BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY


[BULL. 43


allied with the Chickasaw, and we know from Du Pratz that their
language was unlike that of the Koroa and Yazoo of the lower Yazoo.a
It is a fair inference, therefore, that it was Muskhogean, though the
statement can not be made absolute. For the Ibitoupa a short dis-
tance lower on Yazoo river we have still less evidence, but the name
is readily translatable into Choctaw, and its position points to Choc-
taw, or rather to Chickasaw, affinities. La Harpe, in 1722, reported a
tribe called Choula (" Fox in Choctaw) living 25 or 30 leagues
above the Yazoo and their allies.b This would place them close to
the territory formerly occupied by the tribe just considered, which
at the time of La Harpe's visit had moved higher up, above the
Chakehiuma, and this fact, combined with their subsequent disappear-
ance from history, suggests that the Choula may have been a band
of Ibitoupa, who remained a while in the ancient territory of the
tribe after the main body had moved away. Or it is possible that
they were a branch of the neighboring Chakchiuma, since Fox appears
among the names of chiefs in that tribe. At any rate, there is no
good evidence that there was ever a permanent, well-recognized tribe
called Choula. For the Tangipahoa our information is almost equally
scanty, but the name itself is plainly Choctaw, and Iberville was told at
the Bayogoula town that the village of the Tangibaos ... [formerly]
made one of the seven [villages] of the Quinipissas," who at that time
did not number more than six.c By Quinipissas Iberville means
in this place Acolapissa, since at the time he supposed the two to be
identical. It is therefore natural to suppose that the language of the
Tangipahoa agreed closely with that of the Acolapissa. The Washa,
Chawasha, and Okelousa are spoken of as allied and wandering
people of the seacoast." d Baudry de LoziBres appears to class then,
temperamentally with the Chitimacha and Atakapa in contradistinc-
tion to the more industrious and warlike Houma and Acolapissa, and
therefore the writer was at first inclined to regard them as related to
one of the first-mentioned tribes, supposing that the Okelousa must
be identical with the Opelousa of later writers. Okelousa and Ope-
lousa (or Abalusa), however, have well-recognized but distinct mean-
ings in Choctaw, and it hardly appears likely that a mistake has been
made, especially since Du Pratz refers to the Okelousa later and gives
an explanation of their name,c while we have independent references
to Opelousa from about the same period. Again, almost the first
notice we have of the Washa is in company with the Bayogoula, and
after the French had established themselves upon the Mississippi the
Chawasha and Washa remained on good terms with them. When the
 a Du Pratz, Irist. de La Louisiane, II, 226.
 La IIarpe, Jour. Hist., 311, 1831.
 Mc argry, D6couvertes, Iv, 168.
 SLa Harpe, Jour. Hist., 18.
 SDu Pratz, Hist. de La Loutsiane, II, 241.