Among the many subjects on which the archives of Mexico are now shedding new and much needed light, one is that of the history of the Jumano Indians after the middle of the seventeenth century. In the early annals of New Mexico and southwestern Texas the tribe was well known, and though they were less prominent after 1629, a few references to them between that date and the end of the seventeenth century have been long available. But of their movements thenceforth students have until recently found little trace. Bandelier, writing in 1890, was constrained to say: “The Jumanos were lost sight of after the great convulsions of 1680 and succeeding years, and their ultimate fate is as unknown as their original numbers.” 190 Similarly, Hodge, in a recent study, states that until shortly before his writing he had been “baffled by what appeared to be the sudden and almost complete disappearance of this once populous tribe.” 191 The present writer, through his investigations in the archives of Mexico, had the good fortune to pick up the thread again in 1907 and to show that from 1750 forward the Taovayas, a Wichita tribe of the Red River (Texas), were regularly called “Jumanes” by Spaniards of New Mexico. 192 Hodge has taken this newly acquired information to be the key to the solution of the mystery, and, in the recent study referred to, has concluded that the Jumano formerly known in the Southwest were identical with the Taovayas, and, under the latter name, were absorbed by the Wichita, in which tribe they are now represented. 193 He has concluded, also apparently, that for the name “Taovayas,” wherever found, “Jumano” can be substituted. 194
By restating the hitherto available data concerning the Jumano and correlating it with the recent discoveries concerning the Taovayas, Hodge has done valuable service to the history and ethnology of the Southwest. That his conclusion explains the apparent disappearance of a part of the people known as Jumano, the present writer is convinced. But there has come to light in the Mexican archives a considerable fund of information which Hodge did not use; and a study of it shows that he has taken too little account of a part of the Jumano and, it may be, drawn a conclusion that is too far-reaching. The purpose of this paper is to present some of the new data, and thereby help to fill in and correct the hitherto scanty history of the Jumano tribe between 1683 and 1750.
Hodge regards the principal notices of the Jumano nation between 1629 and 1683 as referring to a people living near the Arkansas River. He recognizes toward the close of the eighteenth century a southern (with reference to New Mexico and Texas) as well as a northern people called Jumano, but seems to be able to trace them only to 1691, his discussion thereafter being devoted to the northern group. Even of this group he appears to be able to find only one faint trace between 1697 and 1719, that being in the year 1700. In 1719 he finds another trace, at which point he remarks: “No definite reference to the northern Jumano between 1719 and 1750 is found.” Finally, the Jumano of whom he finds mention are consistently hostile to the Apache, or at least allies of the enemies of the Apache.
To one who has worked extensively in the sources of later seventeenth and early eighteenth century Texas history recently made available, and has not, like Hodge, made the Jumano a subject of long and special study, the article in question contains cause for surprise on four counts: the first is that the “Nueces River,” where the Jumano were several times met between 1629 and 1683, should be identified with the Arkansas or any stream in its vicinity; the second, that references to the Jumano in the eighteenth century should be considered so scarce; the third, that the Jumano should be regarded in the first half of the eighteenth century as primarily a northern (with reference to Texas and New Mexico) rather than a southern tribe, 195 the fourth, that no mention should be made of Jumano who were not enemies but allies of the Apache, and even regarded as Apache themselves.
As one who has experienced this surprise, the writer has attempted to present, in the pages that follow, evidence to show that the “Nueces River,” where the Jumano were found in the third and fifth decades of the seventeenth century, was probably the Colorado River of Texas, rather than the Arkansas; that the Jumano were frequently encountered in southern Texas between 1675 and 1771, at least; and that in the second half of this period they were regularly regarded as allies of the Apache, or even as Apache, and, therefore, as hostile to the Wichita, a part of whom, the Taovayas, we well know, were regularly called Jumano after 1750. Everything here stated is with due deference to Mr. Hodge's great learning in matters of Southwestern ethnology.
The history of the Jumano before 1650 it is not my purpose to discuss, but for the sake of clearness it may be briefly summarized. The tribe was first seen by Cabeza de Vaca in 1535 on the Rio Grande, near its junction with the Conchos River, a place known as La Junta (the junction); in 1582 they were found in the same place by Espejo; in 1598 they were receiving religious instruction in eastern New Mexico; for several years before 1629 they visited Fray Juan de Salas at Isleta, asking him to go to live among them; in response to this request Father Salas in the year named visited the tribe more than one hundred and twelve leagues to the eastward of Santa Fé, “or, possibly,” says Mr. Hodge, “in the western part of Kansas in the vicinity of what later became known as El Quartelejo”; in 1632 they were again visited by Father Salas in the buffalo plains on a stream which the Spaniards called the “Nueces”; in 1650 and yet again in 1654, they were encountered on the “Nueces” River by Castillo and Guadalajara, respectively. 196 In a former article Hodge states that the “Nueces River” visited in 1632 and 1650 “must have been the Arkansas”; 197 and in the recent one already cited he holds the same opinion. 198
As viewed by the present writer this conclusion as to the location of the “Nueces River” does not seem warranted by the sources. The “Ynforme” of Father Posadas, 199 which is the chief authority for the expeditions to the Nueces River between 1629 and 1655, states clearly and in terms that the place visited by Martin and Castillo in 1650 was far to the south of Santa Fé. He relates that after reaching “this said place of the Rio de las Nueces and this nation of los Jumanos,” they went down stream east-southeast, and, after having traveled some fifty leagues, arrived at the borders of the Téxas country. He then continues: “Among these nations that of the Tejas must be (estará) in twenty-eight degrees; from its limits said Captains Hernan Martin and Diego del Castillo returned by the same route (rumbo) 200 to the Villa of Santa Fee, going up toward the North as far as is implied by saying from twenty-eight to thirty-seven degrees and a distance of two hundred-fifty leagues.” 201
From the foregoing it is plain that Posadas considered the Nueces River to be a stream whose middle course was several degrees of latitude south of Santa Fé. That this was his understanding is evident also from other statements which he made in the same report. He tells us that flowing eastward from Santa Fé, or, as he puts it in one place, east-one-fourth-south-east, and joined by a tributary from the north, there is a large stream called the Rio Grande; and that rising northeastward from Pecos and flowing southeast is the Nueces. “From the Noezes to this [Rio Grande] in the direction of the north will be about one hundred leagues.” From the Nueces to La Junta he considered the distance eighty leagues, 202 or only three-fourths of his estimate of the distance from El Paso to La Junta, and only two-fifths of that from La Junta to Santa Fé. Again, in summing up he says, “looking to the Southeast [from Santa Fé] one-fourth south we shall find, two hundred leagues away, the junction of the Rio del Norte and the Conchas ... and looking directly (en linca recta) to the southeast we shall find at a distance of two hundred leagues, the Rio de las Noezes in the Aijados nation.” In other words, as he understood it, this point on the Nueces River, which was adjacent to the Jumano country, was just the same distance southeast from Santa Fé as La Junta was southeast-south. 203
It is thus seen that a close scrutiny of the principal source of information regarding the “Nueces River,” seems to preclude its identity with the Arkansas. It can now be shown on the strength of positive evidence, partly drawn from the same document and partly from other sources, that there are very strong reasons for identifying it with a stream much further south, 204 namely, one of the upper branches of the Colorado of Texas.
Being especially interested in the pearls carried back by the party of Martin and Castillo, the viceroy ordered another exploration of the Nueces River, and in 1654, Posadas tells us, Diego de Guadalajara and thirty soldiers set out “in the direction stated” [that is, southeast] to execute the command. “Having traveled about two hundred leagues, they arrived at the Rio de las Noezes, and found on it many Indians of the Jumano nation.” 205
It so happens that Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, a member of the Guadalajara party, became the leader of another expedition to the Jumano on the Nueces in 1684. This connecting link between the two expeditions is important, for during the latter journey Mendoza recognized the stream which he was then on as the Guadalajara had visited, and he kept a diary which beyond question establishes the identity of the stream with one of the upper branches of the Colorado, in west-central Texas. 206
The Mendoza expedition was the result of a petition made by Juan Sabeata, an Jumano Indian, at Paso del Norte in October, 1683, for missionaries and Spanish settlers in his own country. 207 Since the story of this expedition has hitherto been marred by some errors, 208 and because of its important bearing on Jumano geography, it will be summarized here. According to his own story, Sabeata lived at La Junta “with many” of his own people and Julimes. Part of his tribe lived six days to the eastward, or three-fourths of his estimate of the distance from La Junta to El Paso. Three days from La Junta were the buffalo herds; three days [beyond] was the Nueces River, the home of a part of his tribe and of many others, friends of his own people; from La Junta to the Téxas, from whom two messengers were waiting at La Junta, it was fifteen or twenty days. 209
In response to the appeal, Father Nicolás López set out on December 1 for La Junta with two companions, Fray Juan de Zavaleta and Fray Antonio de Acevedo. Fourteen days later he was followed by the Maestro de Campo Juan Domínguez de Mendoza and a small band of soldiers. 210 On the way down the Rio Grande Mendoza noted in his diary several rancherías of Suma Indians, and at La Junta, rancherías of Julimes, on both sides of the Rio Grande. The distance from El Paso to La Junta he estimated at ninety-seven leagues, which would make each of his leagues about two miles, air line. 211 This point should be kept in mind for later reference.
Of the route traversed by Mendoza from La Junta, a minute study will be reserved for a later task, and only enough details will be given here to show that the Nueces River which Mendoza reached was clearly one of the upper branches of the Colorado. 212
On January 1, 1684, the party, leaving Father Acevedo to minister to the Indians at La Junta (or La Novedad de las Cruces, as it was now called), set out for the country of the Nueces River. From La Junta the route was evidently north, or a little east of north, to the Salado (Pecos), which was reached on the thirteenth, after going seventy leagues. 213 The point was perhaps in Pecos County, opposite Crane County, Texas, though it may have been a short distance farther west, in Reeves County. 214 Following the river for nine leagues, they crossed to the village of the Jediondas, “at the foot of a great rock which serves them as a protection against the hostile Apaches.” 215 Here Mendoza stopped seven days. Leaving the Pecos, he now marched eastward across an unwatered plain. Forty leagues out he struck the head of an east-flowing stream, remarkable for its shells (concheria). Mendoza called the river the Nueces, regarding it as the one he had come to find. It was perhaps the middle Concho. Following this stream east twenty-one (or twenty-four?) leagues, and passing by one or two tributaries, he came to the “Rio de Señor San Pedro, which is the principal [river], called de las Perlas, or, by another name, de las Nueces [nuts], although they all have them, which river is the one appearing in the order which I bear ... and which order is now fulfilled. Said point is about eight leagues further down the said River than the place where Don Diego de Guadalajara arrived.” 216 The point where this entry was written was perhaps near San Angelo, at the junction of the North and Middle Concho rivers.
Nineteen leagues further on he reached the end of his journey at an eastward flowing stream, which he called the San Clemente. He was now about forty leagues (eighty miles according to his former estimates) from the head of the “Nueces” River, and twice that distance from the point where he had left the Pecos, or eightsevenths of the distance from La Junta to the Pecos by the northward route. The place was apparently on the Colorado near its junction with the Concho. Mendoza tells us that on his return home he went straight west, much of the way near an east-flowing stream, to the Pecos, which, after going some distance along the north bank, he crossed at the point where he had passed it before.
The testimony of this diary, supplemented by Posadas's report, seems to identify the Nueces River, home of the Jumano in 1684, with the Concho, 217 whose very name is significant. Equally so is the fact that a considerable pearl-fishing industry is still carried on in the Concho River, in the neighborhood of San Angelo, which is not true of other streams of central Texas. It may be added that the Concho is today one of the greatest nut-producing streams in the Southwest.
Regardless of its bearing on the existence of a Jumano tribe on the Arkansas in the middle of the eighteenth century (and that bearing is not difficult to see), the above conclusion as to the identity of the “Nueces River” implies, of course, the presence of Jumano in southwestern Texas at that period. With this as a starting point, it is my purpose now to present evidence, much of which has never been taken into account, to show that Jumano continued to range through the same general region till after the middle of the eighteenth century, at least. Some of the evidence even points to a residence there after the time when Hodge implies that the whole tribe were living on the Red River under the name of Taovayas, and in other ways disturbs views that have been regarded as established.
It may be noted, as a preliminary to the discussion which follows, that the forms Juman, Chuman, Jumane, Jumana, Xoman, Xumana, etc., frequently occur in the Spanish documents as variants of the name Jumano. Indeed, in the Spanish sources Jumane and Jumana occur much more frequently than Jumano, the form which has been adopted by the Bureau of American Ethnology and which I have followed for that reason. Juman, Xuman, Chuman, etc., are sometimes used for the tribe while the people are referred to as Jumanes, Xumanes, Chomanes, etc. In the seventeenth century the name was probably pronounced Zhuman.
To show that during the decade between 1683 and 1693 the Jumano lived in the general region of the Rio Grande, from La Junta eastward, the evidence is ample. To go back a step, in 1675 Fernando del Bosque and Fathers Larios and San Buenaventura found the Indians of the Xoman tribe at a place called Dacate Mountain, a short distance north of the Rio Grande and east of the Pecos. 218 While there is no certainty that these Xoman were the Choman, or Jumano, known on other grounds to have been near the Rio Grande at this time, yet there is a strong probability that such was the case. We have already seen that the Jumano chief, Juan Sabeata, claimed in 1683 to live near La Junta “with many” of his tribe, and that part of the tribe were found in 1684 on the “Nueces” (Colorado) River. It is clear, moreover, that Father Posadas regarded the Jumano to be living near the Rio Grande when he wrote his “Ynforme” (about 1686). He states that at La Junta Mendoza and López “saw many Indians—Jumanas, Rayados, Oposmes, Polupames, Polaques, and others.” 219 After describing the Apache range over the great plains of western Texas, he states that the home of the Jumano is south of the Apache, on the Nueces River, but that they are now living near the Rio Grande, having been forced back by the Apache. 220
The same general impression as to the home of the Jumano at this time is given by other and entirely distinct groups of sources. The French of La Salle's party learned in eastern Texas of the Jumano as a tribe living to the southwest of their route. When among the Tedâo, of the lower Colorado country, in 1687, La Salle was informed that some members of this tribe had gone to the southwest or west and entered into relations with the Chouman tribe, friends of the Spaniards and the Cenis (Hasinai). 221 That the Chouman were unquestionably the Jumano, we shall presently see. Father Douay reported the Chouman tribe to be living only two days from the Spanish settlements. 222 And while among the Cadodacho Delisle learned of the Chouman as a tribe in the southwest and friends of his hosts. 223 In 1688 we again hear, through Spanish sources, of Jumano near the Rio Grande, on the border of Coahuila. During the uprising in that year of the Colorados, Cabezas, Tobozos, and others, the leader of the outbreak, “Don Dieguillo,” sent a messenger to the Teocodames (Terocodames), “Jumanas,” and others, to get them to join the revolt. 224 It is well known that the Terocodame tribe lived at this time near the Rio Grande about Eagle Pass, and it is quite probable that the Jumanas now mentioned with the Terocodame were the same as the Xoman seen with them north of the river in 1675. In the same year, 1688, Capt. Diego Ramón sent a messenger across the Rio Grande to call the “Jumanes” and other nations to the mission of Nadadores The messenger reported that he went to where the Jumanes were, and was told by them that a short time before they had joined some Frenchmen and Téxas Indians who had come by on a campaign against the Apache. 225 The reference is probably to the campaign made by some of the La Salle party with the Téxas. In 1689, when Alonso de León was on his way from Monclova to Matagorda Bay, he encountered five leagues south of the Rio Grande, in the neighborhood of Eagle Pass, a ranchería of Jumenes and others. 226 They may have been the same as the Jumanes previously reported in that region.
If these references to the Xoman, Jumanes, and Jumenes on the borders of Coahuila between 1675 and 1689, taken together with the account of the Mendoza expedition, are not conclusive, in the records of 1691 we find evidence which removes all uncertainty in the matter. In June of that year, while Terán and Massanet were at the San Antonio, a Payaya chief offered to guide them eastward to “the Ranchería of the Chomanes.” 227 Near the Guadalupe they found the ranchería, which was a temporary one occupied during the buffalo hunt. There was our old friend, Juan Sabeata, “con su gente y nacion de Yndios Chomas,” the chief of the Cantonas, “who brought his people with the Chomanes”; the Cibolas, the Caynaaya, and the Catqueza. 228 Massanet gave the number in the ranchería as 3000 and Terán as 2000. The autos of the Terán expedition give the number of the “Xumanas” met here as 300 warriors, and of the whole ranchería as 900 warriors. 229 The same document repeatedly speaks of them as the “nacion Xumano (or Xumana) del rio del norte y Salado”—the Xumano tribe of the rivers del Norte and Salado (or Pecos). More explicit is Massanet's statement, which also establishes the identity of the different name forms given heretofore, and beyond doubt fixes the home of the Jumano at this period on the Rio Grande. It must be remembered that he wrote after a long conference with Juan Sabeata, who spoke Spanish, and with the chief of the Catqueza, who had been raised in Parral and had lived in New Mexico, later returning to his people. 230 He says: “The said nations of Indians, Choma, Cibola, and Caynaagua are Indians who live on and whose country is the bank of the Rio Del Norte. They [or the last named, estos] are contiguous to the Salineros, who live on the banks of the Salado [Pecos] which joins the rio del Norte. They are contiguous also to the Apaches and have wars with them. The Apaches are a cordillera which runs from east to west and are at war with all. Only with the Salineros do they have peace. . . . These of the nation Choma are the Indians which in El Parral and Nuevo Mexico they call Jumanes. Every year they come to reconnoiter the Rio de Guadalupe, and some go as far as los Texas. They come to kill buffalo, and carry back [llevan] the skins, because in their country there are no buffalo. As soon as the cold weather comes they go to their country. Don Juan Labiata [Sabeata], 231 Captain of said Chomanes, displayed a commission as Governor of his nation and those who might be in his following. Another Indian of the same nation displayed another commission as Lieutenant of the said Don Juan Labiata. Both commissions were given them by the Governor of Nueva Viscaya, Dn. Juan Ysidro Pardiñas.” 232 Sabeata told Massanet that many of the people he had with him had been baptized at Parral, and asked the missionary to return with him to his country, but Massanet put him off with excuses, remarking in his diary that since these Indians entered Parral and El Paso every year, they could have ministers if they chose. 233
Writing in the same year (1691), Fray Francisco Casañas de Jesus María, missionary on the Neches, mentions the Chuman tribe as allies of the Téxas and enemies of the Apache, and living to the southwest. 234 In the summer of 1693 Gregorio Salinas carried succor from Monclova to the missionaries on the Neches. Among the tribes which he reported seeing on the way were the Jumanes. 235
We have thus been able to follow almost continuously for the decade between 1683 and 1693 a Jumano tribe living near the Rio Grande, both above and below the Pecos, or hunting buffalo in south central Texas. Their winter home was characteristically near the Pecos and Rio Grande, while in summer they journeyed to the buffalo plains of the Guadalupe and the Colorado. They were enemies of the Apaches, who had crowded them southward from the upper Colorado.
In October, 1693, Texas was abandoned by the Spaniards, and until 1716 they had relatively slight contact with the province. But even during that period we get glimpses of the Jumano in the south. At the time of the withdrawal, Joseph de Urrutia was left wounded among the Cantona, Indians of the lower Colorado. In later years, when captain at San Antonio, he declared that in the course of the seven years during which he remained among the Indians he became their “capitán grande,” leading the allies against the Apache, “sometimes with 10,000 or 12,000 Indians, and others with more, of the nations where I was [and?], of the Pelones and Jumanes.” 236 This traces the tribe till 1700. In 1706 we hear of an Juman Indian at Monclova, south of the Rio Grande, giving testimony 237 based on information gained from an Indian of the Timamar tribe, that is a tribe living near the Rio Grande, implying that the Juman had probably been in that region. 238
When the Spaniards again occupied Texas, in 1716, they found that a noteworthy change had taken place, namely, that the Jumano had become allies of the Apache and enemies of the Spaniards and of the Téxas, in which capacity they were thereafter frequently mentioned. Thus, while in eastern Texas in 1716, Domingo Ramón wrote of “finding ourselves surrounded on the north by the enemies of los Téxas, namely, the Apaches, Jumanes, Chanas,” and others. 239 It is not necessary to suppose that the Jumanes whom he mentions were living far to the north, though they may have been. The Apaches were at this time occupying most of western Texas, and the Chanes River was the present Llano. In 1718 an Indian named Juanillo “of the Jumana nation” was reported at San Juan Bautista to have been instrumental in causing a defection among the Indians of the missions on the Rio Grande which involved a threat to destroy the Spaniards. 240 Again, an item of evidence recorded in 1724 shows not only the friendliness between the Apache and the Jumano, but also that in 1721 the latter lived, as formerly, in the region of the Conchos and Rio del Norte. 241 In 1721 the Marqués de Aguayo, when crossing Texas, named a small stream east of the Brazos the “Arroyo de los Jumanes,” but the circumstance prompting him to do so does not appear.
Documents written during the serious Apache troubles at San Antonio between 1731 and 1733 make it still plainer that Jumano were frequently in Texas and were there regularly regarded as allies of the Apaches and enemies of the Spaniards. Thus, in 1731 some arrows left by Indians in a fight at San Antonio were declared by an Apache captive to have belonged to “Apaches, Pelones, and Jumanes; that all three are extremely populous and very warlike, and, confident of their great numbers, have annihilated and terrorized all the nations living in these parts, and admit no others to their friendship.” 242 A year later it was declared in a junta de guerra at San Antonio that in the campaign made by Bustillo against the Apaches in 1732 a ranchería which was attacked seventy leagues northwest of San Antonio, in the region of San Sabá, was composed of four tribes, Apache, Ypanda (Pelon?) Yxande, and Chenti. Captives taken declared that the major portion of the tribes had been at the time further west and north, “but not very distant,” “that the people who were in said ranchería were only a small portion of each nation, there not being in said Rancheria any Indians of the Jumanes Nation, which is very numerous and which we know joins with that of the Apaches to come and make war on us.” Since the fight was near the San Sabá River, this would put the Jumano in the general region of their old haunts on the “Nueces” River, i. e., the upper Colorado. 243 Again, in a letter of November 26, 1732, to Almazán, the viceroy referred to the Apache, Xumane, and Pelon (Lipan?) as common enemies of this province.” 244 Yet again, in the residencia of Bustillo y Zevallos, governor of Texas, at San Antonio in 1734, a witness declared that “he had not heard that during the administration of Bustillo the peaceful tribes had “revolted or allied to do damage to the Jurisdiction with the Apaches, Pelones, Jumanas, Chenttis, or any others who insult These Lands.” 245
Thus, there is plenty of evidence to show that the Jumano of southern Texas, who in the seventeenth century had been bitter but losing enemies of the Apache, have come in the second and third decades of the eighteenth century to be regarded in Texas as the regular allies of the Apache, and that during this period they are still to be found in their old haunts both along the Rio Grande and in central Texas.
And now the Jumano history takes on still a different phase. They come to be regarded not merely as allies of the Apache, but as a division of the Apache, and are called “los Apaches Jumanes.” The first expression of this view that has come to the writer's notice is that given in 1733 by Joseph de Urrutia, then captain at San Antonio. Writing on July 4 of that year, he told of his former campaigns with the Pelones (Lipan?) and Jumane, “who, it appears, have now incorporated themselves in the said Apaches, which to me is very strange, because in that time (1693-1700), when I lived among them, they were declared enemies.” 246 This affiliation of the Jumano is best reflected in the discussion which occurred in 1746 relative to the suppression of certain garrisons in Nuevo León and the transference of the presidio of Sacramento, in northern Coahuila, to the San Xavier River of Texas. One of the principal arguments per contra was based on the need of defending the provinces of Coahuila and Nueva León against the Toboso and the “Apaches Jumanes,” of the Rio Grande. Bustillo y Zevallos, ex-governor of Texas, wrote on May 28, 1746: “The extinction of the garrisons of Boca de Leones and Serralvo, in the New Kingdom of León, does not seem to me the safest distribution . . . being so useful and so constantly occupied with the continual war, both of the rebellious Indians of its vast jurisdiction, as well as of those who enter from la Nueva Vizcaya, and of the Apaches Jumanes, who, crossing the deserts of the province of Coahuila, pass to the Kingdom and to the neighborhood of Saltillo.” With respect to Coahuila, he said: “The arms of the capital of this province, always in the hands of the soldiers, aided by those of El Sacramento, restrain the Nations of Apaches Jumanes, who are immediately on the other side of the Rio Grande, 247 and at times on this side. With respect to this, the Governor of the province, as a result of a representation made to him by the Captains of El Sacramento, Rio Grande, and the citizens, a few days ago, made the same representation (la hizo) to this Superior Government, begging license to make a Campaign against them, since the hostilities are continuous on the part of the latter (estos) and of the Tobosos, who, with this name, pass from la Viscaya, as said above.” 248
While the above discussion illustrates the way in which in Texas and Coahuila the Jumano had come to be regarded as Apache, being called “Apaches Jumanes,” it makes it clear also that in 1746 they were habitually found in the region of the Rio Grande, on the borders of Coahuila and Nueva Viscaya, and that they sometimes made raids into Nuevo Leon.
A still different turn is given to Jumano history when, as it appears, the Jumano of the Apache alliance engage in bitter warfare with a people of northern Texas called by the same name. As has already been stated, it is now well known that from 1750 forward the Taovayas (Tawéhash) of the Red River country were by the Spaniards of New Mexica frequently called Jumanes (Jumano), 249 that they were bitterly hostile to the Apache, and frequently, if not customarily, allied with the bitterest enemy of the Apache, the Comanche. If the Taovayas in 1750 embraced all the Jumano, a fundamental change, both of affiliation and location, must have come over those found near the Rio Grande in 1746 and at that time called Apaches Jumanes. It is conceivable that such a change might possibly have occurred; but this seems hardly probable, especially in view of evidence recorded in 1771.
The evidence alluded to is as follows: About November, 1771, Alexo. de la Garza Falcón wrote to the viceroy from the presidio of San Saba (recently transferred to Villa Nueva de San Fernando) 250 of the need of more soldiers there, in view of the “imminent danger in which it now stands of being attacked by the barbarous, hostile, nations of Indians, Apaches, Farones, Natagés, Mescaleros, Jumanes, Lipanes, and other frontier nations allied with them, both on account of the continual robberies and murders which they commit [in] this neighborhood, and because there are now at a distance of ten leagues from this Presidio about 3,000 of said nations, and others not known, who, on the occasion of having come out victorious from an encounter which they had with the Comanches and Taguaias [Taovayas, Jumano], gathered to celebrate the victory and eat some of the Comanche and Taguaias prisoners whom they captured.” 251
If this experienced frontier officer, stationed at a fort on the edge of the Apachería, and which was designed originally to withstand the attacks of the Comanche and the Taovayas, knew the Indian situation, and did not by mere accident include the Jumano in his enumeration, we have in 1771 a people called Jumano celebrating a recent victory over other people called Jumano. Such an inadvertence of Falcón's part would seem hardly likely to occur, in view of the conditions which had called the presidio of San Saba into existence. Yet the fact that aside from this one, no reference to Jumano in Texas other than the Taovayas has been noted later than 1750, leads one to wonder if some such error was not made by the officer. But, if this statement was correct, it is clear that not all of the Jumano had been absorbed by the Wichita in 1771, and that at that date there were two people by the same name at war with each other. 252
Here I leave the matter without offering a solution of this point, or of several others which will now inevitably be raised. Enough has been said to show that the Jumano were by no means a lost tribe in the eighteenth century; that from 1650 (at least, and probably from 1632, as well as much earlier) they were frequently encountered in west-central and southern Texas; and that unless there were distinct divisions whose separate histories have not been traced, they more than once changed their relations with the Apache, whose enemies they have usually if not always been regarded.
191. “The Jumano Indians,” in the Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society at the Annual Meeting, April, 1909. My references are to the reprint of that article.
192. See an article on the “Tawéhash” by the present writer in Hodge, Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part II, p. 705. The information concerning the Jumano in 1750 therein contained was compiled in 1907. See Hodge, “The Jumano Indians,” 19, notes.
193. “The Jumano Indians,” pp. 19-22.
194. See Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part II, “Synonymy,” p. 1067.
195. Mr. William E. Dunn, for example, in a recent paper based on a wide use of eighteenth century Texas sources, says of the name Jumano, “Most commonly it applied to Indians living in southwestern Texas near the Rio Grande.” The Quarterly, XIV, 268.
196. Hodge, op. cit., Reprint, pp. 3-9.
197. Land of Sunshine, XIV, 52; Posadas, “Ynforme,” cited below.
198. At this point he writes thus: “As previously stated, Fray Juan de Salas, earlier in the century, found the Jumano on the prairies about 112 leagues eastward from the Rio Grande. But distances given by the early Spanish travelers must be regarded as only approximate, and there is no reason for believing that the tribe had moved farther away simply because Captains Martin and Castillo, in 1650, are said to have found the Jumano on the Nueces, 200 leagues from Santa Fé. They may have been in practically the same spot during this quarter century. There is ground for strong suspicion that the village or villages of the Jumano on the plains at this time were in proximity to if not actually at the Quartelejo, or Cuartelejo, mentioned frequently by writers of the eighteenth century. The distance of the Jumano from Santa Fé, according to two writers above cited, varied from 112 to 200 leagues (300 to 530 miles); while El Cuartelejo, according to the record, was from 130 to 160 leagues (350 to 450 miles) from the New Mexican capital. This Indian outpost was situated in the valley of Beaver Creek, in northern Scott county, Kansas.” (op. cit., Reprint, 3.)
199. “Ynforme hecho a su Magd. sobre las Tierras del Nuevo Mexico,” MS. in Memorias para la historia de Nueva Espana, Tom. 3, ff. 1-18. Also in Fernandez Duran, Don Diego de Peñalosa, Madrid, 1882. For a note on Posadas, see Hodge, op. cit., Reprint, p. 11. The report was written as late as 1686, in consequence of a royal cédula of December 10, 1678, directed to the viceroy of New Spain, and of another of August 2, 1685, to a succeeding viceroy. Posadas states this in the opening paragraphs. The references which I give are to my own MS copy.
200. He had previously stated that they had reached the Nueces by a route (rumbo) different from that followed by Salas and Ortega in 1632. Ibid., fol. 5.
201. Posadas, op. cit., ff. 5-6. The italics are mine.
202. Ibid., fol. 5.
203. Ibid., 2, 4-5; 9-10; 17.
204. It would be interesting, in this connection, to reproduce here the map which Dr. Ethel Z. Rather, a careful scholar, made to illustrate the geographical facts stated in the Posadas “Ynforme,” to accompany her translation of it, executed for the present writer. She had no thought, perhaps no knowledge, of a possible controversy over the location of the Jumano as understood by Posadas. Her conclusion agrees exactly with mine, as stated above.
205. Ibid., f. 7. It is clear that Posadas regarded the Nueces River of this expedition as identical with that visited by Martin and Castillo four years earlier.
206. The authority for the direct assertion that Mendoza was with Guadalajara is Posadas, “Ynforme,” op. cit., 12. He says: “The commander-in-chief, Juan Dominguez de Mendoza, was in this expedition and war.” Mendoza's recognition of the stream on which Guadalajara had been supports the assertion. Guadalajara was at the City of Mexico at the time when Posadas was there writing his memorial, and Posadas must have made the assertion on good authority. It is said, also, that Mendoza had been there recently.
207. This summary of the Mendoza expedition is based upon the MS. diary, the correspondence, declarations, and representations connected with the event. These documents are contained in two collections. One is entitled “Autos sobre los Socorros q pide el Govr. de la Na. Mexico. y otras notas. tocantes a la Sublevazion de los Yndios Barbaros de aquella Prova.,” etc. These are original manuscripts. The other collection is entitled “Viage Que A solicitud de los Naturales de la Prova. de Texas, y otras naciones circumvecinas, y de orden del Governador del Nuevo-Mexico D. Domingo Gironza Petris de Cruzati Hizo el Maestro de Campo Juan Dominguez de Mendoza en fines del ano de 1683 y principos de 1684.” These documents are copies from the originals. The transcript of this second collection fills ninety-two typewritten pages.
208. See note 2 below, and page 75, note 2.
209. “Declaración” of Juan Sabeata at El Paso, October 20, 1683. MS. According to Governor Jironza de Cruzate, reporting the event on October 30, Sabeata had come with six companions. They arrived on Santa Teresa Day. (Letter of Jironza de Cruzate to the viceroy, October 30, 1683. MS.) Cf. Vetancurt, Crónica, 96-97. This author says that Sabeata reported thirty-two tribes awaiting baptism. Sabeata, in fact, enumerated thirty-three, including his own.
210. “Certificación” by Mendoza, El Paso, June 23, 1684, which gives the date of the starting of the missionaries; also Mendoza, “Derrotero.” Both are MSS. Escalante is incorrect in stating that Sabeata arrived at El Paso in December (see his letter of April 2, 1778, in the Land of Sunshine, Vol. XII, 311). The statement that Mendoza accompanied the missionaries to La Junta is also incorrect.
211. “Derrotero,” entries from December 15 to December 29.
212. Miss Anne Hughes, one of my students in the University of Texas, has made a careful study of the diary, and hopes some time to complete it for publication.
213. Ibid., entries from January 1 to 14.
214. Ibid., entries from January 1 to 14. At the point where the Salado was reached, “a great Saline” was discovered a league across the river.
215. “Derrotero,” entry for January 18. No mention is made in the diary of the presence of Jumanos in the village. Cf. Escalante, op. cit., p. 311, and Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas, I, 386.
216. “Derrotero,” entry for February 24. The italics are mine.
217. To this conclusion there is only one alternative. If, on his outward journey, Mendoza struck the Pecos, in Reeves county, and followed it nine leagues up stream instead of nine leagues down stream, the Nueces would be Giraud Creek, and the San Clemente the Colorado below Giraud Creek. One thing in favor of this conclusion is the fact that Mendoza returned to the Pecos by a more southern route than that which he followed outward. (“Derrotero,” entries for March 16 and May 21.)
218. Autos of the expedition of Antonio Balcarcel Rivadeneyra y Sotomayor. MS.
219. “Ynforme,” op. cit., 4. Vetancurt states that Father López and his companions found at La Junta “a great multitude of Xumanas and Tejas; they decided to return with better preparations and sufficient ministers. . . . Some friars returned with the intention of going among the Xumanas and Texas.” (Crónica, pp. 96-97). As a matter of fact, neither López nor Mendoza reported a great multitude of Xumanas at this point, nor did the ministers return to El Paso before going to the Nueces River. Two Texas messengers were reported at La Junta by Sabeata.
220. “From east to west on the southern border this Apache nation is contiguous with the following nations: after the Tejas, with the nation of the Aijados [and then] with the nation of the Cuitoas and of the Escanjaquez, in a district of fifty leagues; and these nations being those stated on the river of the Noezes, the Apache nation [now] keeps them driven back to the Rio del Norte, a district of a hundred leagues, or a little less; and after these nations, [i. e., westward] follows that of the Jumanas, with the rest that are mentioned at the junction of the Rio del Norte and the Conchos; and [the Apache] keep these also driven back in this said place, and dispossessed of the Noezes river.” “Ynforme,” 11-13.
221. Joutel, “Relation,” in Margry, Découvertes et Etablissements, etc., III, 299.
222. French, Hist. Coll. La. (1852), 203-205.
223. Margry, op. cit., III, 410.
224. “Declaración” of General Alonso de León, May 17, 1788. Portillo, Apuntes para la Historia Antigua Coahuila y Tejas, 222.
225. “Declaración del Indio Diego de León,” ibid., 237.
226. De León, “Derrotero,” in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 2
227. Massanet, “Diario,” in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 96.
228. Massanet, ibid., 97-102. Terán, in his “Descripción Diaria,” states that on the bank of the Guadalupe “halle las Naciones Jumana, Cibula, Casqueza, Cantona,” ibid., 28-29.
229. Autos of the Terán expedition, MS. 109, 110, 112, 126, 127, 129.
230. Ibid., 99.
231. In the original the spelling is “Sabeata.”
232. Ibid., 191. Terán says “y los mandones competentes formales de los Governadores actuales de la Viscaya y Nuevo Mexico.” op. cit., 28-29.
233. Ibid., 101. In spite of their friendly conference, the Jumano are reported to have followed the Spanish expedition to the San Marcos (Colorado), stealing horses and causing other trouble. (Autos of the expedition, 109, 110, 112, 126, 127, 129, etc.)
234. Casañas, “Relación.” MS.
235. “Dictamen Fiscal,” in “Mem. de Nueva Espana,” XXVII, 185. He went east in May and June, and returned in June and July. It will be noted that the season was the same as that of the Massanet expedition of 1691.
236. Letter of July 4, 1733. MS. in the Archivo General, Mexico.
237. The testimony was given incident to an investigation of certain rumors of French in Texas. “Diferentes Noticias de Indios de como ay Españoles azia los Texas.” MS. in Archivo General y Publico, Mexico.
238. It is noteworthy that when Fathers Espinosa and Olivares made their expedition to the San Marcos in 1709 they did not mention seeing the Jumano, though they did see Chief Cantona. (Espinosa, “Diario,” MS. 1709.)
239. Ramón, “Representación,” in Mem. de Nueva España, XXVII, 160.
240. Declaration of Indian Joseph, who came from eastern Texas with a French courier. MS. in the Archivo General y Publico, Mexico. It seems that the revolting, or rather the absconding, Indians were those of Rancheria Grande, in central Texas.
241. In 1724 an Indian named Gerónimo, a native of Santa Elena, Nueva Viscaya, who came to San Juan Bautista with some Apache, declared that about three years before he had been captured on the Conchos River by the Tobosos, and had lived for a year “among the Tovosos and Jumanes,” when he was purchased by some Apache, among whom he had lived two years. He also declared that when, a short time before his deposition was made, the Apaches were planning to destroy San Antonio, a peace message from San Antonio, Texas, reached the Apache among whom he was living and was read by “two Religious who go (andan) among them with the Juman nation.” (“Declaración del Indio Gerónimo,” 1724. MS.)
242. Almazán to the viceroy, Béxar, December 1, 1731, in “Autos sobre las providencias,” etc., 5.
243. Ibid., 18, 29.
244. Ibid., 38.
245. Testimony of Antonio de los Santos, August 21, 1734. Autos of the residencia, MS. in the Béxar Archives.
246. MS. in the Archivo General y Publico, Mexico. (B. MS. Misc.) This statement seems to shed important light on Lipan history also.
247. The italics are mine.
248. Memorial of Bustillo y Zevallos, May 28, 1746, MS.
249. Bolton, in Handbook of American Indians, II, 705; Hodge, “The Jumano Indians,” 19-20.
250. Near modern Eagle Pass. I am indebted to Mr. W. E. Dunn for aid in the location of the presidio of San Saba at this time. The later movements of that establishment are very hard to trace, and have never been successfully followed until recently, when Mr. Dunn made an exhaustive study of the subject.
251. MS. in the Archivo General, Mexico.
252. A corollary to this would be the conclusion that “Taovayas” can not be taken as synonymous with “Jumano” wherever it is found.
How to cite:
Bolton, Herbert E., "THE JUMANO INDIANS IN TEXAS, 1650-1771 ", Volume 015, Number 1, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 66 - 84. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v015/n1/article_3.html
[Accessed Tue Nov 24 1:36:51 CST 2009]
