Alibamu.
Apalachi.
Chicasa.
Choctaw.
Creek or Maskoki proper.
Koasati.
Seminole.
Yamacraw.
Yamasi.
_Population._--There is an Alibamu town on Deep Creek, Indian Territory, an affluent of the Canadian, Indian Territory. Most of the inhabitants are of this tribe. There are Alibamu about 20 miles south of Alexandria, Louisiana, and over one hundred in Polk County, Texas.
So far as known only three women of the Apalachi survived in 1886, and they lived at the Alibamu town above referred to. The United States Census bulletin for 1890 gives the total number of pureblood Choctaw at 9,996, these being princ.i.p.ally at Union Agency, Indian Territory. Of the Chicasa there are 3,464 at the same agency; Creek 9,291; Seminole 2,539; of the latter there are still about 200 left in southern Florida.
There are four families of Koasati, about twenty-five individuals, near the town of Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas. Of the Yamasi none are known to survive.
NATCHESAN FAMILY.
> Natches, Gallatin in Trans. and Coll. Am. Antiq. Soc., II, 95, 806, 1836 (Natches only). Prichard, Phys. Hist. Mankind, V, 402, 403, 1847.
> Natsches, Berghaus (1845), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1848. Ibid., 1852.
> Natchez, Bancroft, Hist. U.S., 248, 1840. Gallatin in Trans. Am.
Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, xcix, 77, 1848 (Natchez only). Latham, Nat.
Hist. Man, 340, 1850 (tends to include Taensas, Pascagoulas, Colap.i.s.sas, Biluxi in same family). Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind.
Tribes, III, 401, 1853 (Natchez only). Keane, App. Stanford"s Comp.
(Cent, and So. Am.), 460, 473, 1878 (suggests that it may include the Utchees).
> Naktche, Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 34, 1884. Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887.
> Taensa, Gatschet in The Nation, 383, May 4, 1882. Gatschet in Am.
Antiq., IV, 238, 1882. Gatschet, Creek Mig. Legend, I, 33, 1884.
Gatschet in Science, 414, April 29, 1887 (Taensas only).
The Na"htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years ago.[71] The seash.o.r.e from Mobile to the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na"htchi was the princ.i.p.al.
[Footnote 71: Trans. Am. Antiq. Soc., 1836, vol. 2, p. 95.]
Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of Natchez, Miss., along St.
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 and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory.
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, Parisot, 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. Gatschet (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.[72] The text contains internal evidences of the fraudulent character, if not of the whole, 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 understood by the inspection of the original ma.n.u.script, 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.
[Footnote 72: D. G. Brinton in Am. Antiquarian, March, 1885, pp. 109-114.]
D"Iberville, 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 jargon," which is at least a very natural supposition. Under these circ.u.mstances we can, perhaps, do no 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 testimony, such as it is, we have the statements of M. de Montigny, the missionary who affirmed the affinity of the Taensa language to that of the Na"htchi, before he had visited the latter in 1699, and of Father Gravier, who also visited them. For the present, therefore, the Taensa language is considered to be a branch of the Na"htchi.
The Taensa formerly dwelt upon the Mississippi, above and close to the Na"htchi. Early in the history of the French settlements a portion of the Taensa, pressed upon by the Chicasa, fled and were settled by the French upon Mobile Bay.
PRINc.i.p.aL TRIBES.
Na"htchi.
Taensa.
_Population._--There still are four Na"htchi among the Creek in Indian Territory and a number in the Cheroki Hills near the Missouri border.
PALAIHNIHAN FAMILY.
= Palaihnih, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 218, 569, 1846 (used in family sense).
= Palaik, Hale in U.S. Expl. Expd., VI, 199, 218, 569, 1846 (southeast of Lutuami in Oregon), Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, 18, 77, 1848. Latham, Nat. Hist. Man., 325, 1850 (southeast of Lutuami). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852. Latham in Proc. Philolog. Soc. Lond., VI, 82, 1854 (cites Hale"s vocab). Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 74, 1856 (has Shoshoni affinities).
Latham, Opuscula, 310, 341, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 407, 1862.
= Palainih, Gallatin in Trans. Am. Eth. Soc., II, pt. 1, c, 1848.
(after Hale). Berghaus (1851), Physik. Atlas, map 17, 1852.
= Pulairih, Gallatin in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 402, 1853 (obvious typographical error; quotes Hale"s Palaiks).
= Pit River, Powers in Overland Monthly, 412, May, 1874 (three princ.i.p.al tribes: Achomawes, Hamefcuttelies, Astakaywas or Astakywich). Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 164, 1877 (gives habitat; quotes Hale for tribes). Gatschet in Beach, Ind. Misc., 439, 1877.
= A-cho-ma"-wi, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 601, 1877 (vocabs. of A-cho-ma"-wi and Lutuami). Powers in ibid., 267 (general account of tribes; A-cho-ma"-wi, Hu-ma"-whi, Es-ta-ke"-wach, Han-te"-wa, Chu-ma"-wa, A-tu-a"-mih, Il-ma"-wi).
< klamath,="" keane,="" app.="" stanford"s="" comp.="" (cent.="" and="" so.="" am.),="" 460,="" 475,="" 1878="" (includes="">
< shasta,="" bancroft,="" nat.="" races,="" iii,="" 565,="" 1882="" (contains="" palaik="" of="" present="">
Derivation: From the Klamath word _p"laikni_, signifying "mountaineers"
or "uplanders" (Gatschet).
In two places[73] Hale uses the terms Palaihnih and Palaiks interchangeably, but inasmuch as on page 569, in his formal table of linguistic families and languages, he calls the family Palaihnih, this is given preference over the shorter form of the name.
[Footnote 73: U.S. Expl. Expd., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 199, 218.]
Though here cla.s.sed as a distinct family, the status of the Pit River dialects can not be considered to be finally settled. Powers speaks of the language as "hopelessly consonantal, harsh, and sesquipedalian,"