ench 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 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 visi