Chicora abstained from eating human 
flesh (" lis ne mangent point de la chair humaine comme les autres"), 3 
while the original simply says 'they do not eat flesh (no comen 
came)." 4 The translation also informs us that the Chicoranos 
made cheese from the milk of their women ("lis font du fromage 
du laict de leurs femnics"), while the original states that they made 
1 < >viedo, Hist. Gen., in, p. 628. » Hist. Gen.. Paris, 1606, p. 53. 
a Gomara, Hist, de las Indias, chap, xliii, pp. 32-33. 4 Gomara, op.cit., p. 32. 
