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.

PRINCIPAL 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 principal 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 Palaiks).