THE HISTORIC CADDO
If one views the Caddoan archaeological sequence as a tree trunk, identifiable branches seem to begin spreading by about A.D. 1450 (Belcher Focus). After that point, several distinct tribal branches can be recognized,each with its own particular language, or dialect, and customs. Within relatively short distances these groups often exhibited striking differences.
The Louisiana Caddoan-speaking groups were the Adaes, Doustioni, Natchitoches, Ouachita and Yatasi. These groups seem to have been concentrated around Natchitoches, Mansfield, Monroe, and Robeline, Louisiana. Their total aboriginal territory stretched from the Ouachita River west to the Sabine River and south to the mouth of Cane River.
On Red River, in northeastern Texas and southwestern Arkansas, there were other Caddoan groups: Kadohadacho, Petit Caddo, Nasoni, Nanatsoho, and Upper Natchitoches. Eventually, due to pressure from the Osage, these groups migrated south to Louisiana and settled north of the Yatasi, near Caddo Prairie and Caddo Lake.
The Caddoan tribes seem to have had strong cultural affiliations. In fact, some anthropologists have considered them part of three vast inter-tribal confederacies (Swanton 1942; Hodge 1907). In eastern Texas another group, led by the Hasinai, consisted of the Ais, Anadarko, Hainai, Hasinai, Nabiti, Nacogdoches, and Nabedache. This group also has been considered a large confederacy (Hodge 1907).
The various peoples mentioned above seem to have been regional groups, fairly fluid in nature, but tied to general geographic boundaries. Linguistic differences served to differentiate them (Taylor 1963:51-59) and some, like the Adaes, could hardly be understood by the others. However, the Kadohadacho language dominated in the east—where nearly everyone understood it—and the Hasinai language in the west.
These groups had chiefs, orCaddi. Generally one man had more prestige than any otherCaddi, but multiple chiefs—usually two—were present in most communities. Other groups seem to have hadtama(local organizers), but chiefs were weak or lacking. Polity, then, consisted of theCaddi, or chiefs, andtama, a sort of organizational leader (often confused with the chief by early Europeans) who was powerful enough to gather the people for work, war, or ceremonials. TheCaddiwere a select group—likely the historic equivalent to the priest-chiefs of prehistoric times. Priests and witches composed a non-secular leadership among the Caddoan groups, but by historic times they had become somewhat separate from the warrior-chiefs who led the tribes.
It can be seen, then, that the Caddoan peoples had several of the criteria of true chiefdoms (Service 1962): territory, leadership, and linguistic-cultural distinctiveness. All of the Europeans—French, Spanish andAnglo-American—who dealt with them left records relative to their character and intelligence. As late as the 19th century the Caddo still boasted that they had never shed white blood (Swanton 1942) and their chiefs still were respected.
In the age of tribal self-determination and Indian sovereignty, it seems in order to explain basic Caddo tribalism. Contrary to many other southeastern Indian groups, the Caddoan people seem to have clung tenaciously to land and leadership even after the erosive effects of European contact. The fact that their roots extended into prehistory gave them strength and self-confidence. They kept their faith and polity, and their traditions remain even today.