The variants of these names enable us, by comparing them with one another, to determine the originals with considerable certainty in most cases, though some still remain in question. As reconstructed, the list would be something like this: Duhare or Duache, Chicora, Xapira or Xapida, Yta or Hitha, Tancal or Tancac, Anica, Tiye or Tihe, Cocayo, Quohathe, Guacaya, Xoxi, Sona, Pasqui, Arambe, Xamunambe, Huaque, Tanzaca, Yenyohol, Pahoc or Paor, Yamiscaron, Orixa, Insiguanin or Inziguanin, Anoxa.

Yamiscaron without doubt refers to the Yamasee Indians, the ending probably being a Siouan suffix, and the whole possibly the original of the name Yamacraw applied at a much later date to a body of Indians at the mouth of the Savannah. There can be little question also that Orixa is the later Spanish Orista, and English Edisto, Coçayo the Coosa Indians of the upper courses of the rivers of lower South Carolina, or perhaps the town of "Coçapoy"

1 See p. 58.

and Xapira, or rather rather Xapida, Sampit. Pasqui is evidently the Pasque of Ecija, which seems to have been inland near the Waxaw Indians. The remaining names can not be identified with such probability, but plausible suggestions may be made regarding some of them. Thus Yta is perhaps the later Etiwaw or Itwan, Sona may be Stono, which sometimes appears in the form "Stonah," and Guacaya is perhaps Waccamaw, gua in Spanish being frequently employed for the English syllable wa. If Pahoc is the correct form of the name of province 19 it may contain an explanation of the "Backbooks" mentioned by Lawson,' supposing the form of the latter which Rivers gives, "Back Hooks," is the correct one.2

Two facts regarding this list have particular importance for us in this investigation, first, the appearance of the phonetic r (in Duhare, Chicora, Xapira, Arambe, Yamiscaron, Orixa), and, second, that all of the provinces identified, all in fact for which an identification is even suggested, are in the Cusabo country or the regions in close contact with it. The first of these points indicates that Francisco came from one of the eastern Siouan tribes, while the second would show that he had considerable knowledge of the tribes south of them, and thus points to some Siouan area not far removed. Since this was also on the coast, the mouths of the Santee and Pedee are the nearest points satisfying the requirements. It is true that there is no l in Catawba, while two words ending in 7-Tancal and Yenyoholoccur in the list; but these may have been taken over intact from Cusabo, or they may have been incorrectly copied, since Oviedo has Tancac for the first of them. Winyah Bay or the Pedee River would be indicated more definitely if Daxe, a town which the Indians told Ecija was four days journey north, or rather northeast, of the Santee, were identical with the Duache of the Ayllon colonists. But, however interesting it might be to establish the location of the river of John the Baptist with precision, it makes no practical difference in the present investigation whether it was the Santee or one of those streams flowing into Winyah Bay. That it was one of them can hardly be doubted.

The third river to be identified, Gualdape, is the most difficult of all. This is due in the first place to an uncertainty as to which way the settlers moved when they left the River Jordan. Oviedo, who is our only authority on this point, says: "Despues que estovieron allí algunos dias, descontentos de la tierra é ydas las lenguas ó guias que llevaron, acordaron de yrse á poblar la costa adelante háçia la costa occidental, é fueron á un grand rio (quarenta ó quarenta é çinco leguas de allí, pocas más ó menos) que se diçe Gualdape; é allí

1 Lawson, Hist. Carolina, p. 45.

Rivers, Hist. S. Car., p. 35.

assentaron su campo ó real en la costa dél." ("After they had been there for some days, being dissatisfied with the country and the interpreters or guides having left them, they decided to go and settle on the coast beyond, in the direction of the west coast; and they went to a large river, 40 or 45 leagues from that place, more or less, called Gualdape; and there they established their camp or settlement on the coast.") Navarrete interprets this to mean that they traveled north, and he has been followed by both Harrisse3 and Shea. The last is confirmed in his opinion by the narrative of Ecija, which states that "Guandape" was near where the English had established their settlement; consequently he carries Ayllon from the River Jordan all the way to Jamestown, in Virginia. It seems to the writer, however, that the "English settlement" to which Ecija refers and which he places on an island must have been the Roanoke colony, although in Ecija's time it had been abandoned 20 years. But in either case the distance from the mouth of the Pedee or Santee was too great to be described as "40 or 45 leagues."

5

On the other hand, there are good reasons for believing that Ayllon did not move north after abandoning the River Jordan, but southwest. It is unfortunate that Oviedo's words are not clearer, but it seems to the writer that the most natural interpretation of them is that the settlers followed the coast westward, which would actually be in this case toward the southwest. Lowery also comes to this conclusion, but since he starts them from a different point-the mouth of the Cape Fear River-he brings them no farther than the Pedee, our starting point. To what Oviedo tells us of this movement Navarrete adds the information, that the women and the sick were transported thither in boats while the remainder of the company made their way by land. Lowery accepts this statement without question, but Navarrete is not an absolutely reliable authority. His information on this point can only have been drawn from unpublished manuscripts, and unless we have some means of substantiating it, it seems unsafe to assume a march of so many leagues when no reason is presented why the Spaniards should not have taken to their vessels. My belief is that they did so. But how much of the coast is embraced in these 40 or 45 leagues it is impossible to say, for often the "leagues" of these old relations are equivalent only to the same number of miles. Thus Gualdape might be anywhere from 40 to 135 miles away, somewhere between Charleston Harbor and the mouth of Savannah River.

Charleston Harbor itself seems to be excluded by the description of the bar at the mouth of the river of Gualdape which the vessels

1 Oviedo, Hist. Gen., III, p. 628.

* Navarrete, Col., ш, p. 723.

Harrisse, Disc. of N. Amer., p. 213.

Shea in Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist. Amer., II, p. 240.

Ibid., p. 285.

Lowery, Span. Settl., 1, pp. 165–166.

7 Navarrete, Col., ш, p. 72.

Lowery, op. cit.

could cross only at high tide-"la tierra toda muy llana é de muchas çiénegas, pero el rio muy poderoso é de muchos é buenos pescados; é á la entrada dél era baxo, si con la cresçiente no entraban los navios." ("The land very flat and with many swamps, but the river very powerful and with many good fish, and at its entrance was a bar, so that the vessels could enter only at flood tide.") If Navarrete is right in stating that the able-bodied men reached Gualdape by land I think we must make a very conservative interpretation of the 40 or 45 leagues and assume miles rather than leagues. This would not bring us farther than the neighborhood of Charleston Harbor. If, however, we take the distance given by Oviedo at its face value it carries us to the mouth of the Savannah. As a matter of fact we can not know absolutely where this river lay. It might have been the Stono, the North or South Edisto, the Coosawhatchie, the Broad, or some less conspicuous stream. All of these have offshore bars, and the channels into most are so narrow that they might not have been discovered by the explorers, who therefore supposed that the Gualdape River could be entered only at high tide. But taking Oviedo's two statements, regarding the distance covered and the size of the river, which was apparently of fresh water, I am inclined to believe the Savannah to have been the river in question, because there are two independent facts which tend to bear out this theory. In the first place the companions of De Soto when at Cofitachequi discovered glass beads, rosaries, and Biscayan axes, "from which they recognized that they were in the government or territory where the lawyer Lucas Vazquez de Ayllon came to his ruin." So Ranjel." Biedma says in substance the same, but what the Fidalgo of Elvas tells us is more to the point: "In the town were found a dirk and beads that had belonged to Christians, who, the Indians said, had many years before been in the port, distant two day's journey."

3

Now Cofitachequi has usually been placed upon the Savannah River, and "the port" might naturally refer to that at its mouth. At all events two days' journey would not take the traveler very far to the north or south of that river, nor is it likely that these European articles had gotten many miles from the place where they had been obtained. They might indeed have been secured from the navigators who conducted the first or the second expedition or from Ayllon when he was at "the River Jordan," but on the first voyage the dealings with the natives were very brief, and no relations with them seem to have been entered into while Ayllon and his companions were at the Jordan on their last voyage. It is also rather unlikely that so many Spanish articles should have reached the Savannah from the mouth of the Pedee. In fact this is pre

cluded if the statement of the Indians quoted by Elvas is to be relied upon. The second expedition was a mere reconnoissance and the explorers do not seem to have stopped long in any one place. The most natural conclusion is that Cofitachequi was not far from the point where Ayllon had made his final and disastrous attempt. at colonization, and, as I have said, Cofitachequi is not usually placed by modern students eastward of the Savannah. Secondly, the name Gualdape, containing as it does the phonetic 7, would seem not to have been in Siouan territory, but instead suggests a name or set of names very common in Spanish accounts of the Georgia coast. Thus Jekyl Island was known as Gualdaquini, and St. Catherines Island was called Guale, a name adopted by the Spaniards to designate the entire province. True, Oviedo seems to place Gualdape in N. lat. 33° or even higher, but this was evidently an inference from the latitude given for the first landfall at the River Jordan and his supposition that the coast ran east and west. All things considered, it would seem most likely that the attempted settlement of San Miguel de Gualdape was at or near the mouth of Savannah River.

To sum up, then, if my identification of these places is absolutely, or only approximately, correct the River of St. John the Baptist and the River Jordan would be near the mouths of the Pedee and Santee, and any ethnological information reported by the Spaniards from this neighborhood would concern principally the eastern Siouan tribes, while Guald ape would be near the mouth of the Savannah, and any ethnological information from that neighborhood would apply either to the Guale Indians or to the Cusabo.

Regarding the Indians of Chicora and Duhare a very interesting and important account is preserved by Peter Martyr, who obtained a large part of it directly from Francisco of Chicora himself and the rest from Ayllon and his companions. This account has received less credence than it deserves because the original has seldom been consulted, but instead Gomara's narrative, an abridged and to some extent distorted copy of that of Peter Martyr, and still worse reproductions by later writers.2 Thus in the French translation of Gomara we read that the priests of Chicora abstained from eating human flesh ("Ils ne mangent point de la chair humaine comme les autres"),3 while the original simply says "they do not eat flesh (no comen carne)." The translation also informs us that the Chicoranos made cheese from the milk of their women ("Ils font du fromage du laict de leurs femmes'), while the original states that they made

1 Oviedo, Hist. Gen., ш, p. 628.

2 Gomara, Hist. de las Indias, chap. XLII, pp. 32–33.

3 Hist. Gen.. Paris, 1606, p. 53.

4 Gomara, op. cit., p. 32.