April 29, 1887. J 



8CIE1SCJS, 



405 



lished in this number. The relations of the tribes 

 are explained by the author in the notes accom- 

 panying the maps (p. 418). We wish to draw atten- 

 tion to the importance of ethnological researches 

 of this kind. 



Students of American ethnology feel hampered 

 everywhere by the lack of reliable observations and 

 the want of linguistic material. We fully agree 

 with the author, who emphasizes, in the preface 

 of his book, the fact that the method of furthering 

 ethnographic study by all the means which the 

 study of language can afford, has been too little 

 appreciated up to the present time. The careful 

 observer, inquiring into the psychology and eth- 

 nological character of a nation, will feel compelled 

 to learn its language as the only means of under- 

 standing the way of thinking of the people he 

 studies. But, besides this, the comparison of lan- 

 guages is one of the most powerful helps for study- 

 ing the prehistoric history of mankind. The ma- 

 terial available for a study of the Indians is in 

 part very scanty, and much of it is irredeemably 

 lost, the languages and tribes being extinct. Much, 

 however, might still be saved, if public interest 

 would encourage and support researches in this 

 field. The philosopher cannot but regret the in- 

 difference of the public towards these studies, 

 which are the principal foundation of a psychology 

 of mankind. The scientific institutions which take 

 an active interest in this matter are not many, and 

 do not command over-large funds. The bureau of 

 ethnology, which has done and now does rnost of 

 this work in the field, is hampered by lack of 

 means. Academies and societies are generally 

 more interested in archeology than in ethnology. 

 We wish it might be better understood that the 

 only way to understand the relics of a dead cul- 

 ture is the study of the living one ; but we fear 

 the interest in the Indians will not be aroused un- 

 til they all are buried. Then their irrecoverably 

 lost legends and customs, character and ideas, will 

 seem to grow in value, and much work and money 

 will be wasted in researches that might now be 

 successfully done at a small expense. 



It is not too late, however. Much may still be 

 done by intelligent and careful collectors and ob- 

 servers, and we hope that the growing interest in 

 science will also extend to ethnological researches. 

 Astronomers, geologists, students of natural his- 

 tory, are receiving ample support from their rich 

 fellow-citizens. Ethnology may gain friends too, 

 which will enable students to carry on their re- 

 searches and to collect material before it will be 

 too late. 



Gatschet's first map is an attempt to locate the 

 settlements pertaining to the Indians of each of 

 the linguistic families of the Gulf states as far as 



traceable in the eighteenth century. For this 

 period of the history of the Gulf states, our re- 

 marks are particularly true, and our knowledge of 

 many tribes is merely derived from occasional re- 

 marks of early writers. Enormous materials of 

 this kind are embodied in the map which shows 

 where the tribes were located. The author pre- 

 fers to mark the territory inhabited by each tribe 

 by dots, as answering better the purpose than the 

 coloring of large areas, which conveys the impres- 

 sion that the population was scattered all over a 

 certain country. He says (p. 49), "This will do 

 very well for densely populated countries or for 

 tracts inhabited by roving, erratic Indians, whom 

 we meet only on the west side of the Mississippi 

 River. The Gulf state Indians were not longer in 

 the condition of pure hunting tribes ; they had 

 settled in stationary villages, and derived the 

 main part of their sustenance from agriculture 

 and fishing." As far as the map is intended to 

 show the exact state of our knowledge, this opin- 

 ion is correct. The question, however, is not so 

 easily settled. The migrations of tribes, the shift- 

 ing of villages, hunting excursions, and many other 

 facts and habits, tend to make the territory of a 

 tribe indefinite ; while, on the other hand, lands, 

 though not inhabited, are claimed by a tribe as 

 their possession. These are some important points 

 in favor of coloring large areas. 



It will be seen on the map that the Maskoki oc- 

 cupied a central position. The large extent of 

 their territory, their numbers, and their character, 

 made them one of the most important groups in 

 Indian history. In former times the tribes prob- 

 ably extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, 

 and beyond that river, and from the Appalachian 

 range to the Gulf of Mexico. They kept up a 

 warfare with all their neighbors and among them- 

 selves ; their main branches, the Creek and the 

 Cha'hta Indians, constantly being at war. The 

 dialects of the linguistic stock greatly differ from 

 each other, the Cha'hta, for instance, being unin- 

 telligible to the Creek. Gatschet divides them in 

 four groups, — the" Creek, Apalachian (Hitchiti), 

 Alibamu, and Cha'hta. The Creek Indians oc- 

 cupied in historical times a central position among 

 the other Maskoki tribes, and, by forming a strong 

 and permanent national union, had become the 

 most powerful of all the southern tribes. 



Their traditions say that they came from the 

 west, and immigrated into their territory in the 

 eastern Gulf states after crossing the lower Missis- 

 sippi. According to their migration legends, the 

 Kasi'hta and Kawita tribes were the first to reach 

 the Chatahutchi River, where they found the Kusa 

 and the Apalatchukla settled. The situation of 

 these places will be found on the map. All other 



