The Houma tribe of southeast Louisiana

Who are they, where did they come from?

The city of Houma, Louisiana, is supposed to have gotten its name from an indigenous tribe known as the Houma. The classic lore is that the reason the city is named after the tribe is because the Houma people were the original inhabitants of that area. However, the story is actually a lot more complicated than that. Misinformation about the Houma abounds on the Internet, and much of what is commonly “known” about them is incorrect or misinterpreted. Because my family is from the same part of Louisiana as the Houma people, I have done quite a lot of research on them, both collectively and individually.

The first mention I can find of the Houma in newspapers is from a blurb that was syndicated around the country in 1775.

At this point, I should probably include a map to show you where the Houma live now, exactly.

Google Maps has kindly put a little dotted red line around the city of Houma on the left side of that image. The Houma people are not centered in Houma city, though. The modern Houma are concentrated further south, in the regions that have started to look like Swiss cheese, thanks to coastal erosion. Dulac, Golden Meadow, Isle de Jean Charles. Way down the bayou, along the Gulf.

Where the Houma live is decidedly not anywhere near the place mentioned in that 1775 newspaper blurb. They don’t really live particularly close to the Mississippi River, and certainly not on the eastern side of it. So what’s up with that? Why would the Houma “sell their village” to some guy named Conway and then move to the ends of the Earth in extreme southern Louisiana, to a landscape markedly different from what they must have been used to in the old village?

Already, one piece of common “knowledge” about the Houma has proven to be inaccurate; by 1775, when Louisiana was still controlled by Spain, there were already white (French, German, Spanish) settlers starting to trickle into lower Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes. The incoming flood of Anglo-American settlers was just a few decades away. That’s not to say that there couldn’t have also been indigenous Americans living in that area before they got there; of course, there could have been, and surely were, indigenous peoples in that area at some point prior to 1775. However, the Houma tribe certainly was not there at that time; their village was located far away from where Houma stands today. The city of Houma itself was founded in 1832.

This article was published in 1803:

This further dispels any idea that the Houma people could have had another historical headquarters near modern-day Houma. They were understood to live on the eastern side of the Mississippi and to only number about 60. “Red Men” refers to the name “Houma” in this case, rather than being only a racist description of indigenous skin tones. The word “Houma” means red; its derivation is similar to that of Oklahoma, from the Choctaw family of languages.

The land that was “sold” to Conway in 1775, located in and around present-day Ascension Parish, shown in the map below, came to be known as the “Houmas claim” and was fought over in court for decades. A published letter written by John Claiborne in 1859 summarizes the history of the Houmas claim up to that time. I’ll try to give a brief summary.

The French and Spanish colonial governments allowed indigenous tribes to continue living on the land they already lived on, but the European crown retained “title” to all the land. One can imagine that to the indigenous peoples without similar concepts of land ownership and property, this probably seemed like a negligible point, but, eventually, it mattered very much who held the title to the land, particularly as the value of the land continued to increase, attracting more settlers and speculators wanting to profit off the Houma land.

According to Claiborne, about 1774, the Houma sold their land to three men: the previously mentioned Maurice Conway and two other men named Latil and McNamara. The land is described as “about twenty-two leagues above [New Orleans]; on the left bank of the river, with the customary depth of forty arpents, by a river-front of ninety-six arpents.” Conway later bought out the other two’s interest in the property. In 1776, Conway petitioned the Spanish government to expand his land claim to encompass the vacant lands at the rear of his property, because he needed timber, which was lacking on the rest of the property (perhaps because it had been cleared to build the Houma village that used to be located on it?). A surveyor was sent out to define the new property lines and extend Conway’s boundary towards the rear some distance. Conway’s request was then granted; however, in the act of concession prepared for Conway, the new back boundary was not firmly specified.

In 1778, Conway sold a piece of his land to Oliver Pollock. The act of sale describes the land as “with a depth extending to the lake”. The map above is very illustrative of this point; look at the Mississippi River in Ascension Parish. Conway’s land is on the “left bank”, meaning the bank that is on your left side as you descend the river, so the east side. The only lake that is anywhere near the river-front land is Lake Maurepas, and it is not nearby. That’s a huge piece of land. Conway sold pieces of the land on many occasions, always claiming the property extended “to the lake”.

After the United States acquired the Louisiana Territory, the government needed to confirm titles held by citizens under the previous regimes and determine which lands were now the property of the federal government. In 1806, William Conway, who had purchased a piece of this land from Maurice, filed a claim with the U. S. government. The property is described as having “a front on the Mississippi, and side lines extending back below to Lake Maurepas, and above to the Amite River”. Daniel Clark, John W. Scott, and William Donalson all made similar claims to land that was originally part of Maurice Conway’s purchase from the Houma. All of these claims were confirmed. Chaos ensued over the coming decades as pieces of the land were bought and sold numerous times, and the actual size of the land was interpreted in different ways by different parties.

An exposition held in 1858 in regards to the Houmas land claim is free on Google Books. They come in hot:

THE Houmas Land Claim , as it is familiarly known, is situated in the State of Louisiana, and comprises a large territory, lying in the Parishes of Ascension, Iberville and Livingston. It takes its name from a tribe of Indians who once inhabited Louisiana, and whose chief or sachem, it is alleged, sold a small tract of land to Maurice Conway and Thomas Latil, and out of which has grown the pretended claim to the vast tract of country which is now designated as the Houmas Grant.

[…]

In the first place, no original title papers in support of the Houmas Claim, with its alleged limits, are shown to exist, or ever have been shown to exist; but the alleged title papers relied on, were mere translations of recitals, and copies of supposed originals only, which make up what the claimants of the Houmas Claim urge as sufficient evidence to establish the validity of their title to lands comprising a large quantity of some of the best sugar lands in the state, of immense value—much of it high and above overflow.

[…]

The present claimants of what is called the Houmas Claim, base their pretensions on a purchase of a tract of land which one Maurice Conway and Alexander Latil set up as having made from the chief of the Houmas and Bayou Goula Indians, situated about seventy miles above New Orleans. They also claim by virtue of a grant alleged to have been made to them in June, 1777, by Gov. Galvez. No right nor title is shown to have been possessed by the Indians over the land. Neither is there a positive sale exhibited from the Indians, nor an original act of conveyance to Maurice Conway - no original petition to Unzaga, nor an original grant by Galvez.

Remember earlier, when I said that the French and Spanish colonial governments allowed the tribes to live on their lands, but retained the title? Conway and Latil had bought land from the Houma with the permission of the Crown. The Crown considered itself to already own the land, but allowed this transaction to occur for the convenience of both parties. Conway and Latil got the land, the Houma got some money for the land. There was even a document showing the transaction. But, really, this was a land grant from the Crown to Conway and Latil, rather than an official sale from the Houma. In the eyes of colonial officials, the Houma never owned any land.

Indeed, on November 1, 1774, a grant was executed by Onzaga, containing the following:

In consequence of a certified copy and approbation of sale, that the chief named Calazare made, both in his name and in that of the Bayou Goula and Houmas Indians under his command, to Maurice Conway and Alexander Latil, of this city , of a tract of land which was granted to them by the ancient French Governor, measuring upwards of half a league in front on the river Mississippi on the coast of Cabahanock in the district of Mr. Judice, joining on the upper side the plantation belonging to the blacksmith, on the lower side by that of an old Acadian named Peter … with the common depth of forty arpents …

Fun, unproven side note: I believe that “old Acadian” may have been Pierre Part, the namesake of the town; William Conway bought land from Pierre Part around the same time he was buying it from Maurice Conway in the same area.

There is also an inspection of the petition by Conway for an extension of his land claim.

That your petitioner, intending to go and establish himself in the upper part of the country, on the land which he has jointly purchased with Alexander Latil, and with your permission, from the Houmas Indians, which land is entirely deficient in fences, and is cleared out upwards of a league in depth, so that the cypress swamp, being about the distance of one league and a half from the river, your petitioner has no right thereto, in consequence of your not having granted to him but the common depth of forty arpents, which is so short that he can not reach the cypress trees, necessary to make fences, and other work absolutely necessary on a plantation; therefore your petitioner prays you will grant him all the depth which may be vacant immediately after the said depth of forty arpents.

Two things seem clear to me, assuming the documents being examined were not fraudulent (which the speaker believed them to be):

1. Conway certainly asked for ALL of the vacant lands in the back of his property.

2. These extra lands making up the vast majority of the “Houmas claim” were not purchased from the Houma; the original sale with the purported chief was concerned with a much smaller tract of riverfront land only.

A strong argument in favor of these documents being fraudulent is that, apparently, many people still living could recollect the woods extending all the way to the river on the Houmas land, rendering nonsensical Conway’s request for more land due to lack of trees, and leading this speaker to assume that the document was fabricated at a much later date, when the trees had eventually been cleared. However, given that Conway was supposed to have bought the village of the Houma tribe, wouldn’t you expect much of the land in his particular section to have been cleared to accommodate that village? In any case, the speaker concludes that Maurice Conway did buy land from the Houma, did ask for and receive an extension to his land grant, but it was only later, after he sold land to William Conway, and William sold that land on to others, that the dimensions suddenly exploded and grew to encompass all the land between the Mississippi and Lake Maurepas… it seems preposterous that Spain would have actually intended to grant all of that land to Conway, especially considering Spain later built a town and a fort on part of it. The town was Galveztown, one of the settlements populated by Spain with immigrants from the Canary Islands sent in to protect Spain’s holdings in Louisiana from foreign powers. That settlement failed, largely due to issues with flooding and disease.

In 1860 a Senate report was published on the matter. The following is from the repot; it is quoting a legal document created at the time Conway’s land was surveyed.

This report also again quotes the original conveyance document from the Houma chief to Conway:

“a tract of land measuring upwards of half a league, at the distance of twenty-two leagues from this city, on this side of the river, joining on the upper side lands belonging to John the blacksmith; and on the lower side, the place where are erected the huts in which the said two nations of Indians now live; but when the said huts will be taken away, to be transported on the other side of the river, the true boundary on the lower side will be the lands belonging to an old Acadian, named Peter; so by the measurement which the said purchasers will make of the said tract of land according to the said boundaries, its exact contents will be ascertained”

I’ve written a lot about the “Houmas land claim,” but the extensive published accounts of the ordeal didn’t have all that much to do with the people, in the end. Where did the Houma go after selling their land? Did they have other land? Why did they sell it in the first place? Does it even make sense for Conway to have purchased land from a man who was chief of both the Houma and the Bayou Goula? Who was “Calabe” exactly? These questions are harder to answer; all these drawn out court proceedings were concerned with the fate of white settlers and property owners on the “Houmas claim” rather than with anything to do with the original owners. It seems the historical Houma tribe may have merged with the remnants of several other tribes and slowly but surely migrated south.

However, as it turns out, there’s not much actual evidence that the people who now identify as Houma descend from this earlier group of Houma at all. They are descended from Native Americans, but these were either specifically known to not be Houma, or their tribal affiliation is unknown. So how did these groups come to be so intertwined in our collective memory?

It is said that planter Tobias Gibson chose the name Houma for the town in Terrebonne Parish. Tobias Gibson grew up in and around Adams County, Mississippi, the neighbor just upriver to Wilkinson County, which was a part of the Houma’s historical territory on the Mississippi. This may explain where he got the idea for the name; it’s certainly possible that his choice had nothing to do with the indigenous peoples present in the Houma area at the time at all, although he could also have gotten it from a Houma person who did migrate south and was in the area. It may also be worth noting that Tobias was one of several Anglo planters who made their way down to Terrebonne Parish in the early 1800s. They were coming from the same part of the country as the historical Houma would have been coming from. Were they aware of each other? I have no idea, but it’s interesting to think about.

Who, then, were the “Indians” who were present in southeast Louisiana, whose descendants eventually became what is known today as the Houma Nation? We can find clues in the early conveyance records for Terrebonne Parish, which have been abstracted and shared online by members of the Terrebonne Genealogical Society.

No. 36 Pg. 68 On August 27, 1822 Charles BILLOT sold land to Alexander VERDIN to wit; 20 Arpens fronting on Bayou Terrebonne to ordinary depth, bounded above by land of COURTEAU, an Indian, and below by purchaser. This tract was purchased at Public Auction fully referenced in Parish Judges of Lafourche Interior book A of deeds page 161. Charles BILLOT sold land to repay debts owed his mother Marianne ERIS. Witnessed by John Mc HENRY and Charles DUPREE.

No. 837 3/526 On June 1, 1829 appeared Toup-La-Bay, said Indian/Courteau (thick set person) of the Biloxi Nation, declares that for the considerations hereinafter specified, he sells, cedes, abandons, transfers and delivers to Alexandre VERDUN, a piece of land situated in lower part of Bayou Terrebonne, containing 5 arpens front on each side, with such depth as the certificate of confirmation calls for, bounded above and below by lands of Alexandre VERDUN for $350.00, with $100.00 paid in cash, $100.00 paid in one year, and $50.00 paid as fast as the said Courteau shall have need thereof. Courteau is the owner of the aforesaid land, by virtue of the acquision, that he made thereof, from Jean BILLIOT, by act dated August 29, 1822, which BILLIOT had concession there of. Witnessed by Evariste PORCHE and Joseph DELAPORTE.

These two records refer to a person named Courteau or Toup-La-Bay, who is said to be an Indian of the Biloxi Nation. He is one of the common ancestors of all the modern day Houma, and he and his daughter are often referenced with “Houma” in their name somewhere. However, these records are quite clear in showing he was a member of the Biloxi nation, not the historical Houma tribe.

Courteau’s daughter, Rosalie, married Jacques Billiot. Billiot has come to be one of names most associated with the modern Houma Nation. Was Jacques Billiot also indigenous?

He actually was not. Jacque's father was a Frenchman, and his mother was Marianne Iris, a “free woman of color” who had African ancestry as well as European. The Billiots are all consistently referred to in these early conveyance records as free people of color, not as Indians.

Another common modern day Houma surname is Verdun (or Verdin). The name came from Alexandre Verdun, another early settler in Terrebonne. Alexandre had a long-term relationship and children with a woman named Marie Gregoire, who is referred to in his will as a “savage woman”. In this will, Alexandre distributes his property among his “natural children” with Marie Gregoire, although the verbiage used doesn’t go so far as to say that the kids are his. They are just called the “free colored” children of Marie. However, it can be shown by other records and later court filings that they were indeed his children. (I will probably write a separate post sometime about the fate of Alexandre’s kids, because it’s a saga in itself.)

No. 829 3/521 On April 29, 1829 Alexandre VERDUN, inhabitant living in this parish, who being healthy of body and mind, as he appears to us, but well persuaded of the frailty of things human and of life, wanting further to put his affairs in order, in case of his death. First he declared that he is Alexandre VERDUN, native of what is now Jefferson Parish, born about 1 1/2 leagues below New Orleans. Secondly, he gives and bequests to Eulalie, free colored woman, child of Marie GREGOIRE, savage woman, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. Thirdly gives and bequests to Pauline, free colored woman, child of Marie GREGOIRE, savage woman, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. Fourthly gives and bequests to Melassie, free colored woman, daughter of Marie GREGOIRE, savage woman, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. Fifthly gives and bequests to Ursin, free colored man, son of Marie GREGOIRE, savage woman, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. Sixthly gives and bequests to Felicite Marguerite, free colored woman daughter of Marie GREGOIRE, savage woman, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. . Seventhly gives and bequests to Jean Baptiste, free colored man, son of Marie GREGOIRE, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. Eighthly he gives and bequests to Victore, free colored man, son of Marie GREGOIRE, 1/7 of all his property, upon his death. I institute and name my executor, the holder of the properties, Mr. Jacques Gabriel LEBOEUF, to whom I hereby give power to take possession, of all my properties, upon my death, until all and each of the legatees, herein above instituted, reach the age of majority, without the oldest being able to demand profit of any part of my properties, before the youngest, be a major, however my said Executor, to use the revenues of my properties, on such part thereof, which shall be necessary to maintain, dress and nourish these legatees, who shall be under the age of majority. When the youngest legatee reaches the age of majority, he shall proceed to the division of said properties, and it is understood that no part of my properties, shall ever be sold, or exchanged, but that the whole, shall remain such, as it will be, the day of my death. I revoke and annul every will or codicil, thereof, preceding the present one. Witnessed by A. H. VERRET and Henry C. THIBODAUX.

Notice that Marie Gregoire is referred to as a “savage woman” but her children, mixed European and indigenous, are referred to as “free colored”. The terminology used to refer to people’s ethnicity and/or race can be confusing and inconsistent at times. This confusion has led to a debate that has at times questioned whether any of the founders of the modern Houma population were actually indigenous at all. The answer is a resounding yes, but the reality is that there were just a few founding ancestors who can be shown to have been indigenous. The others were of European or African descent. The modern-day Houma are a triracial isolate group with a rich shared history and culture, but they are not the historical Houma tribe that came from Ascension Parish. It is possible, of course, that one or more of these indigenous people who came down to Terrebonne Parish had ties to the historical Houma, but the historical records don’t show that. If any of the Terrebonne Houma founders were from the historical Houma tribe, they were individuals who had become separated from the rest of the tribe, if the tribe even continued to exist at all.

Since the early 1800s, these families have intermarried extensively with each other and a few other families. All modern-day Houma are related through just a few family lines, although increasingly over time, as in other endogamous communities, members are marrying outside their immediate community.

I am not (as far as I am aware) descended from any of the acknowledged Houma founding members, but my family is from the same area, and I am definitely related to many modern Houma through many other lines. Because of that, I can show some anonymized DNA evidence for the ethnic makeup of the modern Houma by looking at my own DNA matches. (I’ve actually used my paternal grandfather’s test here as he’s how I’m related to this group.) Searching for certain common Houma surnames pulls up matches that show a consistent quite high percent of indigenous North American ethnicity, but it invariably comes with a large portion of European DNA and small amounts of various flavors of African DNA, particularly of the “Benin & Togo” variety.

I didn’t have to do anything but search for people with common Houma surnames to immediately find a ton of matches with >5% indigenous North American ethnicity, and they pretty much always come with a similar amount of Benin & Togo as well as smaller amounts of indigenous Mexican or Yucatan ethnicity. However, the largest part of this groups’ modern ethnicity is European, often but not always French.

The modern United Houma Nation has been recognized as an indigenous tribe by the state of Louisiana since 1972, but they have never been recognized by the federal government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs released a report on their decision to deny recognition that is available online. The report goes into even more detail on all this than I have and is an interesting read.

The reasons for the UHN not qualifying as a federal tribe have more to do with what the federal definition of a “tribe” is than with how much indigenous blood the Houma are reputed to have or not have. It is recognized and accepted that several of the founding ancestors were indeed indigenous. It’s also accepted that the modern Houma have a shared community and culture that is unique to that group. However, part of the BIA definition of a tribe involves the tribe having been a continuous, functioning entity from historical times to now. This, the UHN cannot demonstrate, for all the reasons outlined above. The Houma nation are a unique ethnic group descended from indigenous Americans; whether they are a “tribe” or not is less clear. Whether the federal definition of “tribe” needs to be updated to include groups like the Houma is murkier still. Doing so could open the doors to “Pretendian” tribes made up of people who have no indigenous heritage attempting to scam the federal government for grants reserved for indigenous tribes. There are many such groups in existence today; some of them have even achieved state recognition. The UHN is not one of these, and basically no one who knows what they are talking about is claiming that the UHN are faking their indigenous heritage. But the Houma are pretty unique in this. Most authentic tribes can show historical continuity, and most of the time being unable to do so is a red flag for legitimate reasons. The Houma seem to fall into a sort of gray area here. Basically, it’s complicated.

If you are interested in learning more about the Houma Nation, in addition to the very detailed BIA report, this book has a ton of great info, especially on the history of the modern-day Houma from the time their ancestors arrived Terrebonne Parish to today.