OCR Text |
Show 272 LEADING FACTS OF NEW MEXICAN HISTORY definitely the time consumed in the journey nor the distance. Two large provinces of friendly Indians were passed, which were a journey of eight days’ distance apart, of whom nothing could be (Diario y Derrotero de lo Caminado visto y observado, ete., p. 22). Juan Dominguez de Mendoza (Diario, fol. 46) gives the names of a number of tribes connected at least with the Jumanos, which he met in northwestern Texas, and among that list the ‘Poliches’ (Puliquis?) are mentioned. I suspect, however, that these names are not always those of separate tribes, but rather names of clans or bands. The Jumanos are ranked among the Chihuahua tribes by Orozco y Berra (Geografia, etc., p. 386). But he considers them as a branch of the Apaches-Faraones. There are no grounds for such a conclusion beyond the possible fact, that the remnants of the Jumanos may have become absorbed by the Apaches, upon the latter obtaining sway over Chihuahua. This is only a possibility, and as yet not a certainty. Of the language of the Jumanos we know nothing. Fray Nicolas Lopez asserts (Memorial) that he composed a vocabulary of the Jumano idiom, but we have no knowledge of its existence. He says: ‘Yo, Sefior, saldria deesta ciudad 4 fines del que viene para aquella eustodia; llevo dispuesto el animo 4 entrar segunda vez 4 dichas naciones, por saber ya la lengua jumana y haberla predicada 4 aquellos y haber hecho vocabulario muy copioso de dicha lengua, como consta juridicamente en los instrumentos que tengo presentados.’ Father Lopez is not an absolutely reliable authority. He took the part of Juan Dominguez Mendoza in the latter’s quarrels with nine of his men, who subsequently deserted his camp, returning to EK] Paso del Norte at their own risk. Compare his Diario, fol. 14, Auto, fol. 15, Peticion, ete., also Felipe Romero and others, Carta al Gobernador, fol. 1-3; Pedimento, p. 2. He was even accused of conspiring with Dominguez against the Governor Petriz de Cruzate in 1685, Testimonio 4 la letra de la causa crimmal que se d seguido contra el Maestre de Campo, Juan Dominguez de Mendoza y los demas, etc., September, 1685, Ms. Some of his claims to services performed may be exaggerated. ‘‘There were many contradictory reports about the Indians of the Junta de los Rios, dating from 1683 to 1686. Juan Dominguez Mendoza, in his Diario, fol. 5, calls them ‘Jente de la nasion Julimes jente politica en la lengua mexicana y que todos siembran mais y trigo y otras semillas.’ Also Felipe Romero (Carta, p. 1) ‘4 este puesto de Xulimes.’ But Fray Nicolas Lopez, Memorial, calls them Jumanos. So, on the other hand, Fray Sylvestre Velez de Escalante, Carta al Padre Fray Augustin Morfi, April 2, 1778, paragraph 7, says: ‘Legaron & la junta de los dos rios Norte y Conchos, predicaron 4 los Indios que alli estaban, que eran de las tres naciones, Conchos, Julimes y Chocolomes.’ The documents of 1715 do not mention the Jumanos as living there. It may be that, as Sabeata, the Jumano Indian who guided Dominguez, considered the people living at the Junta as his own, and as Espejo had, in 1582, met the Jumanos at that very place, that the Julimes were in fact a branch of the Jumanos. In a witchcraft trial of 1732 (Causa Criminal contra unos indtos del Pueblo de Santa Ana denunciados por Lichiseros, Ms.) there appears @ Jumano Indian from El Paso, but whose relatives lived at Julimes. Orozco y Berra, Geografia, p. 326, classifies the Julime with the Tepehuan, without giving any authority for so doing.’’ Mr. Bandelier says further: ‘‘The Jumanos have disappeared from the surface and strange to say, although mentioned as an important and even numerous tribe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I have not as yet been able to trace any description of the customs, manners, ete., of that north- ern branch of them which belonged to New the southeastern part of the Territory, Mexico south and proper. southeast They ranged in of the salt lagunes Inscription Rock — El Morro — Valencia County, N. M. |