The majority of the adjectives and of the attributive verbs derived from them form derivatives, which in some instances may be called distributive, in others frequentative and iterative forms. They are formed by a partial reduplication of the radix, when the basis is monosyllabic, or often of the last syllable of the basis, when the word is polysyllabic. Examples:

lásti black, láslati black here and black there; verbified: lánis, laslánis it is black.

hállui high, hálhawi each of them high.

súfki deep, súfsuki deep each, or deep in spots.

súlgi many, súlsugi many of each.

hólwaki bad, holwahóki each bad.

líkwi rotten; lík'howi (animals), líkliwi (vegetables).

kotchúkni short, kotchúntchoki short in spots.

sílkosi narrow, sílsikosi narrow in places, from sílki strip.

Adjectives are made negative by appending the privative particle -go, -gu, -ko, -ku: ítskisusi having a mother, itskisusiko motherless; hí`li good, hí`ligo not good, bad.

Gradation of adjectives and of attributive verbs formed from these can be effected in different ways, which are more perfect and expressive here than in those Indian languages which can express gradation only by syntactic means.

A comparative is formed by prefixing isim-, isin-, isi-, apheretically sim-, sin-, si- to the adjective or the attributive verb, the two objects compared standing usually before the adjective or verb. This prefix is composed of the particle isi-, is- and the possessive pronoun im-, in-, i- of the third person (s. and pl.), and corresponds somewhat to our than, as. The object compared stands in the absolute case.

kát'tcha yahá isin`lákit ómis the panther (kát'tcha) is larger (`lako large) than the wolf (yahá; ómis is so).

tchátu tchátu-χunáp-hatki (i-)síntchalatuit ómis iron (tchátu) is harder than silver.

ma tchī′panat ma hóktudshi (i-)simmáhis this boy is taller than that girl.

A superlative is formed by placing i`li-, apheretically `li-, before the comparative: máhi tall, isímmahi taller than, i'lisímmahi, `lisímmahi, `lisímahi tallest of, lit. "still taller than the taller ones."

ma tsúku halháwat i`lisihálluit ómis this house is the highest; lit. "higher than the high ones."

A superlative may be expressed also by using the comparative instead: ma tchípanat anhopuitáki omálgan isímmahis "that boy is the tallest of all my children"; lit. "that boy is taller than all my children." Or the superlative is expressed by the augmentative adverb máhi: very, quite, greatly, largely yíktchi máhi, the strongest, which at the same time means: very strong, quite strong; `láko máhi largest and very large; máhimahi tallest and very tall; the latter also being expressed by a lengthening of the vowel: mā′hi very tall.

Minuitive gradation is effected by inversion of the sense in the sentence and the use of the comparative; they say: "silver is costlier than iron," instead of saying: "iron is less costly than silver."

What we call prepositions are generally nominal forms in Creek, inflected like nouns and placed after their complements as postpositions, governing the absolute case:

únapa, subj. únapat, obj. únapan above, on the top of; `láni únapa (or: `láni yúksa) on the top of the mountain.

tchuku-ófan läíkäs I stay within, in the house; -ófan, -ofa, -úfa, -of is also temporal suffix: when, while, during: yá o`lolopí-ófan in this year.

inúkua atígin ak'húi`l he stands in the water up to (atígin) his neck.

tsá`lki a`láχkan on account of my father.

tchukú ilídshan, under the house.

ítu ilídshan, ítu tchískan under the tree.

Numerals. The cardinal numeral has a full form ending in -in, and another abbreviated from it used in counting objects, and not extending beyond ten; an ordinal, with prefix -ísa-, is-, apheret. sa-, s-; a distributive substituting -ákin to -in of the cardinal, and an adverbial form in -a.

tipaχótchki "folded once"

tipaχó'hli ō′stin "folded four times"

tipaχó'hli tchinapákin "folded eight times"

hamháχosi "one here and one there, scattered."

The personal pronoun is as follows:

Cha'hta distinguishes between the inclusive and exclusive pronouns we, our, but Creek and Hitchiti do not.

The possessive pronoun is as follows:

The possessive relation is usually expressed:

(1) by the possessive pronoun prefixed to the object possessed: tcháka my head, anhopuitáki my children.

(2) when two nouns, especially substantives, stand in the relation of possession, the possessor stands in the absolute case before the object possessed, the pronoun im-, in-, i- being prefixed to the latter.

isti Mashkóki imíkana the land of the Creek men.

ádshi intálapi ear of maize; lit. "maize its ear."

ádsh' imápi stalk of maize.

íngi ítchki his thumb; lit. "his hand its mother."

Other pronouns:

isti person is used as indefinite pron.: somebody; istíka somebody's head, a person's head; stillipaíχa boot, from isti, íli, paíχa; isti hápu somebody's camping place.

istä′mat, pl. istämatáki? who?

istómat? abbr. ístat? (s. and pl.) which? which one?

hía, ya, í-a this (close by); subj. híat, obj. hían (in Cheroki: hía this, this one).

ma, mat, man this (further off).

ása, ásat, ásan that (far off).

Verb. The Creek verb is of the polysynthetic type, and inflects by means of prefixes, infixes and (chiefly by) suffixes. It possesses an affirmative, negative, interrogative and distributive form, which latter is used as a form for the plural of the subject in the intransitive verbs; it also has a large number of conversational forms usually derived by contraction, ellipses, etc., from the regular or standard forms; and in some of its inflections also a reverential besides the common form. It is rich in modes, verbals and voices and may be called extremely rich in tense-forms, when we compare to it the poverty of many other American languages.

The verb incorporates the direct and indirect pronominal object and inflects for person. In certain conjugational forms the personal affix is a prefix, in others a suffix. The historic tense, a sort of aorist, is formed by the infix -h- and a change of the radical vowel occurs at times, though not so often as in Cha'hta. Intransitive verbs show special forms, according to the number of the subject (singular, dual, plural). Very frequently these latter forms are made from different roots, as will be seen from the instances given below. Many transitive verbs have, when their object stands in the plural, a (distributive) form differing entirely or partially from the one referring to an object in the singular; a few others show this change, when their subject passes from the singular to the plural number. Other transitive verbs are combining the two inflections just described.

Adjectives can be verbified and then appear in the shape of attributive verbs: haúki, pl. hauháki hollow; haúkäs I am hollow, haúkis it is hollow, hauhákis they are hollow. No real substantive verb being extant, its want is supplied by ómäs, mómäs, tóyäs I am so, I am such; these are conjugated regularly, and when connected with the verbals in -t (-at, -it, -ut) of any verb, compose a periphrastic conjugation which displays itself in an almost infinite number of forms.

From all this it becomes evident, that the Creek verb surpasses in its large power of polysynthesis the Algonkin, Dakota and Kalapuya verb, and in the richness of its forms approaches closely to the Iroquois verb, which is poorer in tenses, but has an impersonal conjugation and fourteen persons to each tense of the finite verb. Creek is likely to surpass also the Basque verb, which has become proverbial for the almost infinite number of its intricate verb forms.[133]

I propose to give below the inflection of the Creek verb in its general outlines only, as far as necessary to give an idea of the subject. The Creek conjugation is regular throughout in its standard forms, though the conversational form has introduced modifications.

Inflection of ísita to take, carry, hold (one object) and of tcháwita to take (more than one object). Only three tenses were given here as examples of tcháwita, although it has as many modes, tenses and other forms as ísita.

Active Voice.
Affirmative conjugation.
Declarative mode.

Present: ísä-is, or ísäs I am taking, 2 s. ísitchkis, 3 s. ísis; 1 pl. ísīs, ísis, 2 pl. isā′tchkis, 3 pl. isákis.

tcháwä-is or tcháwäs I am taking (more than one obj.), 2 s. tcháwitchkis, 3 s. tcháwis; 1 pl. tcháwīs, 2 pl. tchawā′tchkis, 3 pl. tchawā′kis.

The preterit tenses: í'hsäs I took, 2 s. í'hsitchkis, 3 s. í'hsis; 1 pl. i'hsis, 2 pl. i'hsā′tchkis, 3 pl. i'hsā′χkis.

tchá'hwäs I took (pl. of obj.), 2 s. tcha'hwítchkis, etc.

isäyángis, I have taken, 2 s. isitchkángis, 3 s. ísangis,-kis; 1 pl. ísiyankis, 2 pl. ísákatchkankis, 3 pl. isákankis.

tchawayángis I have taken (pl. of obj.), 2 s. tchawitchkánkis, etc.

isáyatis I took (indefinite, aorist or historic past tense), 2 s. isítchkatis, 3 s. ísatis; 1 pl. isíatīs, 2 pl. isátchkatis, 3 pl. isákatis.

isäyántas I took (long ago), 2 s. isitchkántas, 3 s. ísantas, etc.

isäimátas I had taken, 2 s. isitchkimátas, 3 s. isimátas, etc.

The future tenses: isá`lis I shall take, 2 s. isítchka`lis, etc.

isa`lánäs I am going to take, 2 s. isa`lánitchkis, 3 s. isa`lánis, etc.

isipayatitá`lis I shall have taken, 2 s. isipitchkatitá`lis, 3 s. isipatitá`lis, etc.

Conditional or subjunctive mode.

(ómati, ómat if, when, connected with the verbal in -n.)

Present: ísän ómat(i) if I take, 2 s. isítchkin ómat, 3 s. ísin ómat, etc.

Preterit: isä′yatin ómat if I had taken, 2 s. isítchkatin ómat, etc.

Future: isa`lánän ómatî'h if I am going to take, 2 s. isa`lanítchkin ómati'h, etc.

Potential mode.

ísayis I can take, 2 s. ísitchkīs, 3 s. isīs, isi-is, etc.

isa`lanáyat tálkis I must take, I have to take, 2 s. isa`lánitcha tálkis.

ísaχant ómatin ómäs I ought to have taken, 2 s. ísaχant ómatin ómitchkis.

ísi wäítäyis I may take, 2 s. ísitchki wäítīs, 3 s. ísi wäítīs.

isa`láni wäítayis probably I shall take (at some future time), 2 s. isa`lánitchki wäítīs, or wäítayis.

isáyi titáyïs (abbr. táyis) I am able to take, 2 s. isítchki titáyīs.

Imperative mode.

2 s. ísas! do thou take! (as a command). 2 pl. ísakis! do ye take! 2 s. ísipas! take! (reverential or exhortative). 2 pl. isípakis! take ye! ye may take!

Verbals, or nominal forms of verb.

ísita to take, the taking; tcháwita (pl. of obj.)

Interrogative conjugation (specimen).

ísäya? do I take? 2 s. ísitska?, 3 s. ísa? 1 pl. ísiya? 2 pl. ísatska? 3 pl. isā′ka?

tcháwäya? do I take? (pl. of obj.), etc.

Negative conjugation:

isákus I do not take; 2 s. isítskigus, 3 s. isígus; 1 pl. isígus, 2 pl. isátskigus, 3 pl. iságigus.

tchawákus I do not take (pl. of obj.), etc.

Negative-interrogative conjugation:

isă'kō? do I not take? 2 s. isítskigō? 3 s. isĭ′gō? 1 pl. isī′go? 2 pl. isátskigō? 3 pl. iságigō? (suffix -gō often nasalized into -gōⁿ, -kōⁿ, -kuⁿ).

tchawă′kō? do I not take? etc.

Conjugation with indirect object:

imísäs I take for somebody, I take from somebody, 2 s. imísitchkis, 3 s. imísis; 1 pl. imisĭs, 2 pl. imísatchkis, 3 pl. imisā′kis.

intcháwäs I take for somebody (pl. of obj.), etc.

Medial conjugation:

isípäs I take for myself, 2 s. isípitchkis, 3 s. isípis; 1 pl. isípīs, 2 pl. isípatskis, 3 pl. isákipis.

tchawípäs I take for myself (pl. of obj.), etc.

Passive Voice.

It is formed from the active voice by inserting ho-, hu- after the basis of the verb. From ísäs I take is formed tchas'hóyäs (for tcha-is-hóyäs) I am taken; -s- being the only sound of the radix remaining.

Present: tchas'hóyäs I am taken, I am being taken; 2 s. tchis'hóyäs, 3 s. is'hóyäs; 1 pl. putcha-uhóyäs, 2 pl. tchitcha-uhoyákäs, 3 pl. tcha-uhóyäs.

Past: tchas'hóhyis, I was taken.

Future: tchas'hoya`lánis, I shall be taken.

Part. pass. partic. i'hsik; pl. of obj. á'hwak taken.

Other Voices.

Reciprocal voice: itítchawīs we take each other.

u'hlátkäs I fall on, upon: itu'hlátkäs I attack, have a scuffle.

Reflective voice: i-ísäs I take or carry myself.

yíkläs I pinch; iyíkläs I pinch myself.

Causative voice. This form had better be called a derivative form than a voice, as will appear from the following instances:

isipúidshäs I cause to take.

púskäs I fast; puskipúidshäs I make fast, puskä′dshäs I make, cause to fast; puskidshä′dshäs I cause to fast for initiation.

hátkis it is white, hatídshäs I whiten.

kí`läs I know, ki`lídshäs I inform, apprize, i-uki`lkuídshäs I explain myself.

huí`läs I stand, hui`lídshäs I set up, place, make stand.

Impersonal voice. A paradigm of an impersonal verb, inflected with its pronominal object, is as follows:

isanhí`lis it is good for me (hí`li good), 2 s. istchinhí`lis, 3 s. isinhí`lis; ispunhí`lis it is good for us, 2 pl. istchinhí`lagis, 3 pl. isinhí`lagis.

Other Conjugational Forms.

Paradigms of verbs inflected with the subject-pronoun standing either separate or incorporated:

Objective or compound conjugation.

A transitive verb connected with its direct pronominal object runs as follows:

yíklita to pinch, the pinching.

tchiyíkläs I pinch thee.

yíkläs I pinch him, her, it, or I pinch one object.

tchiyíklaχas I pinch ye.

yíklaχäs I pinch them, or several objects.

tchayíklitchkis thou pinchest me.

puyíklitchkis thou pinchest us.

yíklis he, she pinches (another).

yíklakōs, contr. yíklaks I do not pinch him, her, it.

yíklaχakōs I do not pinch them.

tchiyíklakōs I do not pinch thee.

tchiyíklayä? do I pinch thee?

yíkläya? do I pinch him, her, it?

yiklakayá? do I pinch them?

A transitive verb connected with its indirect pronominal object conjugates in the same manner, unless there is in it the idea for the benefit of, or for the detriment of, or from, away from somebody or something connected with it. In this case the pronoun im-, in-, i- is prefixed; paradigm given above.

käídshita to say, the saying, käídshäs I say.

tchikäídshás (for tchikäídshä-is) I say to thee.

käídshä-is, käídshäs I say to him, her, it (to one person).

tchikäídshakä′-is I say to ye.

käídshakä′-is I say to them (to several persons).

tchakäídshis he, she says to me.

tchikäídshis he, she says to thee.

käídshis he, she says to (to another).

pukäídshis he says to us.

tchikäídshagis he says to ye.

käídshagis he says to them (to several persons).

tchikäídshi-is we say to thee.

tchakäítchatchkis ye say to me.

tchikäítchakakīs they say to ye.

käidshakákīs they say to them.

Intransitive Verbs.

Subject in the singular, dual and plural number:

aláχäs I come, alahókis we two come, yē′dshīs we come.

ó`läs I arrive, o`lhóyis, o`lä′-idshis.

homaχtá-is I am ahead, I lead, du. and pl. homaχ'hóti-is.

wákäs I am lying, wak'hógis, lúmhīs.

húi`läs I stand, sihókis, sabáχlis.

á`läs I am about, wilágis, fúllis.

tchíyäs I enter, tchuχalágīs, sidshíyis.

On a special use made of the verbal dual, cf. Ceremonial allocutions.

Transitive Verbs.

Object in the singular and plural number; the latter form also marking a repetition of the act.

ilídshäs I kill, pasátäs.

háyäs I make, háhaidshäs; pl. of subject hayäkīs.

mutchasídshäs I make new, mutchasakúidshäs.

ki`lä′dshäs I cause to know, apprize, ki`lakuídshäs.

túläs I fell (a tree etc.), tultuídshäs I fell repeatedly, or many objects.

falápäs I split; ítun falá'hlidshäs I split many sticks separately.

náfkäs I strike, nafnákäs.

hopíläs I inhume, hopilhuídshäs and hopiláχäs.

tádshäs I cut off, sever, wá`läs.

Syntax.

Many conjunctions are formed from the auxiliary verbs ómäs, mómäs and thus are in fact verbs, not particles. In spite of the frequent use to which they are put they do not relieve the sentence of its heaviness to any perceptible extent; for what we call incident clauses and also many co-ordinate principal sentences are uniformly expressed by groups of words, the verb of which stands in the -t or -n verbal, which nearest corresponds to our participle in -ing, or to having (h. gone, carried), sometimes five or six of them, followed at the close by a finite verb. Instances of this our Creek text affords almost on every page. This sort of incapsulation greatly embarrasses interpreters in the rendering of Creek texts in any of the modern European languages, which have a tendency towards analytic and an aversion to synthetic structure of the sentence, and therefore use conjunctions freely. A conjunction corresponding in every respect to our and exists in none of the Maskoki dialects.

The syntax is remarkably simple and uniform; the multiplicity of grammatic forms precludes the formation of many syntactic rules, just as in Sanscrit. The position of the words in the sentence is: subject, object, verb. The adjective when used attributively stands after the noun qualified.

Lexical Affinities.

Several Creek words possess a striking resemblance with words of equal or related signification, pertaining to other languages. Some of them are undoubtedly borrowed, while others may rest on a fortuitous resemblance. A few of them were pointed out by H. Hale, in Amer. Antiquarian V, 120. I consider as being borrowed from Cheroki:

Cr. átasi war-club, in Cher. atsá, at'sá; occurs in the Cher. war-name: At'sá utégi the one throwing away the war-club. It contains the idea of being bent, crooked; inatá atassíni the snake is crawling.

Cr. tchū′ska, post-oak, H. tchíski; Cher. tchuskó.

Cr. yĕnása, Cha'hta yánash bison, buffalo; Cher. yánasa.

The Creek sulitáwa soldier and the Cha'hta shulush shoe were borrowed from the French terms soldat and soulier (from Lat. subtalare).

Alike in Creek and Cheroki, but of uncertain provenience are tsúla, tchúla fox, in Yuchi sátchoni; hía, i-a this, this one (pron. dem.). Compare also Cr. níni road, trail with Cher. naⁿnóhi, nä-ĕnóhi road. The Cr. words tíwa hair, scalp, and wáhu winged elm are said to be borrowed from foreign languages. It will be noticed, that names of plants, and especially of animals hunted by man often spread over several contiguous linguistic areas.

The Maskoki dialects, it must be acknowledged, have remained remarkably free from foreign admixture.

SECOND OR SPECIAL PART.
THE KASI'HTA MIGRATION LEGEND.

INDIAN MIGRATION LEGENDS.

There are events in the history of a people, which are remembered with difficulty or displeasure and therefore soon drop from the memory of men. But there are other incidents which pass from father to son through many generations, and the remembrance of them, though altered in many particulars and variously recounted, seems to be undying. Events of this kind are migrations, long warfare or decisive battles, which resulted either in defeat or victory, alliances with cognate or friendly tribes, times of abundance, of famines and epidemics. To be of easy remembrance, there must be something connected with these events which forcibly strikes the imagination and in later times stands out as the principal fact, while minor features of its occurrence disappear or become subject to alterations in the progress of time.

This also shows the process, how historic legends and traditions are forming among uncultured nations, which are possessed of imperfect means only for the transmission of ideas to posterity. Whenever this traditionary lore is written down by a civilized people, then the gathering of these tales, half mythic and half historic, forms a commencement of historiography, and by later generations is regarded as valued material for clearing up the dawn of history.

The historic legends of the different nations vary exceedingly in their contents, at least as much as do the nations themselves. There are some that speak of the chiefs only and not of the people, or fill the tales with mythic heroes and impossible events, while the more sober and intelligent restrict the miraculous element to narrow limits, though never excluding it entirely. There are peoples and individuals who will not give credence to a legend which does not contain miracles. Many of the North American tribes, especially on the Pacific coast, have no knowledge of early events in their tribe, because a severe law prohibits them from calling their dead relatives by their names. This superstition alone suffices to destroy the historic sense in the population, but does not seem to have operated among the Aztecs, Mayas and Quichhuas to any noticeable degree.

All nations of the globe have migrated from earlier into more recent seats, but with many of them these migrations took place in epochs so far distant that they have lost all recollections of them. These latter we call autochthonic; the Kalapuya of Willámet Valley, Oregon, and the Washo around Carson, Nevada, who claim to have originated from bulrushes in the vicinity, belong to these. All tribes of the Maskoki stock possess migration legends, and so do the Dakota and Iroquois. Their migration legends are intermingled with myths and mythic ideas; nevertheless, they prove that the migrations took place in comparatively recent times, and that these accounts are not pure astronomical or other fictions.

A full knowledge of Maskoki mythology would certainly help us in the understanding of their migration tales, but this subject has not been investigated as yet. Their principal mythic power is the "Master of Life" or "Holder of Breath," in Creek Isákita immíssi, a divine being, which is as thoroughly North American as Jahve, an ancient sun- and thunder-god, is of Semitic, and Dyaus, Zeus, Jupiter, the Sky-god, is of Aryan origin. The proper sense of the Creek name is "the one who carries, takes the life or breath for them;" it is the embodiment of the idea that a great, powerful spirit gives life, or what is synonymous with it, breath to them (to persons, animals), and takes it off from them at will (isákita life, breath; im-pron. poss. 3d person, ísäs I take, when the object stands in the singular); ísi, íssi taker, holder. The Master of Life, also called Suta-läíkati, "resident in the sky," is not a pure abstraction, but has to be brought into connection with the sun-worship of all Americans, which again became associated with the cult of the fire-flame. The idea that the Creeks knew anything of the devil of the Christian religion is a pure invention of the missionaries; being christianized, they call him now: ísti fútchigō "the man acting perversely," tasoχlä′ya, or: ísti niklé-idsha atsū′li "the old person-burner" (áni niklé-idshäs I burn somebody, something); the Yuchi call him "the swinging man," just as they call a ghost "a hunting man." The Shetimasha name for the devil is néka, which properly means conjurer, sorcerer and witchcraft.

In the eyes of the missionaries and Christian settlers, the paramount importance and abstract character of the Master of Breath made him appear as the centre of an almost monotheistic religion; but on closer investigation it will be found that the Creeks believed in many genii and mythic animals besides, two of which were the isti-pápa and the snake, which furnished the snake horn as a war-talisman. It would be singular indeed, if the Creeks were the only Indians of America who believed solely in the Great Spirit and not also in a number of lesser conceptions of imagination, as dwarfs, giants, ogres, fairies, hobgoblins and earth-spirits.

The myths referring to the origin of nations often stand in close connection with myths accounting for the ages of the world or successive creations, with migration legends, and with culture-myths, explaining the origin of certain institutions, manufactures and arts.

Many of these myths are etymological, as that of the Greeks, stating that they originated from stones thrown by Deucalion behind himself (λάας stone, and λαός people); that of Adam, being created from earth; adam, in Hebrew, signifies person and mankind, adom, adum, fem. adumáh red, ruddy, bay-colored, adamáh earth, ground, land, from its reddish color, admoni red-haired.

Although the origin from the earth is certainly the most natural that could suggest itself to primitive man, there are a number of nations claiming provenience from the sky (the Tukabatchi were let down from the sky in a gourd or calabash): from the sun (Yuchi), from the moon, from the sea, from the ashes of fire (Sháwano), from eggs (Quichhua) or certain plants.

The Aht, on the western coast of Vancouver Island, allege that animals were first produced at Cape Flattery, Washington Territory, and from the union of some of these with a star, which fell from heaven, came the first men, and from them sprang all the race of Nitin-aht, Klayok-aht and Mákah or Klass-aht Indians.[134]

Wherever a mythic origin from an animal, especially from a wild beast, is claimed for man, it is usually done to explain the totem of the gens to which the originators of the tale belong.

Among the nations tracing their mythic origin to the earth, or what amounts to the same thing, to caves, deep holes, hills or mountains, are the Pomo of Northern California, who believe that their ancestors, the coyote-men, were created directly from a knoll of red earth,[135] still visible in their country; the Nahua, whose seven tribes issued from Chicomoztoc or the "Seven Caves."

A tribe of the Yókat group, the Tinluí in Southern California, claims that their forefathers issued from badger-burrows, and they derive their tribal name from these holes, which are extremely frequent through their country.[136]

Six families representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois are called out to the upper world from a cave on the Oswego River by the "Holder of the Heavens," Tarenyawagon.[137]

Traditions on early migrations, which have originated in the people to which they refer and bear the imprint of genuineness, not that of a late fabrication by conjurers or mixed-bloods, usually contain indications of importance which are confirmed by archæologic and linguistic researches. The tradition of the Hebrews, which tells of their immigration into Palestine from the countries of the north across the Euphrates, is substantiated by their tribal name ibri "one who has crossed." The Hellenic, especially Doric tradition of an immigration from Thrace and Macedonia through Epirus and Thessalia into Greece is confirmed by linguistic and historic facts, but the Roman legend concerning the descent of the founders of the "Eternal City" from Troy was acknowledged to be a pious fraud by the ancients themselves.

The Indians of the upper and middle part of the peninsula of California claim descent from the Yuma population north of them; the Tinné-Apache of New Mexico and the Gila river, Arizona, also point to an ancient home in the far north, and both traditions are confirmed by the affinities of their dialects. In many instances, though by no means in all, the migrations are seen to follow the direction of the longitudinal axis of the continent. In North America another line of migration is observed besides, that from west to east; nevertheless, the Yuchi and some Dakota and Iroquois tribes have moved in a direction exactly opposite.

It is erroneous to believe that a people had but one migration legend, because only one has come to our knowledge.[138] This would be a thorough misapprehension of the various agencies which are at work in producing folk-lore. Every tribe of a people or nation has its own migration myth or legend, which in some points coincides, in others conflicts with those of the neighboring septs. Conflicting traditions will be noticed below, not only among the Maskoki nations at large, but also within the narrower limits of the Creek towns or tribes.

To the reproduction and critical examination of the different Creek migration legends transmitted to us we premise a short chapter on the mythic and legendary tales referring to the migrations of the other Maskoki nations.

The account of the Cha'hta migration, as given in the Missionary Herald, of Boston, Vol. XXIV (1828), p. 215, was referred to in a short extract in this volume, under Cha'hta, pp. 106. 107.

The narrative of the interpreter, who seems to have been somewhat imbued with the spirit of rationalism, continues as follows:

"When they emigrated from a distant country in the west, the Creeks were in front, the Cha'hta in the rear. They travelled to a 'good country' in the east; this was the inducement to go. On the way, they stopped to plant corn. Their great leader and prophet[139] directed all their movements, carried the hobuna or sacred bag (containing 'medicines') and a long white pole as the badge of his authority. When he planted the white pole, it was a signal for their encampment. He was always careful to set this pole perpendicularly and to suspend upon it the sacred bag. None were allowed to come near it and no one but himself might touch it. When the pole inclined towards the east, this was the signal for them to proceed on their journey; it steadily inclined east until they reached Nánni Wáya. There they settled."

This story does not mention any crossing by the Cha'hta of the turbid waters of the mighty Mississippi, but accounts quite satisfactorily for the mysterious inclination of the pole, for the prophet must have been careful to suspend the satchel with the war-physic always on the eastern side, so as to have the pole brought down in that direction by the weight of the pouch. The tale contains a similar motive as that of the foundation of the citadel at Thebes by Kadmus, who was ordered by an oracle to follow a wandering heifer until it would settle in the grass, and then to found a city on the spot.

Follows the account of the Chicasa migration, as told by their old men to the United States agent stationed among them, and printed in Schoolcraft, Indians, I, 309 sq:

"By tradition they say they came from the West; a part of their tribe remained in the West. When about to start eastward they were provided with a large dog as a guard and a pole as guide; the dog would give them notice whenever an enemy was near at hand, and thus enable them to make their arrangements to receive them. The pole they would plant in the ground every night, and the next morning they would look at it, and go in the direction it leaned. They continued their journey in this way until they crossed the great Mississippi river, and on the waters of the Alabama river arrived in the country about where Huntsville, Alabama, now is. There the pole was unsettled for several days, but finally it settled and pointed in a southwest direction. They then started on that course, planting the pole every night, until they arrived at what is called the Chickasaw Old Fields,[140] where the pole stood perfectly erect. All then came to the conclusion that that was the Promised Land, and there they accordingly remained until they emigrated west of the State of Arkansas, in the years 1837 and 1838."

"While the pole was in an unsettled condition, a part of their tribe moved on east, and got with the Creek Indians, but so soon as the majority of the tribe settled at the Old Fields, they sent for the party that had gone east, who answered that they were very tired, and would rest where they were awhile. This clan was called Cush-eh-tah. They have never joined the parent tribe, but they always remained as friends until they had intercourse with the whites; then they became a separate nation."

"The great dog was lost in the Mississippi, and they always believed that the dog had got into a large sink-hole and there remained; the Chickasaws said they could hear the dog howl just before the evening came. Whenever any of their warriors get scalps, they give them to the boys to go and throw them into the sink where the dog was. After throwing the scalps, the boys would run off in great fright, and if one should fall in running, the Chickasaws were certain he would be killed or taken prisoner by their enemies. Some of the half-breeds, and nearly all of the full-bloods now believe it."

"In traveling from the West to the Promised Land in the East, they have no recollection of crossing any large watercourse except the Mississippi river; they had to fight their way through enemies on all sides, but cannot now remember the names of them. When they left the West, they were informed that they might look for whites and that they would come from the East; that they should be on their guard to avoid them, lest they should bring all manner of vice among them."

The end of this relation looks rather suspicious for its antiquity, or may be a later addition. The throwing of the scalps into the sink has to be considered as a sort of sacrifice, although it is difficult to say which power of nature the dog represented. The howling of the dog before evening and the direction of the pole seem to indicate the state of the weather and the moisture of the ground, which could give origin to fevers. That the passage: "the dog was lost in the Mississippi," should read: "the dog was lost in the State of Mississippi," is plainly shown by the sentences following the statement.

The migration legends now current among the Alibamu and the Hitchiti are but short in form and have been referred to under the respective headings.

MIGRATION LEGENDS OF THE CREEK TRIBES.

The following legends of the Creek Indians are the only ones I have been able to obtain, although it may be taken for certain, that every one of the larger centres of the Creek nation had its own story about this. The legend in Urlsperger and in Hawkins are both from Kasi'hta. Milfort's was probably given to him at Odshi-apófa, and a fragment of the Tukabatchi legend is inserted under Tukabatchi, p. 147.

Migration Legend as recounted to Col. Benj. Hawkins by Taskáya Miko, of Apatá-i, a branch village of Kasi'hta. "Sketch" of B. Hawkins, pp. 81-83.

"There are in the forks (akfáski) of Red River or U-i tcháti, west of Mississippi River, U-i ukúfki, two mounds of earth. At this place the Kasiχta, Kawita and Chicasa found themselves, and were at a loss for fire. They were here visited by the hayoyálgi, four men who came from the corners of the world. One of them asked the Indians, where they would have their fire (tútka). They pointed to a spot; it was made and they sat down around it. The hayoyálgi directed that they should pay particular attention to the fire, that it would preserve them and let Isákita imíssi, the holder of breath, know their wants. One of the visitors took them to show them the pā′ssa, another showed them the míko huyanī′dsha, then the cedar or átchina and the sweet-bay or tóla. (One or two plants were not recollected, and each of these seven plants was to belong to a particular tribe, imaläíkita.[141]) After this, the four visitors disappeared in a cloud, going in the direction whence they came.

"The three towns then appointed their rulers. The Kasiχta chose the bear gens or nukusálgi to be their míkalgi, and the ístanalgi[142] to be their íniha-`lákalgi or men second in command. The Kawita chose the `lá`loalgi or fish gens to be their míkalgi.

"After these arrangements, some other Indians came from the west, met them, and had a great wrestle with the three towns; they made ballsticks and played with them, with bows and arrows, and with the átassa, the war club. They fell out, fought, and killed each other. After this warring, the three towns moved eastwardly, and met the Ábika on Coosa river. There they agreed to go to war for four years against their first enemy; they made shields[143], tupĕlúkso, of buffalo hides and it was agreed, that the warriors of each town should dry and bring forward the íka hálbi or scalps of the enemy and pile them; the Ábika had a small pile, the Chicasa were above them, the Kawita above them, and the Kasiχta above all. The two last towns raised the ítu tcháti, red or scalp-pole, and do not suffer any other town to raise it. Kasiχta is first in rank.

"After this, they settled the rank of the four towns among themselves. Kasiχta called Ábika and Chicasa tchatchúsi, my younger brothers. Chicasa and Ábika called Kasiχta and Kawita tcha`láha, my elder brothers. Ábika called Chicasa ama'hmáya or my elders, my superiors, and Chicasa sometimes uses the same term to Ábika.

"This being done they commenced their settlements on Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers, and crossing the falls of Tallapoosa, above Tukabáχtchi, they visited the Chatahutchi river, and found a race of people with flat heads in possession of the mounds in the Kasiχta fields. These people used bows and arrows, with strings made of sinews. The alíktchalgi or great physic makers sent some rats in the night-time, which gnawed the strings, and in the morning they attacked and defeated the flat-heads. They crossed the river at the island, near the mound, and took possession of the country. After this they spread out eastwardly to Otchísi-hátchi or Okmulgi river, to Okoni river, to Ogītchi or How-ge-chuh river, to Chíska tálofa hátchi or Savannah river, called sometimes Sawanógi. They met the white people on the seacoast, who drove them back to their present situation.

"Kasiχta and Chicasa consider themselves as people of one fire, tútk-itka hámkushi,[144] from the earliest account of their origin. Kasiχta appointed the first míko for the Chicasa, directed him to settle in the large field (sit down in the big savanna), where they now are, and govern them. Some of the Chicasa straggled off and settled near Augusta, from whence they returned and settled near Kasiχta, and thence rejoined their own people. Kasiχta and Chicasa have remained friends ever since their first acquaintance."

Extract from: "History of the Moskoquis, called to-day Creeks;" a chapter in "Mémoire" of Milfort, pp. 229-265:

Everybody knows, that when the Spaniards conquered Mexico, they experienced but little difficulty in subduing the peaceable nation inhabiting those southwestern countries by means of their firearms, which proved to be far superior to the bows and arrows of their opponents, and against which courage availed almost nothing. The ruler Montezuma saw the impossibility of resisting, and called to his aid the neighboring tribes. At that epoch the Moskoquis formed a powerful separate republic in the northwest of Mexico; they succored him with a numerous body of warriors, but were frightfully decimated by the Spaniards, who dismembered Montezuma's domain, and almost completely depopulated it. The conquerors also extended their sceptre over the territory of the Moskoquis, who, disdaining abject slavery, preferred to leave their native country to regain their former independence.

They directed their steps to the north, and having marched about one hundred leagues reached the headwaters of Red river in fifteen days. From there they followed its course through immense plains, blooming with flowers and verdure and stocked with game, for eight days. Innumerable flocks of aquatic and other birds congregated around the salt ponds of the prairie and on the waters of Red River. Encountering clumps of trees upon their way, they stopped their march. Scouting parties were dispatched to explore the surroundings; they returned in a month, having discovered a forest, the borders of which were situated on Red river, and contained ample subterranean dwellings. The Moskoquis went on, and on reaching the spot, discovered that these dwellings were hollows made in the soft ground by buffaloes and other animals, which had been attracted by the salty taste of the earth. The tribe concluded to settle at this quiet place and began to sow the grains of maize which they had brought from their Mexican home. Being in want of other tools, they managed to cut and trim pieces of wood with sharp-edged stones; these wooden sticks were then charred and hardened in the fire, to serve as agricultural implements. Thereupon they fenced in the fields selected for planting by means of rails and pickets, so as to prevent the wild animals from eating the maize-crop, and apportioned some of the land to each family[145] in the tribe. While the young people of both sexes were occupied at the agricultural work, the old ones were smoking their calumets. Thus many years were passed in happy retirement and abundance of material riches.

But soon their destinies took a downward turn, and forced them to expatriate themselves for a second time. A number of their men were killed by the Albamo or Alibamu, and the young men sent after them were unable to meet the hostiles and to chastise them. The míkos attributed this to the want of unity in their military organization, and as a remedy for it instituted the charge of Great Warrior or tustenúggi `láko. His authority lasted at first only during the war-expedition commanded by him, but within that time his power was unlimited, and he could not be called to any account.

Led by a tustenúggi of their choice, they pursued the Alibamu, and finally caught up with them near a forest on the banks of the Missouri river. The war-chief ordered the wind gens, to which he belonged, to cross the river first, then followed the bear gens, then the tiger gens, and so forth. On their march the vanguard was formed by the young braves, the rear-guard by the old men, and the non-combatants were placed in the centre. They surprised the Alibamu, who then inhabited subterranean dwellings (souterrains), and massacred a large number of them; then these retreated in haste along the Missouri river, descending on its right or southern banks. When again closely pressed by the pursuing Moskoquis, who had defeated them more than once, the Alibamu crossed over to the left side of the river; but this did not save them from pursuit, for the Moskoquis followed them to the opposite side, defeated them in a sharp encounter, and drove them in the direction of Mississippi river, in which many found a watery grave in their hasty flight.

The two belligerent tribes now crossed Mississippi river, and the Alibamu, having an advance of eight days over their pursuers, fled before them into the interior parts to the east. The Moskoquis discovered their tracks and followed them to the Ohio river, north shore, thence to the influx of Wabash river, then crossed Ohio river into what is now Kentucky, continued their march in a southern direction, and finally arrived in the Yazoo country, where they stayed for several years. The caves in which they lived exist to the present day; some of them were excavated by themselves, while others were found ready for occupation.

In the meantime the Alibamu had remained in the fertile tracts along Coosa river. Their warriors cut off and scalped some of the Moskoqui scouts, who had come to ascertain their whereabouts. This deed so embittered the injured tribe, that their míkos resolved to dispossess the enemy of their territory for the third time. They crossed Cumberland and Tennessee rivers, followed Coosa river in marching along its banks from south to north,[146] but were too late for the Alibamu, who had previously left the country, partly for Mobile, partly for the tracts held by Cha'hta Indians.

The Moskoquis then quietly occupied the country which they had conquered and spread out along the rivers Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chatahutchi, Flint, Okmulgi, Great and Little Okoni and Ogitchi, till they reached Savannah river at the place where Augusta is now standing.

The Moskoquis, after taking possession of this wide extent of territory, sent their warriors down Mobile river in pursuit of the Alibamu, who had placed themselves under the protection of the French. The French commander sought to prevent a war between the two bodies of Indians, and succeeded in arranging a truce of six months and in determining with accuracy the hunting grounds of both. Leaders and warriors of the Moskoquis then descended the river and concluded a lasting peace with the hostile tribe in the presence of the French commander. They even invited the Alibamu to join their confederacy by offering them a tract of land on what is now Alabama river, with the privilege of preserving their own customs. The Alibamu accepted the offer, settled on the land, built a town on it, called Coussehaté, and since then form an integral part of the Moskoqui people, which now assumed the name of Creeks.

As a sequel to his wonderful story of the pursuit of the Alibamu by the Creeks and the final peaceable settling down of both, Milfort adds some points on the early doings and warrings of the Creeks, which had occurred but a limited number of years before his stay in the tribe, and were recounted to him by one of the míkos from their memorial beads, like the legendary migration:

About the time of Coussehaté's foundation an Indian tribe dismembered by the Iroquois and Hurons, the Tukabatchi, fled to the Creeks, and asked for shelter. Lands were assigned and the fugitives built on it a town, which they named after themselves, and where the general assemblies of the entire people are sometimes meeting. This kind reception encouraged the Taskígi and the Oxiailles (Oktcháyi) who were also annoyed by their warlike neighbors, to seek a place of safety among the Creeks. Their request was granted also. The former settled at the confluence of Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers, the Oxiailles ten leagues to the north of them, in a beautiful prairie near a rivulet.

Shortly after this event, the small tribe of the Yuchi (la petite nation des Udgis), partly dismembered by the British, also fled to the Creek towns and were given a territory on Chatahutchi river. Likewise did a part of the Chicasa apply for help; they were assigned seats on Yazoo river, "at the head of Loup river,"[147] and soon extended their habitations up to the Cheroki boundaries. A few years after, the unhappy Naktche took refuge among the Chicasa, who by protecting them underwent the displeasure of the French colonists. They attacked the Chicasa and in spite of their superior artillery were disastrously beaten near Loup river. A second attack of theirs was warded off by the tribe, by acceding to the peace arrangements proposed by the French. The Naktche then passed over to the Creeks and obtained lands on Coosa river; they built there the towns of Natchez and of Abikudshi, near two high mountains having the appearance of sugar-loaves. The head men of the Creeks went to New Orleans in order to arrange matters amicably with the French and permitted them to erect a fort at Taskigi, subsequently called Fort Toulouse, and the tribes were helpful in erecting it.

Jealous of the erection of this advanced trade-post by their hereditary enemy, the British asked for permission to build a fort on Ogītchi river, twenty miles west of Augusta, Georgia, but were roundly, and in unmistakable terms, refused by the Creek towns. After the loss of the Canadian provinces, Fort Toulouse was evacuated by the French. The Creeks, much dismayed at the departure of their friends, and filled with aversion against the British and Spaniards, were compelled to open their towns to the English traders, to obtain the needed articles of European manufacture.

Follows the recital of the incorporation of some families of Apalachicola, Sháwano and Cheroki Indians into the community of the Creeks (Mém., pp. 276-285). Unfortunately the statement concerning the immigration of the Cheroki is without any details, and therefore is of no avail in localizing the Cheroki towns or colonies within the Creek territory (p. 285). The author states that the immigration was caused by the pressure exercised upon the tribe by the English and Americans; it was therefore of a quite modern date, if Milfort can be trusted.

In 1781, on the 1st of February, Milfort, great war-chief of the Creeks, left his home at Little Talassi, half a league above the ancient Fort Toulouse, at the head of two hundred young braves, to visit the legendary caves on Red river, from which the nation had issued in bygone times. They crossed the territories held by the Upper Cha'hta, passed through Mobile, the confluence of Iberville bayou with Mississippi river, St. Bernard bay on the coast, and following a northern direction, finally reached a forest on Red river, about 150 leagues above its junction with Mississippi river. They crossed these woods, which were situated on an eminence on the river side, and stood in face of the caves (cavernes), the objective point of the expedition.

The noise of a few gun-shots brought out of these spacious cavities a large number of bisons, wild oxen and wild horses, which ran, frightened as they were by the unusual explosions, head over heels, over precipices of more than eighty feet of perpendicular height into the slimy waters of Red river. The only description Milfort gives of these caves goes to show that there were several or many of them, situated in close vicinity to each other, and that those seen could easily contain fifteen to twenty thousand families. The party concluded to pass the inclement season in these grottoes, which they had reached about Christmas time. Here they hunted, fished and danced until the end of March, 1782, then started for the Missouri, and subsequently for home, well supplied with the products of the chase.

Remarks on Taskáya Míko's Kasi'hta Legend.

A closer study of this legend reveals many points of importance for the better understanding of Tchikilli's narrative, as both have evidently been derived from the same original report.

The locality where the tribes of the Kasíχta, Kawíta and Chicasa came from is placed here in the same point of the compass as in Tchikilli's story, in the west. Whether the forks of the Red river were supposed to coincide with the "mouth of the earth" in the legend can be decided only when we shall have a better knowledge of Creek folklore. If Hawkins' informant used the passive form of hídshäs to see, when speaking of the appearance of the Kasíχta, it would be more appropriate to say originated, were born than the expression we find in the text: "found themselves." The subterranean dwellings, mentioned and visited by Milfort as being the legendary home of the "Moskoquis," are not mentioned here; and in French colonial times the "Forks of Red river" designated the confluence of Washita and Red rivers.

The hayoyálgi, coming from the four corners of the world to light the sacred fire, the symbol of the sun, are the winds fanning it to a higher flame, and the purpose of the story is to make an oracular power of the sacred flame, by which the Holder of Breath, or Great Spirit, could be placed in communication with his Indian wards, and enabled to take care of them.

The notice that each of the seven plants distributed to the Indians belonged, or was the emblem of a certain gens or division of people, is gathered from this passage only, and probably refers to the ingredients of some war-physic, which only a limited number of the gentes may have been entitled to contribute to the annual púskita. The precedence of some favored gentes before others in regard to offices of peace or war is frequently observed among Northern as well as Southern tribes of Indians.[148] The number four is conspicuous here as well as in the legend related by Tchikilli; we have four hayoyálgi, four principal chieftaincies, four years of warfare, etc.

The cause of the warring, or the pretense for it, against "some other Indians from the west" is curiously similar to the rivalry in athletic sports, which took place between the western Iroquois and their subdivisions, and finally led to the destruction of the Erie or Ká'hkwa Indians (Cusick, Johnson). The names of "brothers, cousins, elders," which occur here, are terms of intertribal courtesy, which we find also, perhaps in a more pronounced manner, among the New York Iroquois. The Creeks called the Delaware and Sháwano Indians grandfathers, because they regard their customs and practices as older and more venerable than their own; others state, because they occupied their countries further back in time than the Creeks did theirs.

The facts subsequently related are given without such chronological dates as we find with the previous ones, but the narrator evidently tried to condense into the space of a few years what it took generations to accomplish. This is very frequently observed in legendary tales. The spreading out of the people from the Tallapoosa river to the Chatahutchi and from there to the Savannah must have involved a warfare, struggling, migration and settling down of several centuries, for the advance of the Maskoki proper in this direction was tantamount to the formation of the Maskoki confederacy by subduing or incorporating the tribes standing in their way, and to the still more lengthy process of settling among them. What nation the flat-heads or aborigines of the country may have belonged to, will be discussed in the remarks to Tchikillis' tale. That there were Creek-speaking Indians on the Atlantic coast as early as 1564, has been shown conclusively in the article Yámassi; but their expulsion from there by the white colonists occurred but one hundred and fifty years later.