| OCR Text |
Show 206 THE SPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO dian seems to have had a Spanish name, indicating that at least as late ag the eighteenth and in the early part of the nineteenth century there were Juma nos living in New Mexico and the Spanish authorities were thoroughly advised as to their habitat. Bolton, in his ‘““Jumano Indians in Texas, 1650-1771,”’ Says that ‘‘Among the many subje chives of Mexico are now shedding cts on which the arnew and much needed light, one is that of the history of the Jumano Indians after the middle of the Seventeent h century. In the early annals of New Mexico and sout hwestern 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 seve But of their m ace. Bandelier, writing in 1890, was constrained to say: ‘The Jumanos were lost sight of after the great convulsions of 1680 and succeeding years, their ultimate fate is aS unkno and wn as their original numbers.’ Similarly Hodge, in until shortly before hig writina recent study, states that g he had been ‘baffled by appearance of he sudden and o nce populous writer, through hig invest this almost tribe.’ complete dis- The present igatio had the good fortune to pick up ns in archives in Mexico, and to show that from 1750 forwarthe thread again in 1907, d the Taovayas, a Wichita tribe of the Red river (Texas), were regularly called ‘Jumanos’ by the Spaniards of New Mexico. Hodge taken this newly acquired has information to be the key to the Vy, and, i tribe they are now represented. He has conclude d also, apparently that for the name “Taovayas,’ wherever found, Jumano’ ean be Substituted. By restating the hithe J umano and correlating rto available data concerning the it with recent discoveries concerning the Taovayas, Hodge has done valuable service to the history and ethn ology of That his concluSion explains the apparentthe southwest. disa people known as J umano, the ppearance of a part of the present writer is convinced. But there hag com € to light in the Mexican arch siderable fund 0 Info rmation which Hodge didivesnot a conuse; and a study of it g of a part of the Ju , it may be true, drawn a conclusion that is too far reaching. The purpose of this paper THE SPANISH ARCHIVES ent some ath pont ween OF NEW MEXICO 207 thereby help to fill history of the Jumano of the new data, and the muneete SnNe 1683 an ov, Wi Hodes regards the principal notices of the J epg ie tion between 1629 and 1683 as referring to re bie near the Arkansas river. He recognizes towar f . ot. of the eighteenth century a mae eR Ane “ate me nes New Mexico and Texas) as well asan mano, but seems to be able to trace them onlyly to 1691 , tie discussion thereafter being devoted group. Even of me group - Fe apeig oe apy lye : cra bee only one faint trace between 16! ye cn 1700. In 1719 he finds another trace, ae remarks: ‘No definite reference to 2 sagan Jumano between 1719 and 1750 is found.’ sei ie Jumano of whom he finds mention are een ce sah a to the Apache, or at least — Pea 8 i the oe of ‘“To one who has worke exte | ce later aivelienttl and early eighteenth pein te cca tory, recently made available, and has not, hetsdy he made the Jumano a subject of long and bare cc tons article in question contains cause for ay atte. counts: the first is that the “Nueces river, mano were several times met between 1629 an 41683 a should ae be identified with the Arkansas or any autbiiiagin ie eightity ; the second, that references to the Jumano Os tied eenth century should be considered so wee or cee that the Jumano should be regarded in the lrs fh, Vabardrioe eighteenth century as primarily a northern siete atan tribe: Mexico) rather a of Jamano who the fourth, that no mention should bethan made o BA eae pe were not enemies but allies of the Apaches, a to Texas and New Apaches themselves. : iter eve He ee has experienced this np a has attempted to present, in the pages lee Jeane cere to show that the ‘Nueces river,’ where cenfound in the third and fifth decades of by theook nteenth polepa ta tury, was probably the Colorado river the Arkansas ; that the Jumano were of ame Texad, rie i least ; and ed in southern Texas between 1675 and 1 vere regularly that in the second half of this period, they Apache, and, regarded as allies of the Apache, or even a of whom, the therefore, as hostile to the Wichita, as cc Taovayas, we well know, were regularly ¢ after 1750.”’ On this subject, see archive No. 894. sed Zamane |
