﻿96 
  INDIAN 
  LINGUISTIC 
  FAMILIES. 
  

  

  Taensa, 
  Gatschet 
  in 
  The 
  Nation, 
  383, 
  May 
  4, 
  1882. 
  Gatschet 
  in 
  Am. 
  Antiq., 
  iv. 
  

   238, 
  1882. 
  Gatschet, 
  Creek 
  Mig. 
  Legend, 
  [,38,1884. 
  Gatschet 
  in 
  Science, 
  414, 
  

  

  April 
  29, 
  l*s7 
  (Taensas 
  only). 
  

  

  The 
  Na'htchi. 
  according 
  to 
  Gallatin, 
  a 
  residue 
  of 
  the 
  well-known 
  

   nation 
  of 
  thai 
  name, 
  came 
  from 
  tin' 
  hanks 
  of 
  the 
  Mississippi, 
  ami 
  

   joined 
  the 
  Creek 
  less 
  than 
  one 
  hundred 
  years 
  ago.' 
  The 
  seashore 
  

   from 
  Mobile 
  to 
  the 
  Mississippi 
  was 
  then 
  inhabited 
  by 
  several 
  small 
  

   tribes, 
  of 
  which 
  tin' 
  Na'htchi 
  was 
  the 
  principal. 
  

  

  Before 
  L730 
  the 
  tribe 
  lived 
  in 
  the 
  vicinity 
  of 
  Natchez, 
  Miss., 
  along 
  

   Si. 
  Catherine 
  Creek. 
  After 
  their 
  dispersion 
  by 
  the 
  French 
  in 
  1730 
  

   most 
  of 
  the 
  remainder 
  joined 
  the 
  Chicasa 
  and 
  afterwards 
  the 
  Upper 
  

   Creek. 
  They 
  are 
  now 
  in 
  Creek" 
  ami 
  ( 
  'herokee 
  Nations, 
  Indian 
  Ter- 
  

   ritory 
  . 
  

  

  The 
  linguistic 
  relations 
  of 
  the 
  language 
  spoken 
  by 
  the 
  Taensa 
  tribe 
  

   have 
  long' 
  been 
  in 
  doubt, 
  and 
  it 
  is 
  probable 
  that 
  they 
  will 
  ever 
  

   remain 
  so. 
  As 
  no 
  vocabulary 
  or 
  text 
  of 
  this 
  language 
  was 
  known 
  

   to 
  be 
  in 
  existence, 
  the 
  "Grammaire 
  et 
  vocabulaire 
  de 
  la 
  langue 
  

   Taensa. 
  avec 
  textes 
  traduits 
  et 
  commentes 
  par 
  J.-D. 
  Haumonte', 
  

   Pai'isot. 
  L. 
  Adam." 
  published 
  in 
  Paris 
  in 
  1882, 
  was 
  received 
  by 
  

   American 
  linguistic 
  students 
  with 
  peculiar 
  interest. 
  Upon 
  the 
  

   strength 
  of 
  the 
  linguistic 
  material 
  embodied 
  in 
  the 
  above 
  Mr. 
  Gat- 
  

   schet 
  (loc. 
  cit.) 
  was 
  led 
  to 
  affirm 
  the 
  complete 
  linguistic 
  isolation 
  of 
  

   the 
  language. 
  

  

  Grave 
  doubts 
  of 
  the 
  authenticity 
  of 
  the 
  grammar 
  and 
  vocabulary 
  

   have, 
  however, 
  more 
  recently 
  been 
  brought 
  forward." 
  Thetextcon- 
  

   tains 
  internal 
  evidences 
  of 
  the 
  fraudulent 
  character, 
  if 
  not 
  of 
  the 
  

   win 
  ile. 
  at 
  least 
  of 
  a 
  large 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  material. 
  So 
  palpable 
  and 
  gross 
  

   are 
  these 
  that 
  until 
  the 
  character 
  of 
  the 
  whole 
  can 
  better 
  be 
  under- 
  

   stood 
  by 
  the 
  inspection 
  of 
  the 
  original 
  manuscript, 
  alleged 
  to 
  be 
  in 
  

   Spanish, 
  by 
  a 
  competent 
  expert 
  it 
  will 
  be 
  far 
  safer 
  to 
  reject 
  both 
  the 
  

   vocabulary 
  and 
  grammar. 
  By 
  so 
  doing 
  we 
  are 
  left 
  without 
  any 
  

   linguistic 
  evidence 
  whatever 
  of 
  the 
  relations 
  of 
  the 
  Taensa 
  language. 
  

  

  DTberville, 
  it 
  is 
  true, 
  supplies 
  us 
  with 
  the 
  names 
  of 
  seven 
  Taensa 
  

   towns 
  which 
  were 
  given 
  by 
  a 
  Taensa 
  Indian 
  who 
  accompanied 
  him; 
  

   but 
  most 
  of 
  these, 
  according 
  to 
  Mr. 
  Gatschet. 
  were 
  given 
  in 
  the 
  Chicasa 
  

   trade 
  jargon 
  or, 
  as 
  termed 
  by 
  the 
  French, 
  the 
  "Mobilian 
  trade 
  jar- 
  

   gon," 
  which 
  is 
  at 
  least 
  a 
  very 
  natural 
  supposition. 
  Under 
  these 
  

   circumstances 
  we 
  can, 
  perhaps, 
  do 
  uo 
  better 
  than 
  rely 
  upon 
  the 
  

   statements 
  of 
  several 
  of 
  the 
  old 
  writers 
  who 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  unanimous 
  

   in 
  regarding 
  the 
  language 
  of 
  the 
  Taensa 
  as 
  of 
  Na'htchi 
  connection. 
  

   Du 
  Pratz's 
  statement 
  to 
  that 
  effect 
  is 
  weakened 
  from 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  

   the 
  statement 
  also 
  includes 
  the 
  Shetimasha, 
  the 
  language 
  of 
  which 
  

   is 
  known 
  from 
  a 
  vocabulary 
  to 
  be 
  totally 
  distinct 
  not 
  only 
  from 
  

   the 
  Na'htchi 
  but 
  from 
  any 
  other. 
  To 
  supplement 
  Du 
  Pratz's 
  testi- 
  

   mony, 
  such 
  as 
  it 
  is, 
  we 
  have 
  the 
  statements 
  of 
  M. 
  de 
  Montigny, 
  the 
  

  

  •Trans. 
  Am. 
  Antiq. 
  Soc., 
  1836, 
  vol. 
  2. 
  \>. 
  95. 
  

  

  2 
  D. 
  G. 
  Brinton 
  in 
  Am. 
  Antiquarian, 
  March, 
  1885, 
  pp. 
  to'.i-itl. 
  

  

  