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,

Colapissas, 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 seashore from Mobile to

the Mississippi was then inhabited by several small tribes, of which the

Na’htchi was the principal.

[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

commentés par J.-D. Haumonté, 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 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.

[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 circumstances 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.

Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1891 · 第 114 / 361 题