12 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 137 



rather than coastal, though they depended considerably on the fish 

 found in their lakes; the Chitimacha, a nation of canoe men, but 

 perhaps rather more lacustrine than coastal; and the Calusa of 

 Florida, who lived almost entirely by fishing and the pursuit of 

 marine animals. After these come a great number of small scat- 

 tered tribes constituting, we may say, the fringes of the rest. The 

 only exception to this is probably the Tunica and their allies whose 

 cultural position with reference to their neighbors it is difficult to 

 determine with precision. It is worth noting that the very smallest 

 tribes seem to include a great number of eastern Siouans. 



Speaking generally, we find that the horticultural tribes of the 

 interior were the largest, but that coastal populations were dense 

 in four places: (1) In the Sound country of Virginia and North 

 Carolina; (2) in the similarly flooded coastland between the pres- 

 ent Charleston, S. C, and the St. Johns River, including the course 

 of the latter stream; (3) southwest Florida from Tampa Bay to 

 the Keys; and (4) Grand Lake and its surrounding bayous just 

 west of the Mississippi. The second and third were occupied by 

 two peoples of diverse origin. When we come to southwestern 

 Louisiana and Texas, we find a coastal po^Dulation set distinctly off 

 from the interior tribes, but in both cases they were of low culture. 

 Rated by stocks we have the following approximate figures: 



stock No. 



Muskhogean (including Natchez and Taensa) 66,600 



Iroquoian 30,200 



Siouan 24,000 



Algonquian 16,500 



Timucua (probably related to Muskhogean) 13,000 



Caddo 8, 500 



Tunican (Tunica group 2,000; Chitimacha group 4,000) 6,000 



South Florida tribes (perhaps Muskhogean) 4,000 



Uchean 3,100 



Dividing the population between the coast and the interior, we get 

 the following result, a proportion of about 41/^ to 1 : 



Population 



Interior 141,500 



Coast 30,400 



These data are based on Mooney's figures. My own suggested modi- 

 fications appear on map 3, but practically the same proportion would 

 be maintained whichever set we employ. If we compare the distri- 

 bution of population in 1650-85 with that revealed to us by the chron- 

 iclers of De Soto a hundred years earlier, we find comparatively little 

 change, so far as they can enlighten us on the subject, except in the 

 region around Augusta, Ga., in the southern Appalachians, and west of 

 the Mississippi River. In earlier as well as later times, Florida was 

 well populated and we are reasonably certain that this was true 



