BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY


rative with the official documents. Even the Margry version of P6ni-
caut, which is that ordinarily used by the writer, is utterly disor-
ganized as to its chronology and not above suspicion in other par-
ticulars, though at the same time it contains important information
not found elsewhere which is confirmed inferentially from other
sources or by circumstantial evidence. La Harpe's Historical Nar-
rative in the French edition of 1831 is, on the other hand. chronolog-
ically accurate. Its author evidently had access to many of the official
records, besides which he himself was often a party to the events
described, notably the exploration of Red river and the attempts to
establish a French post in Galveston bay. He makes mistakes occa-
sionally, but the substantial correctness of his work is beyond ques-
tion. Charlevoix's History of New France has been used to some
extent, especially his account of the last Natchez war, which has been
inserted verbatim, but his Journal contains more material of strictly
ethnological interest.
 Works regarding the customs and beliefs of individual Louisi-
 ana and Mississippi tribes are few and confined chiefly to the
 Natchez. About half of the quoted ethnological material used in
 this bulletin is from one writer, Le Page du Pratz, while the
 greater portion of the remainder is contained in Dumont's M6moires
 HIistoriques sur La Louisjane. As to accuracy, there is little to choose
 between these two, the latter being better, perhaps, on points connected
 with the material culture of the people, and the former on questions
 relating to their religion and social organization. Du Pratz, having
 a more speculative turn of mind, is occasionally led farther astray
 in accepting matters received on the authority of another person.
 but on the other hand this tendency placed him more closely in touch
 with the esoteric lore of his Natchez neighbors and preserved for us
 facts that would otherwise have been irrevocably lost. If we except
 one important letter from the missionary St. Cosme, our next best
 source of information regarding the Natchez is a description con-
 tained in Charlevoix's Journal and again in a letter from the Jesuit,
 Le Petit, to D'Avougour. Le Petit's account being later, it might be
 assumed that the description was taken from Charlevoix, but credit
 is given neither to him nor to any other writer, and we are left in
 doubt as to its true authorship. No one on reading the latter part of
 the two accounts can doubt, however, that they are from the same
 source, and apparently an authoritative one, though the first part
 of Le Petit's narrative, purporting to be a description of the Natchez
 temple, really applies to that of the Tainsa. A confusion between
 the Natchez and Tannsa, owing to similarities in their customs, arose
 at a very early date and reappears in the work of most of the
 later French writers. It thus happens that many accusations of false-
 hood made by one writer against another resolve themselves into sim-


[BULL.43