The truth is that the importance of the Caddos and Pawnis, from an ethnological point of view, is inordinately greater than their importance in any other respect. They are, however, but imperfectly known.
In Gallatin's first paper—the paper of the Archæologia Americana—there is a Caddo vocabulary and a Pawni vocabulary; and all that be said of them is that they are a little more like each other, than they are to the remaining specimens.
When the paper under notice was published the Riccaree was wholly unknown. But the Riccaree, when known, was shewn to be more Pawni than aught else. This made the Pawni a kind of nucleus for a class.
⁋ Somewhat later the Caddo confederacy in Texas took prominence, and the Caddo became a nucleus also.
The true explanation of this lies in the highly probable fact that both the Caddo and Pawni are members of one and the same class. At the same time I am quite prepared to find that the Witshita (though compared with the Caddo by myself) is more particularly Pawni.
That the nearest congeners of the Caddo and Pawni class were the members of the Iroquois, Woccoon, Cherokee, and Chocta group I believed at an early period of my investigations; at a time (so to say) before the Riccarees, and the Californian populations were invented. If this doctrine were true, the Caddo (Pawni) affinities would run eastwards. They may do this, and run westwards also. That they run eastwards I still believe. But I have also seen Caddo and Pawni affinities in California. The Caddo numeral one = whiste; in Secumne and Cushna wikte, wiktem. Again the Caddo and Kichie for water = koko, kioksh. Meanwhile kik is a true Moquelumne form. This I get from a most cursory inspection; or rather from memory.
Upon the principle that truth comes out of error more easily than confusion I give the following notice of the distribution or want of distribution of the numerous Texian tribes.
- *Coshattas—Unknown.
- Towiach—Pawni (?).
- Lipan—Athabaskan (?).
- *Alish, or Eyish—Caddo (?).
- *Acossesaw—Unknown.
- Navaosos—Navahos (?).
- *Mayes—Attacapa (?).
- *Cances—Unknown.
- Toncahuas—Are these the Tonkaways, amounting, according to Stem, to 1152 souls? If so, a specimen of their language should be obtained. Again—are they the Tancards? Are they the Tunicas? If so, they may speak Choctah.
- Tuhuktukis—Are these the Topofkis, amounting to 200 souls? If so a specimen of their language, eo nomine, is attainable.
- Unataquas, or Andarcos—They amount, according to Stem, to 202 souls. No vocabulary, eo nomine, known. Capable of being obtained.
- Mascovie—Unknown.
- Iawani or Ioni—Caddo? Amount to 113 souls. Specimen of language, eo nomine, capable of being obtained.
- Waco—Wico?—Pawni.
- *Avoyelle—Unknown.
- 17. Washita—Kiche—Pawni.
- *Xaramene—Unknown.
- *Caicache—Unknown.
- *Bidias—Unknown.
- Caddo—Caddo.
- Attacapa—Attacapa.
- Adahi—Adahi.
- Coke—Carackahua.
- Carankahua—Attacapa (?).
- Towacano—Numbering 141 souls. Is this Towiach?
- Hitchi—Kichi (?).
- *Nandako.—Caddo (?).
- *Nabadaches.—Caddo (?).
- *Yatassi.
- *Natchitoches.—Adahi (?).
- *Nacogdoches.—Adahi (?).
- Keyes.—Adahi (?).
These last may belong as much to Louisiana as to Texas—as, indeed, may some of the others. Those marked * are apparently extinct. At any rate, they are not found in any of the recent notices.
Finally, Mr Burnett mentions the San Pedro Indians.