The Bidai, Tribe of Intrigue. Who were they, Really?
by Robin Montgomery
In the larger scheme of Texas History, the Bidai are generally overlooked and underestimated. Certainly their history does not compare to the renown of the Comanche’s, Lords of the Plains, or to the Comanche’s rivals, the Apaches. Nor does Bidai history embrace the luster of the Caddos. The Bidai, however, were endemically connected to all of these tribes, either as allies, rivals or kinsmen, and with them engaged in political maneuverings which set the tone for Texas history of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Furthermore, the Bidai were allies of the Anglo-Texans in the early 19th centuries, working with them, helping
them, while on occasion though conspiring against them.
In the eighteenth century, the French referred to the Bidai as “ferocious savages, vagrant miserables who begged for subsistence.” The Spanish on the other hand, called them, “friendly, peaceful, poor, wanting Christian teaching.”1 Both the French and the Spanish, however, at times would reverse their opinions. The Spanish, for example, at a point when exasperated with the Bidai, referred to them as “mercenaries.”2 By the time the Anglo-Texans entered the scene, the power of the Bidai tribe had been greatly eclipsed, largely by disease, rendering them relatively passive by their earlier more robust standards.
A full portrayal of the Bidai’s remarkable political maneuverings with other tribes, the Spanish, the French, the British and the Anglo-Texans is beyond the scope of this present study.3 Instead, we will narrow our focus to the fundamental question of “Who were the Bidai, really?” Our study will revolve around the exploration of three fundamental points, the geographic range of the tribe, the origin of the tribe and the language(s) which the Bidai spoke. It will be shown that the mystery and intrigue still surrounding each of these points lend some credence to an exotic interpretation of the true ancestors of the tribe. The study will conclude with a brief treatment of conditions determining the removal of most of the Bidai to OklahomaTerritory in the mid nineteenth century.
I. Range of the Bidai
The heart of Bidai territory in recorded history lay, west to east between the Brazos andTrinity Rivers, while ranging south to north from Spring Creek to the Old San Antonio Road. In this area, which embraced essentially the bounds of later original Montgomery County, they were the most prevalent tribe. Only in the southeast quadrant of this territory in the early years did they have to share the land on a continual basis, in this case with the Orquoquisac.
But did this area, as described, adequately define the range of the Bidai? Not according to Mexican
General Manuel de Mier y Terán. In 1828, the general undertook a journey through Texas on a
mission for the Mexican Government to reconnoiter the state. He recorded the following in his diary of that journey: "The chief of the Bidaes said in a conversation with the empresario of the colony[Stephen Austin] that he was dissatisfied with the government of Mexico because, without seeking his opinion or his permission, it granted lands to the North Americans, that his tribe owned all of Texas, including all the land, the waters, and the buffalo, deer, and turkeys . . . and the neglect of the Mexican government is even more disturbing with respect to the fact that the Bidai chief had been quite generous in dealing with the government and granting lands to the North Americans."4
Elsewhere in his diary, General Mier y Terán offers evidence lending some credence to Bidai claims to a wider region. On June second, upon crossing the Neches River heading east, the general states the following: “After leaving the deep bottoms where this river runs and spills over, there is a small mound—an ancient Bidai site—probably 30 to 40 feet high and some 40 varas in circumference, isolated on a plain surrounded by hills, and all is covered by thick vegetation.”5
A little later, the general writes the following: “In NacogdochesI have been visited on different days by the leaders of the Cheroquís, Delavarres[Delawares], Savanales[Shawnees], Kicapus[Kickapoos], Cuschates[Coushattas], Nadacos, Navadachos, Nacodochitos, Tejas, Yguanis, and Bidaeses tribes. It seems true the last, at a time when the tribe was powerful, constructed by hand the mound I mentioned on June 2.” 6
On his return trip from Nacogdoches, the general elaborates on the dimensions of this and two other
mounds: "At the mounds of Nechesat 12:00. There are three mounds built, according to the story, by the
Bidaeses[Bidai]. Clearly, they are constructed by human effort. The first one is rectangle of red ferrous clay. Its edges have disappeared with the ravages of time. I counted 17 paces from north to south and 10 from east to west. Its sides are aligned in the cardinal directions. It measures from 20 to 25 feet in height. At a distance of 200 paces to the southwest there is another mound of greater extension but less height, and to the south of the latter, the other one, which as three sides 30 feet wide and 20 feet high. Only the mound on the south side is lacking to enclose the area. These mounds are in a very extensive prairie that terminates to the west in the chaotic stream and flood plain of the Neches. From the embankment that descends from the prairie the builders extracted the earth for the mounds."7
Thus we see that evidence contemporary with the Bidai during the era of Mexican Texas links that tribe to a site in present CherokeeCounty, rather distant from the original MontgomeryCounty. The site is now known as “Caddoan Mounds State Historic Site.”
II. Origin of the Bidai:
Not only is there evidence suggesting a wide range for the Bidai, but the probability also exists that the Bidai were the oldest tribe in Texas. Once more we turn to General Mier y Terán. The general quoted the Bidai as stating that “all the other tribes are foreign and the Bidaes are the only native ones;” Mier y Terán furthermore wrote, “What does seem certain is that they [the Bidai] really should be considered the original
or among the oldest savages in Texas. . . .”8 Additionally, Jean Louis Berlandier, a Frenchman who traveled with Mier y Terán on the above mentioned journey, as well as engaging later trips to Texas, wrote that the Bidai were“undoubtedly the oldest of the native peoples of Texas.”9
III. The mystery behind the Bidai language:
Given the Bidai claim to being Texas’s oldest tribe, and to being the true sovereigns of the state, it should come as no surprise that the root of their language remains a mystery. Most scholars classify the Bidai language as Attacapan. The classic source on the Bidai, Andree Sjoberg, ties the Attacapan to the Tunican linguistic stock from the area of the Mississippi River.10 However, writing for the Handbook of Texas Online, Dorothy Couser states that “Some later linguists have abandoned this linkage and classified Atakapan [itself] as an isolated tongue.”11
In two end notes, the editor of the diaries of General Mier y Terán, Jack Jackson, expands the mystery of the language of the Bidai. In end note 127 on page 231 Jackson quotes Mier y Terán thusly: “They [the Bidai] are a relic of an ancient tribe in the country, whose language is completely different from the other languages existing in Texas.”12 On page 233, in end note 143, Jacksonquotes the editor of Berlandier’s work on Indians of Texas as follows, “The Bidai were Atakapan, not Caddoan speaking Indians.” Jackson further states, “Such is also the opinion of authorities like W.W. Newcomb, Jr. (The Indians of Texas, 315-329), who links them to the Orquoquisac (Akokisas) and other tribes of the southeastern GulfCoast extending into Louisiana. But, T.N. Campbell says in Tyler et al, eds. NHOT(1:523-524), ‘conclusive evidence concerning their culture is not known.’”13
The head of the Texas Archeology Studies Association, Bruce Lockett, states that the Atakapan[Attacapan] Indians consisted of several cultural groups linked through not only language, but customs and inter marriage. Among the groups which Lockett lists as part of the Attacapan group were the Atakapa(proper), Orquoquisac(Arkokisa), Hans, Cenis, Hasinai, Opelousas, Bidais, Deodose and Patiris. The last three comprised the nucleus of the Bidai family. According to Lockett, the domain of this wider eclectic entourage of Attacapans
extended from Grimes County, Texaseastward to the city of Natchitoches, Louisiana and below Monroe, Louisiana. In this region have been found remains of Attacapan culture.14
The San Xavier Mission Complex:
Adding to the confusion over the roots of the Bidai tongue was the Spanish practice of grouping that tribe with various and distinct other tribes in their mission system. Thomas Campbell, for example, states that the grouping of the Bidai with other tribes at the San Xavier Mission complex “has caused some confusion as to the origins and language of the tribe.”15
The San Xavier missions, named after the San Xavier River, the Spanish name for the San Gabriel which branches off the Brazos, were viable from 1746-55. The missions resulted from the request of representatives of several tribes, including the Deadose and Patiri, who were branches of the Bidai. There were three missions called, in the order of their construction, San Francisco Xavier de Horcasitas, San Ildefonso and Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria.
The second mission, San Ildefonso, was built primarily with the Bidai, Deadose, Patiri and Orquoquisac in mind. Mixing Indians of alien tribes usually led to trouble, and this was no exception. When the Karankawas were introduced into the mix, things became even more unruly making the third mission, Nuestra Señora de Candelaria necessary.16
So, even though the Bidai were interrelated to the Orquoquisac, and often camped with them, as well as with the Karankawa, there were intransigent differences between the tribes. One notable difference lay in the practice of cannibalism. Certainly the Karankawa, and to some extent the Orquoquisac, embraced this practice. However, unlike most tribes, there is no record of the practice among the Bidai proper.17
The Bidai-Caddo Connection:
While the Spanish grouped the Bidai with the Orquoquisac and to a lesser extent with the Karankawa, most scholars consider the Bidai as more closely related to the Caddo. It is known, for example, that the Bidai spoke the Caddo language as well as their own. The very word, Bidai, itself, is a Caddo word signifying “brushwood”. However, in their own language, the Bidai referred to themselves as the “Quasmigdo” tribe. Other derivatives of the word for Bidai, variations of the original Caddo word, include Bedias, Beadeyes and Vidays.18
That the Caddo, themselves, considered the Bidai to be related to them is made clear in a discussion General Mier y Terán had with what he described as a Caddo“captain.” In his dairy, the general writes about the captain: “He told me himself that the small tribes called the Tejas, Badaeses[Bidai], Navadachos, and Nacodochitos had been cut off previously from the Caddo tribes.”19
The first mention of the Caddo by the Spanish occurred in the context of Mission San Francisco de las
Tejas, a mission established primarily for the Caddo. In a document dated 15 August 1691, Fray Francisco de Jesus Maria referred to the Bidai in a report to the Viceroy of New Spain. The subject of his report was the mission of the Tejas.20
The Bidai were most closely associated with the Hasinai branch of the Caddo nation. Among the commonalities of the Hasinai and the Bidai was a shared belief in the power of Bidai Shamans. The Hasinai thought that Bidai Shaman caused sickness by penetrating the bodies of victims with various substances. The
Hasinai thought that the only way to counteract this power was to build a special type of campfire, and embrace certain magic words which would cause the Bidai Shaman to appear before their camp in the form of owls. Once a shaman, as an owl, was in their camp, presumably the Hasinai believed they were in a position to persuade him to revoke his spells.21
IV. An Exotic Consideration:
Given the Bidai claims of their historic range and origins and the uncertainty of the roots of their language,
an intriguing possibility presents itself. In 1967, the Naylor Company published a book entitled Latest Aztec
Discoveries.22 The author, Guy E. Powell, a former naval commander, makes an interesting case for
the location of the original home of the Aztecs and Toltecs, and for an early home for the Mayas. Powell takes the position that all three of these great civilizations made their way to what would become the country of Mexico from an area in East Texas that could surely encompass the range the Bidai claimed for themselves. Could the Bidai be descendents of one or all of these great civilizations?
The epicenter of this early abode of three tribes ranged, according to Powell, from about present Trinity to
Groveton, Texas generally encompassing TrinityCounty. This was the land to which the Aztecs referred as Aztlan, known as the “white place” for the type of rocks in the area.
At the outset, let it be understood that there are many arguable positions on the location from which the
great Mexican civilizations sprung. All have their supporters and doubters. One of the more remarkable of these suppositions is derived from a map by the great explorer and geographer, Alexander von Humboldt. In 1810, Humboldt devised a map depicting Aztlan far to the north. “Amongst its notable features, Humboldt’s map preserves the tradition that the Aztecs migrated to Mexico from the landof Aztlan, a mysterious place which the Spanish thought was located near the Great Salt Lake in modern Utah.”23
Powell bases his claim for Trinity County and its environs as the true location for Aztlan on records from the three tribes, themselves, all of which claim to have made their way to Mexicofrom the north. They also
describe, in common, several traits of this far distant land. In his book, Powell integrates forty-four points in favor of his designated site for Aztlan.24 Since there is no consensus among the scholarly community on the location of Aztlan, however, we are still left with the question with which we began this study, who
are the Bidai, really?
IV. The Reservation System:
Though there is no strong consensus for the range, origin and language of the Bidai, we can relate, with
some assurance, the story of their ultimate fate. In 1854, the state of Texas set aside 53,140 acres for two Indian Reservations. Both of these were along the Brazos River. One, at the Clear Forks area was meant for the Comanche. It soon fizzled, however, since the fierce independence of that tribe led a substantial number either to leave or refuse to be placed there in the first place.
The second reservation, established in 1854, this one along the Brazos near the present town of Graham, was meant for the Wacos, the Tonkawas and the Caddos. It was with the Caddos that most of the remainder of the Bidai was placed.
But even this policy did not meet success. Several reasons could be advanced as to why. For one thing, many
Indians simply refused to take part in the scheme. For another thing, there was not enough land available and much of what was allotted to the Indians was unsuitable for farming. This meant that the Indians were doubly dependent upon the Indian agents, some of whom proved corrupt. Finally, there developed the problem of
more and more settlers claiming property close by the reservations. This tempted the Indians to raid their farms for horses and food.
As a result of these factors, in 1859, the State of Texas gave up on the reservation systems on the Brazos and sent the Indians to Oklahoma Territory. Thus was the fate of most of the Bidai, receiving access to land on the Wichita Reserve in the Chickasaw Nation.25
Though most of the Bidai took their leave of Texas for Oklahoma Territory in company with the Caddo, it is
likely that some of the tribe found a home with their friends the Alabama-Coushatti and the Kickapoo, respectively. Representatives of the latter tribes had sojourned for awhile in original Montgomery Countyterritory, alongside the Bidai. In 1854, the Alabama-Coushatti received an award of 1280 acres in Polk County, near present Livingston. They were so successful that the state later increased their allotment. Joining the Alabama-Coushatti with a reservation of their own were the Kickapoos, gaining access to land near EaglePass.
Meanwhile, there was intermarriage between the Bidai and Orquoquisac, leading to a mixture of those tribes.26 The Spanish even established off the lower Trinity River, a presidio, St. Augustín de Ahumada, and a mission, Nuestra Señora de la Luz, to minister to these tribes in common.27
End Notes
1. Bruce Lockett, (Ed.), Atakapa Indians, vol.1 (Vidor, TX: Texas Archeology Studies Association, n.d.), p. 27
2. Ed Kilman, Cannibal Coast(San Antonio: The Naylor Co., 1959), p.128
3. For a more extensive look at the Bidai impact in the larger arena of Texas politics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries see, Robin Montgomery, Indians& Pioneers of Original Montgomery (San Antonio: Historical Publishing Network, 2006).
4. Jack Jackson (Ed.), John Wheat (Trans.), Texas by Terán: The Diary kept by General Manuel de Mier y Terán on his 1828 inspection of Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000), p. 61
5. Ibid., 74
6. Ibid., 76
7. Ibid., 140-41
8. Ibid., 61
9. Ibid., 219; also see Thomas Campbell, “Bidai Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http:www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/articles/BB/bmb7.html (viewed 3/22/06)
10. Andree F. Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas,” pp 391-400 in Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology, vol. 7, no.4 (Winter 1951)
11. Dorothy Couser, “Atakapa Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/bma48.html (viewed 2/23/06)
12. Jackson, Texas by Terán, 231
13. Ibid., 233
14. Lockett, (Ed.), Atakapa Indians, Introduction. (No page number)
15. Campbell, “Bidai Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
16. Joan E. Supplee, “San Xavier Missions.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/SS/uqs34.html (viewed 1/24/06)
17. See W.W. Newcomb, Jr., The Indians of Texas from Prehistoric to Modern Times (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1961,69), p327.
18. Ibid. Also see Frederick Webb Hodge (Ed.), Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part 1 of 2 Parts (NY: Pageant Books, 1960), p.145; & R.E. Moore, “The Atakapan Indian Groups,” http://www.texasindians.com/atakap.htm (viewed 7/28/05)
19. Jackson, Texas by Terán, 80
20. See Fray Francisco Casanas de Jesus María, Informe de Francisco de Jesus María al Virrey Conde de Galvez sobre las Missiones de Tejas, August 15,1691. Quoted in Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas.” The full text, in the original Spanish, appears in John R. Swanton, “Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the Caddo Indians”,pp241-63 in Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology 132 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942).
21. Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas.”
22. Guy E. Powell, Latest Aztec Discoveries (San Antonio: The Naylor Co., 1967).
23. “Aztlan and the Origin of the Aztecs”.
<http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/printer_2369.shtml> (viewed 2/23/06)
24. Powell, Latest Aztec Discoveries, pp4-7
25. For a good summary of conditions surrounding efforts to launch Reservations along the Brazos, see W.E.S. Dickerson, “Comanche Indian Reservations,” p. 45 in The New Handbook of Texas, vol.
2 of 6 vols. (Austin: State Historical Association, 1996)
26. See, for instance, Sjoberg,“The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas”; Campbell, “The Bidai Indians”; and Newcomb, The Indians of Texas from Prehistoric to Modern Times, 354-58
27. Herbert Eugene Bolton, Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century (NY: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp.75-76, 352-53
In the larger scheme of Texas History, the Bidai are generally overlooked and underestimated. Certainly their history does not compare to the renown of the Comanche’s, Lords of the Plains, or to the Comanche’s rivals, the Apaches. Nor does Bidai history embrace the luster of the Caddos. The Bidai, however, were endemically connected to all of these tribes, either as allies, rivals or kinsmen, and with them engaged in political maneuverings which set the tone for Texas history of the 18th and early 19th centuries. Furthermore, the Bidai were allies of the Anglo-Texans in the early 19th centuries, working with them, helping
them, while on occasion though conspiring against them.
In the eighteenth century, the French referred to the Bidai as “ferocious savages, vagrant miserables who begged for subsistence.” The Spanish on the other hand, called them, “friendly, peaceful, poor, wanting Christian teaching.”1 Both the French and the Spanish, however, at times would reverse their opinions. The Spanish, for example, at a point when exasperated with the Bidai, referred to them as “mercenaries.”2 By the time the Anglo-Texans entered the scene, the power of the Bidai tribe had been greatly eclipsed, largely by disease, rendering them relatively passive by their earlier more robust standards.
A full portrayal of the Bidai’s remarkable political maneuverings with other tribes, the Spanish, the French, the British and the Anglo-Texans is beyond the scope of this present study.3 Instead, we will narrow our focus to the fundamental question of “Who were the Bidai, really?” Our study will revolve around the exploration of three fundamental points, the geographic range of the tribe, the origin of the tribe and the language(s) which the Bidai spoke. It will be shown that the mystery and intrigue still surrounding each of these points lend some credence to an exotic interpretation of the true ancestors of the tribe. The study will conclude with a brief treatment of conditions determining the removal of most of the Bidai to OklahomaTerritory in the mid nineteenth century.
I. Range of the Bidai
The heart of Bidai territory in recorded history lay, west to east between the Brazos andTrinity Rivers, while ranging south to north from Spring Creek to the Old San Antonio Road. In this area, which embraced essentially the bounds of later original Montgomery County, they were the most prevalent tribe. Only in the southeast quadrant of this territory in the early years did they have to share the land on a continual basis, in this case with the Orquoquisac.
But did this area, as described, adequately define the range of the Bidai? Not according to Mexican
General Manuel de Mier y Terán. In 1828, the general undertook a journey through Texas on a
mission for the Mexican Government to reconnoiter the state. He recorded the following in his diary of that journey: "The chief of the Bidaes said in a conversation with the empresario of the colony[Stephen Austin] that he was dissatisfied with the government of Mexico because, without seeking his opinion or his permission, it granted lands to the North Americans, that his tribe owned all of Texas, including all the land, the waters, and the buffalo, deer, and turkeys . . . and the neglect of the Mexican government is even more disturbing with respect to the fact that the Bidai chief had been quite generous in dealing with the government and granting lands to the North Americans."4
Elsewhere in his diary, General Mier y Terán offers evidence lending some credence to Bidai claims to a wider region. On June second, upon crossing the Neches River heading east, the general states the following: “After leaving the deep bottoms where this river runs and spills over, there is a small mound—an ancient Bidai site—probably 30 to 40 feet high and some 40 varas in circumference, isolated on a plain surrounded by hills, and all is covered by thick vegetation.”5
A little later, the general writes the following: “In NacogdochesI have been visited on different days by the leaders of the Cheroquís, Delavarres[Delawares], Savanales[Shawnees], Kicapus[Kickapoos], Cuschates[Coushattas], Nadacos, Navadachos, Nacodochitos, Tejas, Yguanis, and Bidaeses tribes. It seems true the last, at a time when the tribe was powerful, constructed by hand the mound I mentioned on June 2.” 6
On his return trip from Nacogdoches, the general elaborates on the dimensions of this and two other
mounds: "At the mounds of Nechesat 12:00. There are three mounds built, according to the story, by the
Bidaeses[Bidai]. Clearly, they are constructed by human effort. The first one is rectangle of red ferrous clay. Its edges have disappeared with the ravages of time. I counted 17 paces from north to south and 10 from east to west. Its sides are aligned in the cardinal directions. It measures from 20 to 25 feet in height. At a distance of 200 paces to the southwest there is another mound of greater extension but less height, and to the south of the latter, the other one, which as three sides 30 feet wide and 20 feet high. Only the mound on the south side is lacking to enclose the area. These mounds are in a very extensive prairie that terminates to the west in the chaotic stream and flood plain of the Neches. From the embankment that descends from the prairie the builders extracted the earth for the mounds."7
Thus we see that evidence contemporary with the Bidai during the era of Mexican Texas links that tribe to a site in present CherokeeCounty, rather distant from the original MontgomeryCounty. The site is now known as “Caddoan Mounds State Historic Site.”
II. Origin of the Bidai:
Not only is there evidence suggesting a wide range for the Bidai, but the probability also exists that the Bidai were the oldest tribe in Texas. Once more we turn to General Mier y Terán. The general quoted the Bidai as stating that “all the other tribes are foreign and the Bidaes are the only native ones;” Mier y Terán furthermore wrote, “What does seem certain is that they [the Bidai] really should be considered the original
or among the oldest savages in Texas. . . .”8 Additionally, Jean Louis Berlandier, a Frenchman who traveled with Mier y Terán on the above mentioned journey, as well as engaging later trips to Texas, wrote that the Bidai were“undoubtedly the oldest of the native peoples of Texas.”9
III. The mystery behind the Bidai language:
Given the Bidai claim to being Texas’s oldest tribe, and to being the true sovereigns of the state, it should come as no surprise that the root of their language remains a mystery. Most scholars classify the Bidai language as Attacapan. The classic source on the Bidai, Andree Sjoberg, ties the Attacapan to the Tunican linguistic stock from the area of the Mississippi River.10 However, writing for the Handbook of Texas Online, Dorothy Couser states that “Some later linguists have abandoned this linkage and classified Atakapan [itself] as an isolated tongue.”11
In two end notes, the editor of the diaries of General Mier y Terán, Jack Jackson, expands the mystery of the language of the Bidai. In end note 127 on page 231 Jackson quotes Mier y Terán thusly: “They [the Bidai] are a relic of an ancient tribe in the country, whose language is completely different from the other languages existing in Texas.”12 On page 233, in end note 143, Jacksonquotes the editor of Berlandier’s work on Indians of Texas as follows, “The Bidai were Atakapan, not Caddoan speaking Indians.” Jackson further states, “Such is also the opinion of authorities like W.W. Newcomb, Jr. (The Indians of Texas, 315-329), who links them to the Orquoquisac (Akokisas) and other tribes of the southeastern GulfCoast extending into Louisiana. But, T.N. Campbell says in Tyler et al, eds. NHOT(1:523-524), ‘conclusive evidence concerning their culture is not known.’”13
The head of the Texas Archeology Studies Association, Bruce Lockett, states that the Atakapan[Attacapan] Indians consisted of several cultural groups linked through not only language, but customs and inter marriage. Among the groups which Lockett lists as part of the Attacapan group were the Atakapa(proper), Orquoquisac(Arkokisa), Hans, Cenis, Hasinai, Opelousas, Bidais, Deodose and Patiris. The last three comprised the nucleus of the Bidai family. According to Lockett, the domain of this wider eclectic entourage of Attacapans
extended from Grimes County, Texaseastward to the city of Natchitoches, Louisiana and below Monroe, Louisiana. In this region have been found remains of Attacapan culture.14
The San Xavier Mission Complex:
Adding to the confusion over the roots of the Bidai tongue was the Spanish practice of grouping that tribe with various and distinct other tribes in their mission system. Thomas Campbell, for example, states that the grouping of the Bidai with other tribes at the San Xavier Mission complex “has caused some confusion as to the origins and language of the tribe.”15
The San Xavier missions, named after the San Xavier River, the Spanish name for the San Gabriel which branches off the Brazos, were viable from 1746-55. The missions resulted from the request of representatives of several tribes, including the Deadose and Patiri, who were branches of the Bidai. There were three missions called, in the order of their construction, San Francisco Xavier de Horcasitas, San Ildefonso and Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria.
The second mission, San Ildefonso, was built primarily with the Bidai, Deadose, Patiri and Orquoquisac in mind. Mixing Indians of alien tribes usually led to trouble, and this was no exception. When the Karankawas were introduced into the mix, things became even more unruly making the third mission, Nuestra Señora de Candelaria necessary.16
So, even though the Bidai were interrelated to the Orquoquisac, and often camped with them, as well as with the Karankawa, there were intransigent differences between the tribes. One notable difference lay in the practice of cannibalism. Certainly the Karankawa, and to some extent the Orquoquisac, embraced this practice. However, unlike most tribes, there is no record of the practice among the Bidai proper.17
The Bidai-Caddo Connection:
While the Spanish grouped the Bidai with the Orquoquisac and to a lesser extent with the Karankawa, most scholars consider the Bidai as more closely related to the Caddo. It is known, for example, that the Bidai spoke the Caddo language as well as their own. The very word, Bidai, itself, is a Caddo word signifying “brushwood”. However, in their own language, the Bidai referred to themselves as the “Quasmigdo” tribe. Other derivatives of the word for Bidai, variations of the original Caddo word, include Bedias, Beadeyes and Vidays.18
That the Caddo, themselves, considered the Bidai to be related to them is made clear in a discussion General Mier y Terán had with what he described as a Caddo“captain.” In his dairy, the general writes about the captain: “He told me himself that the small tribes called the Tejas, Badaeses[Bidai], Navadachos, and Nacodochitos had been cut off previously from the Caddo tribes.”19
The first mention of the Caddo by the Spanish occurred in the context of Mission San Francisco de las
Tejas, a mission established primarily for the Caddo. In a document dated 15 August 1691, Fray Francisco de Jesus Maria referred to the Bidai in a report to the Viceroy of New Spain. The subject of his report was the mission of the Tejas.20
The Bidai were most closely associated with the Hasinai branch of the Caddo nation. Among the commonalities of the Hasinai and the Bidai was a shared belief in the power of Bidai Shamans. The Hasinai thought that Bidai Shaman caused sickness by penetrating the bodies of victims with various substances. The
Hasinai thought that the only way to counteract this power was to build a special type of campfire, and embrace certain magic words which would cause the Bidai Shaman to appear before their camp in the form of owls. Once a shaman, as an owl, was in their camp, presumably the Hasinai believed they were in a position to persuade him to revoke his spells.21
IV. An Exotic Consideration:
Given the Bidai claims of their historic range and origins and the uncertainty of the roots of their language,
an intriguing possibility presents itself. In 1967, the Naylor Company published a book entitled Latest Aztec
Discoveries.22 The author, Guy E. Powell, a former naval commander, makes an interesting case for
the location of the original home of the Aztecs and Toltecs, and for an early home for the Mayas. Powell takes the position that all three of these great civilizations made their way to what would become the country of Mexico from an area in East Texas that could surely encompass the range the Bidai claimed for themselves. Could the Bidai be descendents of one or all of these great civilizations?
The epicenter of this early abode of three tribes ranged, according to Powell, from about present Trinity to
Groveton, Texas generally encompassing TrinityCounty. This was the land to which the Aztecs referred as Aztlan, known as the “white place” for the type of rocks in the area.
At the outset, let it be understood that there are many arguable positions on the location from which the
great Mexican civilizations sprung. All have their supporters and doubters. One of the more remarkable of these suppositions is derived from a map by the great explorer and geographer, Alexander von Humboldt. In 1810, Humboldt devised a map depicting Aztlan far to the north. “Amongst its notable features, Humboldt’s map preserves the tradition that the Aztecs migrated to Mexico from the landof Aztlan, a mysterious place which the Spanish thought was located near the Great Salt Lake in modern Utah.”23
Powell bases his claim for Trinity County and its environs as the true location for Aztlan on records from the three tribes, themselves, all of which claim to have made their way to Mexicofrom the north. They also
describe, in common, several traits of this far distant land. In his book, Powell integrates forty-four points in favor of his designated site for Aztlan.24 Since there is no consensus among the scholarly community on the location of Aztlan, however, we are still left with the question with which we began this study, who
are the Bidai, really?
IV. The Reservation System:
Though there is no strong consensus for the range, origin and language of the Bidai, we can relate, with
some assurance, the story of their ultimate fate. In 1854, the state of Texas set aside 53,140 acres for two Indian Reservations. Both of these were along the Brazos River. One, at the Clear Forks area was meant for the Comanche. It soon fizzled, however, since the fierce independence of that tribe led a substantial number either to leave or refuse to be placed there in the first place.
The second reservation, established in 1854, this one along the Brazos near the present town of Graham, was meant for the Wacos, the Tonkawas and the Caddos. It was with the Caddos that most of the remainder of the Bidai was placed.
But even this policy did not meet success. Several reasons could be advanced as to why. For one thing, many
Indians simply refused to take part in the scheme. For another thing, there was not enough land available and much of what was allotted to the Indians was unsuitable for farming. This meant that the Indians were doubly dependent upon the Indian agents, some of whom proved corrupt. Finally, there developed the problem of
more and more settlers claiming property close by the reservations. This tempted the Indians to raid their farms for horses and food.
As a result of these factors, in 1859, the State of Texas gave up on the reservation systems on the Brazos and sent the Indians to Oklahoma Territory. Thus was the fate of most of the Bidai, receiving access to land on the Wichita Reserve in the Chickasaw Nation.25
Though most of the Bidai took their leave of Texas for Oklahoma Territory in company with the Caddo, it is
likely that some of the tribe found a home with their friends the Alabama-Coushatti and the Kickapoo, respectively. Representatives of the latter tribes had sojourned for awhile in original Montgomery Countyterritory, alongside the Bidai. In 1854, the Alabama-Coushatti received an award of 1280 acres in Polk County, near present Livingston. They were so successful that the state later increased their allotment. Joining the Alabama-Coushatti with a reservation of their own were the Kickapoos, gaining access to land near EaglePass.
Meanwhile, there was intermarriage between the Bidai and Orquoquisac, leading to a mixture of those tribes.26 The Spanish even established off the lower Trinity River, a presidio, St. Augustín de Ahumada, and a mission, Nuestra Señora de la Luz, to minister to these tribes in common.27
End Notes
1. Bruce Lockett, (Ed.), Atakapa Indians, vol.1 (Vidor, TX: Texas Archeology Studies Association, n.d.), p. 27
2. Ed Kilman, Cannibal Coast(San Antonio: The Naylor Co., 1959), p.128
3. For a more extensive look at the Bidai impact in the larger arena of Texas politics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries see, Robin Montgomery, Indians& Pioneers of Original Montgomery (San Antonio: Historical Publishing Network, 2006).
4. Jack Jackson (Ed.), John Wheat (Trans.), Texas by Terán: The Diary kept by General Manuel de Mier y Terán on his 1828 inspection of Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000), p. 61
5. Ibid., 74
6. Ibid., 76
7. Ibid., 140-41
8. Ibid., 61
9. Ibid., 219; also see Thomas Campbell, “Bidai Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http:www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/articles/BB/bmb7.html (viewed 3/22/06)
10. Andree F. Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas,” pp 391-400 in Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology, vol. 7, no.4 (Winter 1951)
11. Dorothy Couser, “Atakapa Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/AA/bma48.html (viewed 2/23/06)
12. Jackson, Texas by Terán, 231
13. Ibid., 233
14. Lockett, (Ed.), Atakapa Indians, Introduction. (No page number)
15. Campbell, “Bidai Indians.” Handbook of Texas Online.
16. Joan E. Supplee, “San Xavier Missions.” Handbook of Texas Online.
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/print/SS/uqs34.html (viewed 1/24/06)
17. See W.W. Newcomb, Jr., The Indians of Texas from Prehistoric to Modern Times (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1961,69), p327.
18. Ibid. Also see Frederick Webb Hodge (Ed.), Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part 1 of 2 Parts (NY: Pageant Books, 1960), p.145; & R.E. Moore, “The Atakapan Indian Groups,” http://www.texasindians.com/atakap.htm (viewed 7/28/05)
19. Jackson, Texas by Terán, 80
20. See Fray Francisco Casanas de Jesus María, Informe de Francisco de Jesus María al Virrey Conde de Galvez sobre las Missiones de Tejas, August 15,1691. Quoted in Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas.” The full text, in the original Spanish, appears in John R. Swanton, “Source Material on the History and Ethnology of the Caddo Indians”,pp241-63 in Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology 132 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942).
21. Sjoberg, “The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas.”
22. Guy E. Powell, Latest Aztec Discoveries (San Antonio: The Naylor Co., 1967).
23. “Aztlan and the Origin of the Aztecs”.
<http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/printer_2369.shtml> (viewed 2/23/06)
24. Powell, Latest Aztec Discoveries, pp4-7
25. For a good summary of conditions surrounding efforts to launch Reservations along the Brazos, see W.E.S. Dickerson, “Comanche Indian Reservations,” p. 45 in The New Handbook of Texas, vol.
2 of 6 vols. (Austin: State Historical Association, 1996)
26. See, for instance, Sjoberg,“The Bidai Indians of Southeastern Texas”; Campbell, “The Bidai Indians”; and Newcomb, The Indians of Texas from Prehistoric to Modern Times, 354-58
27. Herbert Eugene Bolton, Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century (NY: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), pp.75-76, 352-53