It is convenient in a notice of the languages of the State of Texas
to bear in mind its early, as well as its present relations to the
United States. In a country where the spread of the population from the
other portions of the Union has been so rapid, and where the occupancy
is so complete, we are prepared to expect but a small proportion of
aborigines. And such, upon the whole, is the case. The displacement of
the Indian tribes of Texas has been great. Even, however, when Mexican,
Texas was not in the category of the older and more original portions
of Mexico. It was not brought under the _régime_ of the missionaries,
as we may see by turning to that portion of the Mithridates which
treats of the parts west of the Mississippi. The references here
are to Dupratz, to Lewis and Clarke, to Charlevoix, to French and
English writers rather than to the great authority for the other
parts of Spanish America--Hervas. And the information is less precise
and complete. All this is because Texas in the earlier part of its
history was, in respect to its exploration and description, a part of
Louisiana, (and, as such, French) rather than a part of Mexico, and (as
such) Spanish.
The notices of Texas, in the Mithridates, taken along with our
subsequent _data_, are to the effect that (_a_) the _Caddo_, (_b_) the
_Adaize_ or _Adahi_, (_c_) the _Attakapa_, and (_d_) the _Choktah_ are
the prevailing languages; to which may be added a few others of minor
importance.
The details as to the distribution of the subordinate forms of speech
over these four leading languages are as follows:--
_a._ The Nandakoes, Nabadaches, Alich (or Eyish), and Ini or Tachi are
expressly stated to be _Caddo_; and, as it is from the name of the last
of these that the word Texas is derived, we have satisfactory evidence
that _some_ members, at least, of the Caddo family are _truly and
originally_ Texian.
_b._ The Yatassi, Natchitoches, _Adaize_ (or _Adaye_), Nacogdoches, and
Keyes, belong to the Caddo confederacy, but without speaking the Caddo
language.
_c._ The Carancouas, the _Attacapas_, the Apelusas, the Mayes speak
dialects of the same language.
_d._ The Tunicas speak the same language as the Choctahs.
Concerning the philology of the Washas, the Bedies, the Acossesaws, and
the Cances, no statements are made.
It is obvious that the information supplied by the Mithridates is
measured by the extent of our knowledge of the four languages to which
it refers.
Of these, the Choktah, which Adelung calls the Mobilian, is the only
one for which the Mithridates itself supplies, or could supply,
specimens; the other three being unrepresented by any sample whatever.
Hence, to say that the Tachi was Caddo, that the Yatassi was Adahi, or
that the Carancoua was Attacapa, was to give an instance, in the way
of explanation, of the _obscurum per obscurius_. Since the publication
of the Mithridates, however, we have got samples of all three--Caddo,
Adahi, and Attacapa--so that our standards of comparison are improved.
They are to be found in a tabulated form, and in a form convenient for
collation and comparison in both of Gallatin's papers. They were all
collected before the annexation of Texas, and they appear in the papers
just referred to as Louisiana, rather than truly Texian, languages;
being common to the two areas.
Of the works and papers written upon Texas since it became a field of
observation for English and American, as opposed to French and Spanish
observers, the two on which the present writer, when he treated of the
subject in his work on the Varieties of Mankind, most especially, and
perhaps exclusively relied, were the well-known work of Kennedy on
Texas, and a MS. with which he was favoured by Mr. Bollaert, specially
limited to the ethnology of the State. Of this MS. a short abstract
is to be found in the Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science for the year 1846, made by Mr. Bollaert himself.
The later the notice of Texas the greater the prominence given to a
tribe of which nothing is said in the Mithridates; viz. the _Cumanch_.
As late as 1844 we had nothing beyond the numerals and a most scanty
MS. list of words to tell us what the Cumanch language really was.
These, however, were sufficient to show that its affinities were of a
somewhat remarkable kind, viz. with the Shoshoni, or Snake, tongues
of the southern parts of Oregon[45]. In Mr. Bollaert's notice the
Cumanches are divided into three sections: (1) the Cumanch or Jetan,
(2) the Lemparack, and (3) the Tenuha, and a list of no less than
thirty-five other tribes follows this division, some of these being
said to be wholly extinct, some partially so; some to be more or less
Cumanch, some to be other than Cumanch.
[Footnote 45: "On the Languages of the Oregon Territory." By R. G.
Latham. M. D. Read before the Ethnological Society, Dec. 1844.--_Note._]
The tendency of the Mithridates is to give prominence to the Caddo,
Attacapa, and Adahi tongues, and to incline the investigator, when
dealing with the other forms of speech, to ask how far they are
connected with one of these three. The tendency of the writers
last-named is to give prominence to the Cumanch, and to suggest the
question: How far is this (or that) form of speech Cumanch or other
than Cumanch?
Working with the Mithridates, the MS. of Mr. Bollaert, and Mr.
Kennedy's volume on Texas before me, I find that the list of Texian
Indians which these authorities justified me in publishing in 1848,
contained (1) Coshattas, (2) Towiachs, Towakenos, Towecas, and
Wacos, (3) Lipans or Sipans, (4) Aliche or Eyish, (5) Acossesaws,
(6) Navaosos, (7) Mayes, (8) Cances, (9) Toncahuas, (10) Tuhuktukis,
(11) Unataquas or Anadarcos, (12) Mascovie, (13) Tawanis or Ionis,
(14) Wico,? Waco, (15) Avoyelles, (16) Washitas, (17) Ketchi, (18)
Xaramenes, (19) Caicaches, (20) Bidias, (21) Caddo, (22) Attacapa,
(23) Adahi; besides the Carankahuas (of which the Cokes are made a
branch) classed with the Attacapa, and not including certain Cherokees,
Choctahs, Chikkasahs, and Sioux.
A _Washita_ vocabulary, which will be referred to in the sequel,
concludes the list of Texian languages known by specimens.
At present, then, the chief question respecting the philology of Texas
is one of distribution. Given as centres to certain groups
1. The Choctah,
2. The Caddo,
3. The Adahi,
4. The Attakapa,
5. The Cumanch, and
6. The Washita languages,
how do we arrange the tribes just enumerated? Two works help us
here:--1. A letter from the Ex-president Burnett to Schoolcraft on the
Indians of Texas. Date 1847. 2. A Statistical Notice of the same by
Jesse Stem. Date 1851.