240 BURElAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 137 



ly from the other Muskhogean tongues and apparently containing 

 Tunica elements, has already been mentioned. Tunica was spoken 

 by a tribe of some size which at one time lived as far north as the 

 present county in Mississippi which bears the name, but was found 

 by La Salle on the lower course of Yazoo River, and subsequently 

 moved to the mouth of the Red, near which they have continued to 

 reside until the present time. A few smaller tribes, including the 

 Yazoo, Koroa, Tiou, and Grigra, probably spoke closely related 

 dialects and this is distinctly stated of the Tiou. In southern 

 Louisiana near the coast, and including the mouth of the Miss- 

 issippi, was another group of tongues embracing the Chitimacha, 

 Washa, and Chawasha Indians. Northwest and west of them was 

 still a third, the Atakapa, containing at least two dialects. The 

 Opelousa Indians, who gave their name to the present Opelousas, 

 the Indians of Vermilion Bayou, the Mermentou, Calcasieu, and 

 lower Sabine and Neches, the Arkokisa of Trinity Bay, and the 

 Bidai of Trinity River all belonged to it, as also probably the 

 Deadose and Patiri west of that river. These last three groups were 

 placed by Powell in the Tonikan, Chitimachan, and Attacapan stocks, 

 but the present writer believes he has demonstrated that they were 

 related (S wanton, 1919). In other words, a band of tribes con- 

 nected linguistically formerly extended along the Gulf coast of 

 Texas and Louisiana from Trinity River to the mouth of the Miss- 

 issippi and along the west side of the latter stream to the Yazoo, 

 and at an earlier period, as seems evident from certain narratives, 

 as far as the mouth of the Arkansas. This relationship may, also, 

 have extended to the Tonkawan, Karankawan, or Coahuiltecan peo- 

 ples, perhaps to all of them, but it has yet to be demonstrated. In 

 any case, there was great linguistic diversity in the region and this 

 is somewhat puzzling, since there are no natural boundaries to keep 

 tribes apart and allow of independent development, nothing offering 

 a greater obstacle than a bayou or a swamp. Swamps might, of 

 course, have been significant barriers if they had been placed so as 

 to separate favorable areas from one another, but that can hardly 

 be said for the Mississippi marshes, nor do the boundaries between 

 stocks and linguistic groups follow the natural frontiers. There is 

 evidence that the groups known to us once had a much wider 

 extension, but this does not help us very much. The linguistic 

 diversity along the lower Mississippi is, indeed, an interesting prob- 

 lem in Southeastern ethnology. It remains to be seen whether 

 archeology can be of assistance in unraveling it. Of the stocks prop- 

 erly belonging to the Southeast, therefore, one lay east of the 

 Mississippi, except for a few minor tribes, and extended to Savan- 

 nah River and the Atlantic Ocean, including probably all of Flor- 



