lived in the vicinity of the English colony at Charleston, South Carolina. Their predatory habits made them particularly troublesome in 1669-1671 and in 1674, when they had to be repulsed by an army of volunteers. The Stonos must have lived north of the colony, or on the upper course of some river, for, in 1674, they are described as "coming down" (Hewat, Histor. Account of S. C. and Ga., London 1779; I, 51. 77). Stono Inlet is the name of a cove near Charleston. Both tribes also met with disastrous reverses at the hands of the Savannah Indians, probably the Yámassi (Archdale). They are both mentioned as having belonged to the Kataba confederacy, but this does not by any means prove that they spoke Kataba or a dialect of it. As to the name, the Westo Indians may be identified with the Oustacs of Lederer (who are reported as being at war with the Usherees), and with the Hostaqua of René de Laudonnière, who mentions them as forming a confederacy under a paracusi in the northern parts of the "Floridian" territory. Possibly the Creek word ō′sta four, in the sense of "four allied tribes," has given origin to this tribal name (ostáka in Alibamu).
The affinity of the extinct Congaree Indians, on Congaree river, is doubtful also; Lawson relates that they did not understand the speech of the Waterees and Chicarees. Cf. Kataba. Owing to the inactivity of the local historians, our ethnographic information on the North and South Carolina Indians is extremely meagre and unsatisfactory.
REMARKS TO THE LINGUISTIC MAP.
The linguistic map added to this volume is an attempt to locate, in a general way, the settlements pertaining to the Indians of each of the linguistic stocks of the Gulf States, as far as traceable in the eighteenth century. Some of them, as the Timucua and Yámassi settlements, are taken from dates somewhat earlier, while the location of the Atákapa tribe is known to us only from the first decennium of the nineteenth century. The marking of the linguistic areas by dots, pointing to the tribal settlements, answers much better the purpose than the coloring of large areas, which conveys the erroneous impression that the population was scattered all over a certain country. This will do very well for densely populated countries, or for tracts inhabited by roving, erratic Indians, whom we meet only on the west side of the Mississippi river. The Gulf States' Indians were no longer in the condition of pure hunting tribes; they had settled in stationary villages, and derived the main part of their sustenance from agriculture and fishing.
The location of the Chicasa, Cheroki, Seminole and Caddo (Pani) tribes were not indicated with that completeness which the subject requires. The northwest corner of the map shows the tracts occupied at present in the Indian Territory by tribes of Maskoki lineage.
II. THE MASKOKI FAMILY.
Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them, but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these tribes have extended for many centuries back in time, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent Indian communities, and also among each other. All the various dispositions of the human mind are represented in the Maskoki tribes. We have the cruel and lurking Chicasa, the powerful and ingenious but treacherous and corruptible Cha'hta, the magnanimous and hospitable, proud and revengeful Creek, the aggressive Alibamu, the quarrelsome Yámassi, and the self-willed, independent Seminole, jealous of the enjoyment of his savage freedom in the swamps and everglades of the semi-tropical peninsula.
The irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused serious difficulties to the government of the English and French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their adhesion between the French and the English cause. The American government overcame their opposition easily whenever a conflict presented itself (the Seminole war forms an exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how to unite against a common foe.