Concho And Toro Position Case Study

1. Taveira M., Ferreres F., Gil-Izquierdo A., Oliveira L., Valentão P., Andrade P. B. Fast determination of bioactive compounds from Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. leaves. Food Chemistry. 2012;135(2):748–755. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.05.016.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

2. Friedman M., Lee K. R., Kim H. J., Lee I. S., Kozukue N. Anticarcinogenic effects of glycoalkaloids from potatoes against human cervical, liver, lymphoma, and stomach cancer cells. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2005;53(15):6162–6169. doi: 10.1021/jf050620p.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

3. Friedman M., Levin C. E., Lee S. U., et al. Tomatine-containing green tomato extracts inhibit growth of human breast, colon, liver, and stomach cancer cells. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2009;57(13):5727–5733. doi: 10.1021/jf900364j.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

4. Toor R. K., Savage G. P., Lister C. E. Release of antioxidant components from tomatoes determined by an in vitro digestion method. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2009;60(2):119–129. doi: 10.1080/09637480701614121.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

5. Chandra H. M., Ramalingam S. Antioxidant potentials of skin, pulp, and seed fractions of commercially important tomato cultivars. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2011;20(1):15–21. doi: 10.1007/s10068-011-0003-z.[Cross Ref]

6. Hertog M. G. L., Kromhout D., Aravanis C., et al. Flavonoid intake and long-term risk of coronary heart disease and cancer in the seven countries study. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1995;155(4):381–386. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1995.00430040053006.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

7. Alvarado A., Pacheco-Delahaye E., Hevia P. Value of a tomato byproduct as a source of dietary fiber in rats. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2001;56(4):335–348. doi: 10.1023/A:1011855316778.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

8. Taveira M., Silva L. R., Vale-Silva L. A., et al. Lycopersicon esculentum seeds: an industrial byproduct as an antimicrobial agent. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2010;58(17):9529–9536. doi: 10.1021/jf102215g.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

9. Friedman M. Tomato glycoalkaloids: role in the plant and in the diet. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002;50(21):5751–5780. doi: 10.1021/jf020560c.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

10. Alonso Á. M., Guillén D. A., Barroso C. G., Puertas B., García A. Determination of antioxidant activity of wine byproducts and its correlation with polyphenolic content. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002;50(21):5832–5836. doi: 10.1021/jf025683b.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

11. Choi K. M., Lee Y. S., Shin D. M., et al. Green tomato extract attenuates high-fat-diet-induced obesity through activation of the AMPK pathway in C57BL/6 mice. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry. 2013;24(1):335–342. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2012.06.018.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

12. Kozukue N., Han J. S., Lee K. R., Friedman M. Dehydrotomatine and α-tomatine content in tomato fruits and vegetative plant tissues. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2004;52(7):2079–2083. doi: 10.1021/jf0306845.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

13. Magalhães L. M., Santos F., Segundo M. A., Reis S., Lima J. L. F. C. Rapid microplate high-throughput methodology for assessment of Folin-Ciocalteu reducing capacity. Talanta. 2010;83(2):441–447. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2010.09.042.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

14. Chen L., Xin X., Yuan Q., Su D., Liu W. Phytochemical properties and antioxidant capacities of various colored berries. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2014;94(2):180–188. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6216.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

15. Lichtenthaler H. K. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods in Enzymology. 1987;148:350–382. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(87)48036-1.[Cross Ref]

16. Toor R. K., Lister C. E., Savage G. P. Antioxidant activities of New Zealand-grown tomatoes. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 2005;56(8):597–605. doi: 10.1080/09637480500490400.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

17. López-Cobo A., Gómez-Caravaca A. M., Cerretani L., Segura-Carretero A., Fernández-Gutiérrez A. Distribution of phenolic compounds and other polar compounds in the tuber of Solanum tuberosum L. by HPLC-DAD-q-TOF and study of their antioxidant activity. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2014;36(1-2):1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2014.04.009.[Cross Ref]

18. Jordán M. J., Lax V., Rota M. C., Lorán S., Sotomayor J. A. Effect of the phenological stage on the chemical composition, and antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of Rosmarinus officinalis L essential oil and its polyphenolic extract. Industrial Crops and Products. 2013;48:144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.04.031.[Cross Ref]

19. Gupta V. K., Sharma S. K. Plants as natural antioxidants. Natural Product Radiance. 2014;5(4):326–334.

20. Peschel W., Sánchez-Rabaneda F., Diekmann W., et al. An industrial approach in the search of natural antioxidants from vegetable and fruit wastes. Food Chemistry. 2006;97(1):137–150. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.03.033.[Cross Ref]

21. Rivero R. M., Ruiz J. M., Romero L. Can grafting in tomato plants strengthen resistance to thermal stress? Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2003;83(13):1315–1319. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1541.[Cross Ref]

22. Cervilla L. M., Blasco B., Ríos J. J., Romero L., Ruiz J. M. Oxidative stress and antioxidants in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants subjected to boron toxicity. Annals of Botany. 2007;100(4):747–756. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm156.[PMC free article][PubMed][Cross Ref]

23. Dorta E., Lobo M. G., Gonzalez M. Reutilization of mango byproducts: study of the effect of extraction solvent and temperature on their antioxidant properties. Journal of Food Science. 2012;77(1):C80–C88. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02477.x.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

24. Silva-Beltrán N. P., Ruiz-Cruz S., Chaidez C., et al. Chemical constitution and effect of extracts of tomato plants byproducts on the enteric viral surrogates. International Journal of Environmental Health Research. 2015;25(3):299–331. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2014.938030.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

25. Martínez-Valverde I., Periago M. J., Provan G., Chesson A. Phenolic compounds, lycopene and antioxidant activity in commercial varieties of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2002;82(3):323–330. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.1035.[Cross Ref]

26. Slimestad R., Verheul M. Review of flavonoids and other phenolics from fruits of different tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2009;89(8):1255–1270. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3605.[Cross Ref]

27. Martínez-Flórez S., González-Gallego J., Culebras J. M., Tuñón M. J. Los flavonoides: propiedades y acciones antioxidantes. Nutricion Hospitalaria. 2002;17(6):271–278.[PubMed]

28. Choi S. H., Lee S. H., Kim H. J., et al. Changes in free amino acid, phenolic, chlorophyll, carotenoid, and glycoalkaloid contents in tomatoes during 11 stages of growth and inhibition of cervical and lung human cancer cells by green tomato extracts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2010;58(13):7547–7556. doi: 10.1021/jf100162j.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

29. Lumpkin H. M. A Comparison of Lycopene and Other Phytochemicals in Tomatoes Grown under Conventional and Organic Management Systems. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center; 2005. (No. 34 of Technical bulletin (Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center)). vol. 5, no. 623 of AVRDC Publication—The World Vegetable Center.

30. Ferruzzi M. G., Böhm V., Courtney P. D., Schwartz S. J. Antioxidant and antimutagenic activity of dietary chlorophyll derivatives determined by radical scavenging and bacterial reverse mutagenesis assays. Journal of Food Science. 2002;67(7):2589–2595. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb08782.x.[Cross Ref]

31. Borguini R. G., Ferraz da Silva Torres E. A. Tomatoes and tomato products as dietary sources of antioxidants. Food Reviews International. 2009;25(4):313–325. doi: 10.1080/87559120903155859.[Cross Ref]

32. Lin K. H. R., Weng C. C., Lo H. F., Chen J. T. Study of the root antioxidative system of tomatoes and eggplants under waterlogged conditions. Plant Science. 2004;167(2):355–365. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.04.004.[Cross Ref]

33. Mittova V., Guy M., Tal M., Volokita M. Salinity up-regulates the antioxidative system in root mitochondria and peroxisomes of the wild salt-tolerant tomato species Lycopersicon pennellii . Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55(399):1105–1113. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh113.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

34. Cui L., Li J., Fan Y., Xu S., Zhang Z. High temperature effects on photosynthesis, PSII functionality and antioxidant activity of two Festuca arundinacea cultivars with different heat susceptibility. Botanical Studies. 2006;47(1):61–69.

35. Spencer J. P. E., Kuhnle G. G. C., Hajirezaei M., Mock H. P., Sonnewald U., Rice-Evans C. The genotypic variation of the antioxidant potential of different tomato varieties. Free Radical Research. 2005;39(9):1005–1016. doi: 10.1080/1071576040002293.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

36. Samsonowicz M., Kamińska I., Kalinowska M., Lewandowski W. Alkali metal salts of rutin—synthesis, spectroscopic (FT-IR, FT-Raman, UV–VIS), antioxidant and antimicrobial studies. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy. 2015;151:926–938. doi: 10.1016/j.saa.2015.07.027.[PubMed][Cross Ref]

37. Endo Y., Usuki R., Kaneda T. Antioxidant effects of chlorophyll and pheophytin on the autoxidation of oils in the dark. II. The mechanism of antioxidative action of chlorophyll. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society. 1985;62(9):1387–1390. doi: 10.1007/bf02545965.[Cross Ref]

38. Smirnova G. V., Vysochina G. I., Muzyka N. G., Samoylova Z. Y., Kukushkina T. A., Oktyabrsky O. N. Evaluation of antioxidant properties of medical plants using microbial test systems. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2010;26(12):2269–2276. doi: 10.1007/s11274-010-0417-4.[Cross Ref]

39. Bashan Y., Okon Y., Henis Y. Peroxidase, polyphenoloxidase, and phenols in relation to resistance against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in tomato plants. Canadian Journal of Botany. 1987;65(2):366–372. doi: 10.1139/b87-047.[Cross Ref]

40. Gyawali R., Ibrahim S. A. Natural products as antimicrobial agents. Food Control. 2014;46:412–429. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.047.[Cross Ref]

41. Cueva C., Moreno-Arribas M. V., Martín-Álvarez P. J., et al. Antimicrobial activity of phenolic acids against commensal, probiotic and pathogenic bacteria. Research in Microbiology. 2010;161(5):372–382. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2010.04.006.[PubMed]





Bamforth, Douglas B.

1988 Ethnohistory and Bison on the Southwestern Plains: a Minor Correction to Turpin. Plains Anthropologist 33:405-408.

In this article, Bamforth responds to an earlier article by Turpin (1987, below), stating that she made two significant errors in her article. First, she used Espejo's account of the 1582 expedition that he led to New Mexico and back to Mexico. This account is largely conjecture (see Kenmotsu 1994); additionally, the Espejo expedition never entered the Lower Pecos region discussed by Turpin. Second, her interpretation of the density of bison in the Southern Plains does not, in his opinion, fit with the relative scarcity of bison that can be supported by the grasses on these plains nor with the scarcity of archeological evidence to support such a claim. [1]

Berlandier, Jean Louis

1980 Journey to Mexico During the Years 1826 to 1834. Translated by Sheila M. Ohlendorf, Josette M. Bigelow and Mary M. Standifer, Vol. One. The Texas State Historical Association, Austin.

Berlandier was a botanist who received his training in Geneva in the early nineteenth century. Subsequent to his graduation from the Geneva herbarium, he was selected by the Swiss to travel to Mexico to collect floral samples and detail the natural history of that country, particularly the central and northeastern portions. Over a several year period, Berlandier made a number of travels to various parts of the country, often in the company of others. Both he and several of the others kept journals, diaries, and/or wrote short reports of their work. One of his fellow travelers in 1828-1829 was Lt. Jose Maria Sanchez y Tapia whose watercolors of Native Americans are featured in several illustrations in earlier chapters of this report.

While most of this volume deals only with Mexico, the final chapters contain a few pieces of information relevant to the Amistad NRA. They are provided below.

p. 262: "The two tribes who most commonly frequent [Laredo] are the Lipans and the Comanches, who come to camp on the banks of the river."

p. 267: "The waters of the Rio Bravo become troubled after receiving those of the Pecos River and they remain so more or less according to the changeable terrain through which they flow."

p. 268: "During our sojourn in Laredo the Lipans, then at peace, arrived according to their noble custom to pay a visit to the presidio. Before making their entrance they sent messengers to General Bustamante to announce their arrival . . . . They are taken bread and the required bottle of mescal, which for them is the symbol of friendship. Later on when I was at Bexar, Comanches arrived and the same ceremonies of reception were observed."

p. 269: "The Lipans live almost constantly at war with the Comanches, and the dispute over the herds of bison, which constitute the principal food of these indigenes, increases the hatred which is so easy to arouse in them. The former, although more courageous and more warlike than the Comanches, are forced to yield to numbers . . . . The Lipans are the best Indian horsemen, and their skill promptly places them beyond the reach of their adversaries."

p. 271: "The route which leads from Laredo to Bexar is generally little frequented and not very safe; the Lipans and the Comanches infest it at every step."

Boyd, Carolyn E.

1998 Pictographic Evidence of Peyotism in the Lower Pecos, Texas Archaic. In The Archaeology of Rock-Art, edited by Christopher Chippindale and Paul S. C. Tacon, pp. 232-247. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

In this short but concise chapter Carolyn Boyd makes a convincing case for the association between prehistoric rock-art motifs and peyote practices. Using three independent lines of evidence, she focuses primarily on 41VV124, the "White Shaman" rock-art panel located near the confluence of the Pecos River with the Rio Grande. After a detailed formal analysis of the pictographic elements of the panel, Boyd uses ethnographic evidence from the Huichol in northern Mexico to relate, by analogy, elements depicted in the panel with precise details of the procurement, collection, and use of peyote by the modern Huichol. Boyd researched the mythic connections between peyote, deer, and maize among the Huichol, and then reviewed the environmental and ecological relationships that may have fostered similar ritual practices among the prehistoric populations in the Lower Pecos/Rio Grande area. Boyd also discusses the archeological and archeobotanical evidence that substantiate her analogy and interpretation. Apart from the innovative character of the research and conclusions, Boyd makes some statements that are pertinent to the present study.

p. 232: "In this analysis, examinations and analyses of the pictographs were conducted to determine spatial variability and patterns in motif association."

p. 234: "Peyotism in the United States is recognized as having its origins in northern Mexico and southern Texas along the Rio Grande . . . the northernmost reaches of the natural growth range of peyote. During historical times, various Indian groups such as the Comanches and the Kiowas and tribes from Oklahoma journeyed to the Lower Pecos region to harvest peyote for ceremonial use. The Comanches and the Kiowas reportedly collected peyote along the Rio Grande and Pecos River."

p. 237: "Specific elements of the Pecos River Style rock art are analogous to specific elements in the Huichol ritual peyote pilgrimage."

p. 238: Boyd indicates that the elements of the panel suggest that the panel should be read from left to right.

p. 244: "Insight into prehistoric art can be gained when the results of a formal analysis are combined with ethnographic analogy and assessed within the context of environmental and archaeological evidence."

Brown, Maureen, Jose E. Zapata, and Bruce K. Moses

1998 Camp Elizabeth, Sterling County, Texas: An Archaeological and Archival Investigation of a U.S. Army Subpost, and Evidence Supporting its Use by the Military and "Buffalo Soldiers." Archaeological Survey Report, No. 267. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Partially situated within the right of way of US 87, Camp Elizabeth (properly known as the Camp of the North Concho) was mitigated by the University of Texas at San Antonio under contract to the Texas Department of Transportation. Using both archeological and archival investigations, the researchers detail the history of that camp, which was intermittently occupied during the 1860s and 1870s, largely by Buffalo or Black soldiers. Selected parts of the archival documentation are relevant to this study:

p. 23: "Camp Johnston was established March 15, 1852, on the south side of the North Concho River at latitude 31°30' and longitude 100°51'."

p. 31: "In March 1872, Major Hatch, 4th Cavalry reported that Lieutenant Hoffman had sighted a party of about 150 men, believed to be from the reservation near Ft. Sill. These were reported as divided and operating in San Saba, Lampasas, and Llano counties, and may be the war party that left the reservation."

p. 31: "The ensuing reports indicate that the Ft. Concho troops were rarely required to engage the Indians . . . . [Captain Nolan stated:] 'November 11, 1877 . . . I here interviewed Some of the Settlers as to when Indians were last seen in this Vicinity . . . [and] they informed me that none had been Seen in the last three Years.'"

p. 43: "In August 1870, Major Aenas R. Bliss, 25th Infantry, enlisted a special detachment of black Seminole scouts from a group that had recently arrived at Fort Duncan from northern Mexico. These people represented a portion of the mixed-blood Seminole and black population that had fled to Mexico during 1849 and 1850 to escape American slave traders. They had originally been well received by the Mexican government but eventually had been neglected. An offer of scouting jobs and protection tendered by Captain Frank W. Perry had prompted about 100 to relocate to Fort Duncan, under subchief John Kibbetts. In the following three years, other groups from northern Mexico joined them, raising the black Seminole population to approximate 180 . . . . Fifty scouts were organized as a unit and served for nine years under Lt. John Bullis."

Chipman, Donald E.

1987 In Search of Cabeza de Vaca's Route Across Texas: An Historiographical Survey. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 91(1):127-148.

In this article Chipman reviews and assesses the routes for Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca's trek through Texas between 1528 and 1535 proposed by several researchers. Starting with Bancroft's first musings about Cabeza de Vaca's trek, Chipman illustrates the different versions of the route, and places each particular version of the route and its respective author in historical context. He concentrates on the interpretations of the route and not on the quality or reliability of the translations used or prepared by the various researchers who studied the route. Chipman finally considers the route interpretations of Alex Krieger and T. N. Campbell and T. J. Campbell and the contributions these authors made to the problem.

p.142: "Alex D. Krieger's route interpretation meets the criteria of thoroughness and objectivity."

p.144: Chipman noted that Krieger's "route interpretation for the portion of the overland trek that lay near the Texas-Mexico border is essentially a refinement—an important refinement, to be sure—of that [route] advanced by Davenport and Wells in 1919."

p. 147: For Chipman, the Campbells' contribution "was essentially new in that they went through all the relevant primary Spanish documents with a fine tooth-comb and sorted out all information about each named Indian group. The synthesized Indian data were used, along with terrain and biotic data, as criteria for their route evaluation. The Campbells disagreed with Krieger regarding the location of the Land of the Tunas which Krieger locates south of the Atascosa River about 30 to 40 miles due south of San Antonio. The Campbells located the tuna fields near the Nueces River, west and northwest of Corpus Christi Bay." Chipman, like the Campbells, recognized that we may never be sure of the exact route of Cabeza de Vaca and his companions but the work of these researchers has provided the best approximation as of this date.

Dunn, William Edward

1911 Apache Relations in Texas, 1718-1750. Texas Historical Association Quarterly XIV:198-274.

Dunn's text for this article was his master's thesis at Stanford University. Fluent in Spanish, he used a large number of documents from Mexican archives pertinent to Spanish/United States borderland studies that had been transcribed by Bolton in the first decade of the twentieth century. Documents from the Bexar and Nacogdoches archives were also employed. Copies of the documents used by Dunn are now housed at Stanford as well as at the Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.

The focus on the Apache was undertaken because Dunn recognized that the Apache/Spanish interaction east of New Mexico was an important ingredient in the subsequent history of Texas but had been largely ignored by American historians prior to his study. He was particularly keen on the events that led to the development of Spanish missions for the Apaches on the San Saba and Nueces rivers. In the study, Dunn carefully segmented the Apaches into the bands that the Spanish had recognized and he provided considerable detail on his interpretation of the territories that distinct bands occupied. While some of our interpretations may differ from his, his work is impressive and much of it stands today. The following excerpts from his study are pertinent to the Amistad NRA:

p. 201-202: He defines the "Apaches de Oriente" (a term frequently seen in early Spanish documents) as those east of the Pecos River of New Mexico and Texas.

p. 202: "The Lipan, when first known to the Texans, lived far to the northwest of San Antonio, on the upper reaches of the Colorado, Brazos, and Red rivers, but gradually they moved south before the advancing Comanches, until by 1732 they made their home in the country of the San Saba, Chanas (Llano), and Pedernales. About 1750 some of them established themselves on the Medina, and others pushed on to the Rio Grande."

p. 203: "The Natages and the Mescaleros lived far to the southwestward, in the country of the Pecos and on the Rio Grande. These Eastern Apaches were not numerous, but were led by petty chiefs, which made it difficult to deal with the tribes as wholes."

p. 203: Father Massanet stated, "The Apaches form a chain running from east to west, and wage war with all; with the Salineros alone do they maintain peace."

p. 204: "In the instruction given to Governor Alarcon, in 1718, for the planting of [San Antonio], he was cautioned to be on his guard against the Apaches, and was told to organize the neighboring tribes in a defensive alliance against them."

p. 205: "Aguayo . . . wished to make friends of the Apaches, and as he journeyed from San Antonio to eastern Texas he erected several crosses, in order, as he said, 'to exalt the cross in the midst of so much idolatry, and to leave signs of peace to the Apaches Indians.'"

p. 208: "The fact that they [the military under Captain Flores] went northward five days [pursuing Apache who attacked the presidio at San Antonio in August 1703] before entering the Lomeria and that they returned by way of the San Xavier (San Gabriel), where Father Pita's remains were found, would indicate a generally northward direction . . . . Since they were 19 days returning and traveling 130 leagues, the air-line distance from San Antonio could hardly have been less than 200 miles. This would put the place where the battle occurred somewhere in the region of Brownwood, perhaps."

p. 209: "The Spaniards wished, among other things, to use the Apaches as a bulwark against the French and their Indian allies (the Comanches in particular), and to prepare the way for the development of trade between New Mexico, Espiritu Santo, and eastern Texas, and so strengthen the Spanish hold upon that vast territory."

p. 213: "Father Hidalgo, who was missionary at San Antonio de Valero [in 1723] supported his brother priest. To the latter's statement he volunteered to add his own opinion. The Apaches, he said, could have been converted long before if the presidios had been managed rightly."

p. 217: "Almazan to the viceroy [a document]: Declaracion del Yndio Geronimo. In his declaration made before [the governor], Geronimo stated that he was a native of Rio de Santa Helena, near Fresnillo, and that he had been left an orphan at an early age. While working for a merchant as driver, he had been captured by Tobosos, who kept him for a year, and then traded him to the Apaches in exchange for deer skins, because an Apache chief fancied that the resembled a son of his who had been captured by the Spaniards in an assault upon Rio Grande."

p. 220: "Up to this time very little distinction, if any, was made between the different Apaches tribes, but all were included . . . under the generic name of Apaches. . . . Domingo Cabello, who was governor of Texas in 1784 and who wrote an historical sketch of the Apaches, says that at the time . . . they lived along the Rio Del Fierro, 300 leagues 'from the province of Texas.' The Rio del Fierro seems to be the Wichita. According to Cabello's Statement, the Apaches lived in that region until about 1723, when they were defeated by the Comanches . . . in a nine days' battle and forced to seek safety in flight. Going southward, they chose as their new home the region between the upper Colorado and Brazos rivers."

p. 221: "The range of the Apaches extended much farther south, it is true. During the buffalo season, they were accustomed to move their camps to the southeast, between the middle Colorado and Brazos rivers, where the buffalo were the most numerous."

p. 222: "If [Flores] was correct in his estimate [in 1723] the total population of this [Apache] rancheria could not have been less than eight or nine hundred."

p. 228: "Joseph de Urrutia, writing on July 4, 1733, wondered at [an] alliance between the Apaches and the Jumanes and Pelones because, he said, the Apaches were formerly the enemies of these other tribes and would not admit them to their friendship. This alliance with other tribes may indicate that the Apaches were no longer as independent as they had been and that the Comanches were pressing hard upon them."

p. 232: In 1733, Bustillo traveled northwest of San Antonio (likely in the vicinity of San Saba) and attacked Apaches camped there in four rancherias. He stated that they included the Apaches, Ypandis (Lipan), Ysandis, and Chentis.

p. 236: In Bustillo's report of the campaign, "he declared that there were 37 tribes along the road [from San Antonio] to New Mexico bearing the name Apache."

p. 236: "On November 26, 1732, the viceroy had asked why the Apaches always succeeded in their attacks upon San Antonio . . . . In answer to this, Captain Almazan made a statement . . . explaining that the Apaches confined their raids almost entirely to the presidio of Bexar because of its proximity to their homes . . . . Not only were the Apaches hostile to San Antonio . . . but recently two other tribes, the Yxandi and the Chenti, had joined them."

p. 241: "In 1736 Fray Francisco de Rios . . . was returning from San Antonio to Rio Grande . . . . At a place called El Atascoso, some 14 leagues from San Antonio, they were attacked by a number of Apaches."

p. 241, ff4: "In a letter of June 6, 1735, Don Blas de la Garza Falcon, governor of Coahuila, to the Archbishop of Mexico, an account is given to the effect that the Apaches were frequenting the territory around Saltillo and Monclova."

p. 251: In 1745, "Captain Urrutia went northward from San Antonio, crossing the Colorado River about 70 leagues away. Ten leagues north of this river they found a rancheria of Apaches, 'commonly called Ypandes' (Lipans), whose tents were scattered over a wide area."

p. 253: "In March 1746, "a campaign was being planned by the captains of Rio Grande and Sacramento presidios to punish the Tobosos and the 'Apaches Jumanes,' who had been very annoying."

p. 254: "In 1748 [Apaches] attacked [the San Xavier mission] four times, the fiercest assault being made on May 2, when 60 Apaches appeared at the mission."

p. 255: "These Apache raids, which had continued so long, now became less frequent, due apparently to increased pressure from the Comanches."

p. 256: Pelones, a subdivision of the Apaches, living near the Caudachos [Red] River were forced to give up their lands.

p. 266: "Urrutia says: 'The Natages Indians, reputed among the Indians of the north as true Apaches, lived on this occasion not far from and to the west of the Ypandes. They are fewer in number but prouder and more overbearing than the rest, and their chief man was captain of the Ypandes . . . . The body of these Natages comprises in itself the Mescaleros and Salineros Indians . . . . Their own country [that is, of the Natages] is on the said Rio Salado [Pecos?], where they enter into the jurisdiction of Conchos. The Ypandes, as they are intimate friends and relatives, also go as far as the Rio Salado in the months of June and July, and then in the autumn all go down together to the San Saba, Xianas [Chanas, Llano], Almagre, and Pedernales rivers . . . . The Natages, Santa Ana also said, troubled the Rio Grande country as far west as El Paso, although they numbered less than 100 warriors.'"

p. 267: The Ypandes were located closest to Bexar. "The Ypandes were said to be identical with the Pelones, being referred to [in 1743] as Ypandes alias Pelones."

Emory, William H.

1987 Report on the United States and Mexican Boundary Survey Made Under the Direction of the Secretary of the Interior. Second edition, Texas State Historical Association, Austin.

The effort to establish a permanent boundary between Mexico and the United States was a long and politically difficult enterprise. Emory was not the first to lead the effort, but he proved to be the successful individual and one who seemed particularly suited to the task. Certainly he was an individual of considerable energy whose writings in these recently re-published volumes suggest that he found great excitement and delight in seeing, studying, and learning about the poorly described lands of West and west central Texas. The volumes are a marvel of information on the native flora and fauna along with geologic descriptions that are quite detailed. To a lesser degree, they provide information about Native Americans, as shown in the following excerpts:

p. 10: Emory arrived in El Paso in 1851 and stated that he considered the area from El Paso to Brownsville to be "a vast extent of country, uninhabited by civilized races, and infested by nomadic tribes of savages."

p. 11: "Although the Rio Bravo, from El Paso to its mouth, has been frequently mapped, it will surprise many to know, that up to the time when I commenced the survey, by far the largest portion of it had never been traversed by civilized man."

p. 24: Emory returned to El Paso December 30, 1853 for the final effort on the boundary survey. After traveling from Indianola to San Antonio and then to El Paso, Emory stated that the party "did not see an Indian on the route, although in front and in rear of us they were committing depredations along the whole road."

p. 39: "That portion of [the boundary] which is formed by the Rio Bravo, below the mouth of the San Pedro, or Devil's river of Texas, makes a boundary, which in the absence of extradition laws, must always be a source of controversy between the United States and Mexico."

p. 43: "The igneous protrusions which occur . . . are traced from the San Saba mountain, by the head of the Leona, to Santa Rosa, in Mexico . . . . At Santa Rosa the Spaniards had sunk extensive shafts and made a tunnel . . . which was not completed when the revolution of 1825 [sic] broke out; since then . . . the country . . . has been a prey to the incursion of banditti and Indians, and at this time Wild Cat and his band of Florida Indians are settled near there."

p. 58: "Having now given the general view of the country on the American side of the first section of the boundary, I will ask the reader to ascend with me the Rio Bravo along the boundary, where I will describe in detail all that is worth noting as high as the mouth of the Rio San Pedro, or Devil's river . . . .

p. 72: "Before leaving the mouth of the Rio San Pedro to ascend the Rio Bravo, I will take a rapid view of the country on the Mexican side . . . . The eastern slope of these mountains forms portions of the States of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. The area between the Rio Bravo and the bases of these slopes is an arid, cretaceous plain, covered with a spinose growth similar to that on the Texas side."

p. 74: "Having organized a party, and made all preparations at San Antonio, Texas, we proceeded on the road to El Paso, and followed it as far as the Pecos Springs. At this place I determined to leave the road and strike for the Rio Grande, as directly as the nature of the country would permit. Owing to its character, and the necessity of taking wagons along, our route, as shown by the map became somewhat circuitous."

p. 74: "No water, except what collects in the gullies during heavy rains, until you reach King's Springs. This is a large spring of water, deep and clear . . . . While the main part encamped there, a reconnaissance was made in a southwesterly direction for nearly sixty miles, when it was found impracticable to proceed further. The course lay towards the "Los Chisos' mountains."

p. 75: "Numerous trails from the Pecos and the Escondido here unite [along Independence Creek] and form a large broad one, running south to the Rio Grande; there are unmistakable signs of their constant use. Leaving the creek, we ascended the contiguous hills and rose upon a high plain, over which we traveled forty miles, following the guidance of the Indian trail; this was deeply marked although it is difficult to make an impression on the surface . . . . The plain where the main party encamped, and where we first struck the river, made a gradual descent to the water. Here was the first break in the canyon [of the Rio Grande], and the crossing being fordable, formed an accessible pass for the Indians into Mexico. This ford [is] known as the Lipan crossing . . . . The Lipans often visited us here, and made themselves useful as guides."

p. 76: "We had, fortunately, struck the only place, as our examinations afterwards proved, where we could possibly reach the river with our wagons; the route was a circuitous one, in all 140 miles from the Pecos springs."

p. 78: "The Pecos is more deserving of its other Mexican name, 'Puerco,' for it is truly a rolling mass of red mud, the water tasting like a mixture of every saline ingredient."

p. 81: "Comanche Pass, on the Rio Bravo, the most celebrated and frequently used crossing place of the Indians, was found to be just below this Bofecillos range; here broad, well-beaten trails lead to the river from both sides. A band of Indians under the well known chief Mano (hand) crossed the river at the time of our visit; they had come, by their own account, from the headwaters of Red River, and were on their way to Durango, in Mexico—no doubt on a thieving expedition."

p. 84: "On a high mesa of gravel, some sixty feet above the level of the river bottom, is situated the old Presidio of San Vincente [south of the Big Bend], one of the ancient military posts that marked the Spanish role in this country, long since abandoned."

p. 86: "The relations between the Indians of this region and several of the Mexican towns, particularly San Carlos, a small town twenty miles below, are peculiar, and well worth the attention of the both United States and Mexican governments. The Apaches are usually at war with the people of both countries, but have friendly leagues with certain towns, where they trade and receive supplies of arms, ammunition, &c., for stolen mules . . . . It seems that Chihuahua, not receiving the protection it was entitled to from the central government of Mexico, made an independent treaty with the Comanches, the practiced effect of which was to aid and abet the Indians in their war upon Durango."

p. 86: "'Bajo Sol' is the title assumed by a bold Comanche, who, as his name signifies, claims to be master of everything under the sun . . . . I have never seen the villain or heard his name on the American side . . . but I did meet one of his lieutenants, who, I have not doubt, was in all respects a worthy disciple . . . . He called himself 'Mucho Toro,' and represented himself as a Comanche, but he was evidently an escaped Mexican peon. It was in the fall of 1852, in making a rapid march across the continent, escorted by only 15 soldiers under Lieut. Washington, as we approached the Comanche Springs after a long journey without water, that we discovered grazing near the spring quite 1,000 animals, divided into three different squads. As we approached we could see with the naked eye a party of 30 or 40 warriors drawn up on the hill overlooking the spring . . . . The party were Kioways and Comanches, returning from a foray into Mexico with nearly 1,000 animals. 'Mucho Toro,' the chief of this party, who spoke Spanish well, stated he had purchased his animals in Mexico, and that he was but the advanced party of several hundred warriors, who were close behind him . . . . The next day, when crossing the dividing ridge between the Comanche and León springs, we discovered the dust rising from the trail which crossed our road as far as the eye could reach, leaving no doubt of the truth of Mucho Toro's statement, that his was but the advanced party of 'Bajo Sol's' four hundred men. The following summer we found that such a party had passed out of Mexico over this road."

Freeman, Martha Doty

1997 A History of Camp Cooper, Throckmorton County, Texas. Aztec of Albany Foundation, Inc., Albany, Texas.

Freeman is a respected historian who frequently works with archeologists (and happily, we might add). Over the years, Freeman's efforts to document the historical events and background of various regions of Texas have been substantial. This report, privately funded by the Summerlee Foundation under a grant to the Aztec Foundation, a group interested in the history of the region where Camp Cooper is located, represents one of her efforts.

Camp Cooper was the United States Army military camp that was assigned to protect and keep watch over the "Upper Reserve" for the Comanche in Texas at the same time that it was to act "as a staging ground for scouting expeditions against hostile, non-reservation Indians" (p. 14). This reservation was established on the Clear Fork of the Brazos River by an act of the Texas Legislature in January 1856. Like the reservation, the camp was short-lived, continuing as a post to protect the Native Americans only until 1859, but then continued as an outpost for the armies of the Confederate and later the United States. It was abandoned in 1874.

p. 21: "On January 2, 1856, in bitterly cold weather, officers and men of the Second Cavalry established the newest of Texas' federal military installations in a wide band of the Clear Fork of the Brazos River . . . . [T]he post was intended to protect the Indians and agents recently settled on the 4-league Comanche Reserve."

p. 21: "Camp Cooper never became the impressive permanent fort that engineers with Department of Texas envisioned."

p. 26: Neighbors wrote to the commander of Fort Belknap that Northern Comanches were at the reserve making it difficult for him to protect the southern Comanches.

p. 27: "On December 4, 1855, Special Orders No. 126 . . . directed that four companies of the Second Regiment of Cavalry would 'take post at or near the Indian Agency in the Comanche reservation.' . . . In the meantime, the Second Cavalry . . . arrived on December 27, 1855 . . . After several days, four companies under Major W.I. Hardee left Belknap and reached the Clear Fork where they established camp."

p. 29: "In June, [1856 General Robert E.] Lee left Camp Cooper [to campaign against Sanaco's Comanches] . . . . Over a distance of approximately 1,600 miles, the troops 'swept down the valleys of the Concho, the Colorado, and the Red Fork of the Brazos to the San Saba country and Pecan Bayou' but encountered only a few Indians before returning to Camp Cooper."

p. 37: "Neighbors believed that the raids [just west of Camp Cooper] had been carried out by Kickapoos, Nokonis, Kiowas, and other tribes."

p. 44: "The fracas at old Camp Cooper was followed by raids on Givens' ranch during which Indians drove off a number of his cattle. About the same time, James Buckner . . . reported that Indians identified as Kiowas had killed four men and driven off cattle."

Goggin, John M.

1951 The Mexican Kickapoo Indians. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7:314-327.

While conducting ethnographic research on the Seminole Maroons of Nacimiento, Coahuila, Goggin spent several days among the Kickapoo in nearby Musquiz. This brief report contains a summary of the data that he acquired during that visit.

Noting that the Kickapoo were originally situated in western Wisconsin but forced southward—first to Illinois, then Missouri, then Kansas, then Texas, and then Mexico—during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, he describes their lifeways on the 7,000 hectares of land that they populate at the headwaters of the Rio Sabinas. Their houses are in small fenced plots and consist of several rectangular mat-covered structures surrounded by carefully swept yards. At the time of his visit, they grew their own vegetables and fruits, hunted for wild game, and sold their baskets and other products in nearby Mexican markets, particularly walnuts, chile piquin, and oregano. The following comments are pertinent to the Amistad NRA affiliation study:

p. 315: "[They] relinquished their lands by treaty in 1819 for a tract in southwestern Missouri . . . . [I]n 1830 they requested land in Kansas . . . . This was granted by treaty in 1832 and most of them moved to Kansas. Apparently not all the Kickapoo moved to the Kansas reservation, for a number are [sic, were] reported in Texas. These were joined in 1837 by several hundred members of the Kansas group. However, shortly thereafter these Kickapoo, along with Shawnee and Delaware Indians, were forced out by the Texas, and in 1839 they [moved to Oklahoma]."

p. 315: "[T]hese Kickapoo came into contact with Coacooche (Wild Cat), the celebrated Seminole war leader who . . . was greatly dissatisfied with life under United States supervision. Under his leadership a substantial number of Kickapoo and Seminole made their way to Coahuila in 1848. Two years later a delegation from these Indians went to Mexico City endeavoring to obtain a gift of land. Here a treaty was signed granting their request in return for a promise of aid against the Apache and Comanche who raided northern Mexico. After moving around, the group settled near its present location."

p. 315: "[I]n 1862, the Mexican [Kickapoo were] reinforced by other Kickapoo from the Canadian River. Several years later some left Mexico, and eventually a small group reached the Kansas agency in 1870."

p. 315: "The Kickapoo in Coahuila . . . prospered, and not only successfully fought the Apache and Comanche but also raided across the Texas border for horses and cattle." [See our summary in the Ethnohistoric Review above for another view.]

p. 316: "[I]n 1873 . . . Col. Ranald S. Mackenzie disregarded international law and followed the [Kickapoo] deep into Mexico where he killed or captured all . . . present in their main village. Later in the same year a civilian commission also went to Mexico endeavoring to bring back . . . the Potawatomi and Kickapoo. Most of the former tribe removed, and some of the latter, leaving 280 Kickapoo in Coahuila."

p. 316: "[In the late 1890s,] a number moved south to Mexico where they attempted to obtain land near . . . Nacimiento . . . . [T]he Mexican Government refused them permission, . . . although they were allowed to obtain other land if they wished. Some returned to Oklahoma while others apparently moved to Chihuahua."

p. 316: "Throughout all the time from 1870's to the present, there was constant intercourse between the Oklahoma and Coahuila groups, and people circulated freely from one group to the other."

p. 317: "Every year some Oklahoma people visit the rancheria . . . which lasts several weeks to a couple of months."

Gunnerson, James H. and Dolores A. Gunnerson

1988 Ethnohistory of the High Plains. Colorado State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Denver.

James and Dolores Gunnerson have conducted many years of research into the historic and protohistoric Native American groups occupying the Southern and High Plains of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New Mexico. This small publication is devoted to those tribes occupying these regions. Funded as a series of overviews on the archeology and ethnography of this vast region where the Bureau manages thousands of acres, it presents the information on selected tribes that occupied the area in the nineteenth century. Information from earlier centuries is also presented, but it is much briefer in detail and scope. Because the overview is small, the amount of detail is limited. Important events and dates, when known, are presented, but in-depth discussion is not. Moreover, the sources quoted are rarely from original sources. (Certainly, the Gunnersons have done original documentary work, but such was apparently beyond the scope of their contract.) The tribes discussed that have relevance for the Amistad NRA are: the Apache tribes, Kiowa and Kiowa Apache tribes, and the Comanche Tribe. A few pertinent notes are included below:

p. ix.: "75ative occupation of the Central High Plains can be summarized as follows. The area . . . in south central Colorado, was dominated throughout the historic period by Utes who joined with Comanche Bands after 1706 to make forays onto the plains. The Central High Plains per se, was dominated by Apaches during the 1500s and 1600s . . . . In the early 1700s the Apaches continued to dominate the Central High Plains but Utes and Comanches moved into the [region]. By the middle of the 1700s, the semisedentary Apaches were forced to abandon their villages . . . . At the beginning of the 1800s . . . tribes from the north challenged the Comanches and by 1820 Arapahos, Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Kiowa Apaches had spread south to the Arkansas River . . . in substantial numbers."

p. ix.: "By the middle of the 1800s, the colorful, exuberant, horse-nomad way of life on the plains had reached its zenith and was already beginning to deteriorate."

p. ix.: "Alliances among the tribes of the plains often shifted; sometimes being allies, sometimes as enemies . . . . Kiowa Apaches, for example, functioned as a band of the Kiowas from before 1700, probably before 1680. This was so much the case that when Kiowas are mentioned after that date, one can be reasonably sure that the Kiowa Apaches were also involved. Likewise when the Apaches are mentioned along with the Kiowas, they were the Kiowa Apaches."

p. 1: "Of the . . . tribes that lived on the Central High Plains after European contact, . . . the Apaches are best known . . . [because they] (1) dominated the major part of the [region] (2) . . . some, if not most of the Apaches in this region lived in semipermanent villages, and (3) these Apaches had contact . . . with Spanish New Mexicans."

p. 1: "The previous homeland of the Southern Athabascans was almost certainly west-central Canada."

p. 2: "Ethnohistorical evidence indicates that the Apacheans arrived in the southwest as nonceramic, bison-hunting nomads . . . . Such people would not have left easily identifiable archeological sites...."

p. 7: "In 1801, the Spanish learned that there were 'Nations of the north' moving toward New Mexico. Among these nations was one that spoke the same language as the Jicarilla and considered themselves to be of the same people. These, of course, were the Kiowa Apache who had been separated from other plains Apaches for a century and who had been living with the Kiowa, another of the Nations of the North . . . . The Spanish were afraid that if these newcomers joined with their Apache kinsmen, it would create a serious threat."

p. 7: "Except for the Kiowa Apaches, who lived farther east on the plains, the Jicarilla are the only Apaches to occupy any part of the Central High Plains after about 1800."

p. 11: "The Kiowa have no close linguistic relatives, but they are remotely related to Tannoan speakers of the Pueblo Southwest. The earliest documentary data has them living in the Black Hills that matches tribal traditions (Mooney 1898:153). Probably before 1700, the Kiowa were joined by Apachean speakers, most likely those known to New Mexicans as the Palomas."

p. 11: "Between 1706 and 1730, the central plains Apaches were forced south and southwest by pressure from the Comanches on the west, and by the Pawnee with French guns . . . from the east."

p. 11: "The Kiowa Apaches, few in number, were cut off from their relatives to the south about 1719. They joined the Kiowa for protection. Although the Kiowa Apaches retained their own language, they functioned as a separate band of the Kiowas."

p. 11: "The Kiowa name for themselves is Ka'I gwu. The Spanish version, usually Gaygua or Caigua, was very similar . . . . They were commonly referred to by the Pawnee name Ga'taqka; Lewis and Clark called them the Cataka in 1805, while La Salle called them Gatacka about 1682. In a treaty with the government, made jointly with the Kiowa in 1837, their name was given as Ka-ta-ka."

p. 11: "In 1733 about 100 families of Genizaro Indians, from various tribes, petitioned the New Mexican government for permission to establish their own settlement at the site of the then abandoned Sandia Pueblo. In addition to the Caiguas (Kiowas) the group also included Jumanos (Wichitas [sic]), Pananas (Pawnees), Apaches, Tanos, and Utes. All had lived in various Spanish and native settlements, essentially as slaves (SANM I, No. 1208; Twitchell 1914 I: 353)."

p. 11: "In the early 1790s the Kiowa still lived in the Black Hills region."

p. 11: "In the [report] . . . prepared from Lewis and Clark's information . . . it is obvious that the Wetepahatoes lived with the Kiowa, and were, therefore, probably Kiowa Apaches."

p. 12: "Lewis and Clark stated that: 'The most probable conjecture is, that being still further reduced, they [Padoucas] have divided into small wandering bands, which assumed the names of the subdivisions of the Padoucas nations and are known to us at present under the appellation of Weteoagaties, Kiowas . . . Katteka, . . . who still inhabit the country to which the Padoucas are said to have removed.' They also noted that some Padoucas traded with New Mexico."

p. 14: "Major Long also met a part of Kaskaias or Bad Hearts [Kiowa Apaches] on the Canadian River about 168 miles east of Santa Fe [in 1823]. They had been hunting near the 'sources of the Rio Brassis and the Rio colorado of Texas, and were now on their way to meet Spanish traders, at a point near the sources of the river [Canadian] we were descending' (James 1823 11:103)."

p. 29: "The Comanches, along with various other Shoshonean speakers, call themselves Numa whereas the name Comanche was applied to them by the Spanish. Mooney gives names applied to the Comanches by various tribes and the names used to designate sub-bands of the Comanche. Unfortunately, he equates the Padouca with Comanche, a common error that has been perpetuated. The Padouca were plains Apaches. This name was most commonly used to indicate the Kiowa Apaches."

p. 29: "By about 1739 the Comanches were in control of most, if not all, of what is called the Central High Plains."

p. 30: "During the last half of the 1700s, the Comanches were an equally serious threat on the Texas frontier, frequently appearing as far southeast as San Antonio de Bexar. Raids were common on European settlements."

p. 32: "The 1814 Lewis and Clark map (Wheat 1954:II: map 316) shows the Li-h-tan Band (Comanches) in the Rocky Mountains, extending south into the Rio del Norte . . . drainage west of the headwaters of the Arkansas River."

p. 33: "Captain Randolph Marcy led another expedition in 1855, this time to explore the Big Wichita River and the headwaters of the Brazos .... Of the Indians, he stated that the most populous tribe in Texas was the Comanches and that they were divided into three major groups. The Southern Comanches ranged primarily within Texas, between the Red and Colorado Rivers. The Middle Comanches, consisting of the "No-co-nies and Ten-na wees" bands, [spent winters in Texas and summers to the north]. The Northern Comanches, whom Marcy considered much wilder than the others and responsible for most of the Comanche raids into Mexico, wintered on the Red and wandered widely during the summer."

Hadley, Diana, Thomas H. Naylor, and Mardith K. Schuetz-Miller (compilers and editors)

1997 The Presidio and Militia on the Northern Frontier of New Spain, a Documentary History. Vol. 2, Part 2: The Central Corridor and the Texas Corridor, 1700-1765. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

This book is part of a publications series of the Documentary Relations of the Southwest (DRSW), a project of the Arizona State Museum at the University of Arizona for collecting, storing, and editing Spanish colonial documents. The DRSW has been an enormous effort to collect, archive, and make available documents related to the Spanish empire in the southwestern United States. The museum has collected (in paper and/or microfilm) an abundance of material related to Nueva Vizcaya, Coahuila, Nuevo Mexico, Nuevo León, Taumalipas, Nuevo Santander, and Texas. The material is from Mexican, Spanish, and United States archives and consists of copies of original documents, transcriptions of original documents, and selected maps. Recently, efforts have been undertaken to publish selected parts of these materials. In all cases, the publications contain both transcriptions of original documents and their translations. Introductory material for each document/translation assesses the veracity of the statements in that material and its historical setting.

Previous volumes in the series dealt with material and events tangential to Texas. The present volume consists of documents related to Nueva Vizcaya, specifically the Bolson de Mapimi, and the regions surrounding it—Nueva Vizcaya, New Mexico, and Texas. As such, it provides some documents not previously translated as well as some that were published in the past, but which merited updated translations. Readers will recognize several of the documents related to Texas, such as de León's effort to identify the location and threat of the French, as well as the material related to the East Texas missions. However, the material related to Nuevo León, the Bolson de Mapimi, and Parras is no less important, but it is much less well known to researchers concerned with the early history and ethnohistory of Texas. Never intended to contain all of the important documents, the volumes offer a range of materials that provides information on important aspects of the regions covered and their history, and are intended to represent various points of view on that region.

The Spanish for all transcriptions (as in the translations) is modernized, allowing readers to focus on the content rather than old script. In each case, the authors expended considerable effort to accurately transcribe/translate texts using authoritative copies of each document. Each document is presented in both Spanish and English, and both were reviewed by native speakers as well as scholars who have conducted extensive research in Spanish archives. The transcriptions and translations are generally excellent and the volume is of enormous value in understanding the sequence of events and their outcome.

As a cautionary note for Texas researchers, the authors' knowledge of native groups east of Nueva Vizcaya and Nuevo Mexico is both limited and erroneous. Since no reference is provided for these interpretations, the reader cannot verify the attribution. Moreover, footnotes and maps contain major errors that will perpetuate inaccuracies (some are from the legacy left by Bolton while others are of the authors' own making) that ignore recent published revisions that clearly refute the conclusions. For example, Taracahitan linguistic affiliations are given to a variety of nations (p. 10) who may or may not be affiliated with this language group (much less native speakers of Taracahitan). Elsewhere, (p. 361) the Sana, Emet, Too, Mayeye, Huyugan, and Cumercai are stated to be a "delegation of the Tonkawan tribes," a statement that ignores recent research showing that the Tonkawa are recent (mid to late seventeenth century) immigrants into Texas from the north. Some maps also contain errors. For example, the figure on page 308 shows Mission San Joseph de los Nazonis in East Texas as south of Purisima Concepción even though on page 421 Pena states that "the San Joseph de los Nasonis mission . . . is eight leagues north of Concepción." These errors suggest that the authors are not familiar with the works of Campbell (1988), Johnson and Campbell (1992), Kenmotsu (1994), Wade (1998) or others. In defense of the authors, Thomas Naylor died during the project, leaving Ms. Hadley the daunting task of completing the work. The deficiencies in assigning Native Americans to specific regions and the general failure to identify the appropriate native group may relate to this unexpected event. Regardless, much of the data are relevant to this study and are excerpted below.

p. 13: editors note (these 'editors' notes refer to the editors of the Hadley et al. volume): "During the twenty-year period initiated by the Pueblo Revolt in Nuevo Mexico, the northern portion of the central corridor became a tierra de guerra. No part was immune from conflict."

p. 13: editors note: "The new military philosophy of the Enlightenment, as expressed in the Bourbon reforms, did not officially make its way to New Spain's northern frontier until the second quarter of the 18th century with Pedro de Rivera's famous inspection tour."

p. 13: editors note: The "'flying companies' of highly mobile mounted troops would have the flexibility to respond quickly and efficiently as events required. The policy makers called for an increase in offensive warfare, the regularization of the employment of Indian auxiliary troops, and the instigation of civilian militias."

p. 19, ff 2: "Mapimi was subject to frequent attack It was entirely or partially abandoned between the years 1616 and 1617, 1654 and 1661, 1683 and 1687, and 1703 and 1711."

p. 43: editors note: "The largest Indian groups in the immediate vicinity of La Zarca [15 leagues south of Cerro Gordo] were the Salineros, most likely speakers of a Uto-Aztecan language. The Tobosos, who occupied the area north of the Salineros and who also frequented the region around La Zarca, were the most feared enemies of the Spanish during the seventeenth century. Other Indian groups mentioned in the area were the Cococlames, Nonoxes, and Laguneros, evidently allies of the Salineros."

p. 84: In a report of Ladron de Guevara, 1739, he stated, "The valley of Pesqueria Grande is eight leagues from the city of Monterey and eight leagues from the . . . valley [Santa Catalina]." Today, the small community is known as Garcia.

p. 84: Ladron stated that halfway between Monterey and Saltillo, the road passed through a narrow canyon "called La Ronconada y Cuesta de los Muertos. The site is 60 to 80 leagues from the homeland of the Toboso and Gavilan Indian nations who reside in the uninhabited area between the provinces of Coahuila and Nueva Vizcaya."

p. 85: editors note: "Las Salinas is today known as Salinas Victoria and in the valley of El Carrizal. San Pedro Boca de Leones is today Villaldama and located 86 km northwest of Monterrey [Ladron]."

p. 89: editors note: "San Gregoria de Cerralvo is today Cerralvo, 80 km northeast of Monterrey [Ladron]."

p. 101: Ladron stated: "[The province of Coahuila] contains three presidios, one of which is in the capital itself. Another presidio was established in 1736 with the name of Sacramento, but as late as 1738 it still did not have a specific location due to the diverse opinions that arose after its founding." ff. states: "The presidio of Sacramento was established at Agua Verde in 1737, but was moved south in 1739 to Santa Rosa in the Sabinas Valley."

p. 101: "The other presidio, named San Juan Bautista del Rio Grande del Norte...."

p. 101: "The province [of Texas] has a good climate and an abundance of wheat, corn, beans, grapes, and cotton, but it has few cattle because Indians of the Toboso and Gavilan nations invade its borders."

p. 126: editors note: "By the 1760s, Apache attacks had intensified to such a degree that many haciendas, including the Aguayos' hacienda of Joya . . . between Saltillo and Monclova were abandoned."

p. 167: editors note: "Captain Joseph de Berroteran knew the intricacies of the northern frontier like few other Spaniards. Of Vizcayan origin, Berroteran entered the military early in life and quickly attained prominence as a local military leader and landowner. His family became so well known in northern Chihuahua that the mountain range now known as the Sierra del Carmen bore the name Berroteran until the late 18th century. During the early 1720s, Berroteran received his first appointment as captain at the presidio of Mapimi. Within a few years, he was transferred to the presidio of San Francisco de Conchos, where he became captain vitalicio (captain-for-life), a position he still held when the presidio was suppressed in 1751 . . . . By 1748, the year in which the following document was written, his 35 years of service had given him a detailed knowledge of the lands and peoples of the region."

p. 170: "When Berroteran received the order to write a report on the condition of the northern frontier in October 1747, he had spent most of the preceding 18 years campaigning against hostile Indians in all parts of Nueva Vizcaya and in neighboring provinces as well. He was in a position to provide his superiors with valuable information that could not be obtained from other sources. In his report, Berroteran continually emphasized his unequaled knowledge of the frontier . . . . Berroteran realized that complete military or spiritual conquest of the nomadic indigenous groups who migrated southward to inhabit that desolate, inhospitable area was next to impossible. Instead, he acted to establish a negotiated peace backed by the force of arms. This required a balancing act for which Berroteran was uniquely suited. As captain-for life of the presidio of Conchos, he served as protector of haciendas and settlements on the desert frontier to the east of the Camino Real that linked Chihuahua with Mexico City. At the same time, however, he was the well-known compadre of at least one prestigious Apache leader and acted as middleman for trade and gift giving with several other unconquered indigenous group[s] that had recently migrated into the area.

p. 188: Berroteran: "In the year 1726, during . . . March, the news arrived that the . . . Indians had advanced as far as the presidio of El Paso with the Apaches and Cholomes who come from the Rio Puerco where it joins with the Rio del Norte from its confluence with [the Conchos?] . They [the first group of Indians] came from Coyame . . . which is 8 to 10 leagues away from the junction of the Rio del Norte and is numbered among [the pueblos of La Junta de los Rios].

p. 189: Berroteran: "all these troops were to reconnoiter the banks of the Rio Del Norte [from San Juan Bautista] as far as its junction with the Rio Conchos."

p. 191: ff. states "Ordinance 187 of the Reglamento of 1729 states that the captains of the presidios from El Pasaje to Conchos should attempt to suppress the Cocoyome, Acoclame, Tripa Blanca, Terocodame, Zizimbre, Chiso, and Gavilan nations."

p. 193: Berroteran: "In 1740, the last missing Indians were reduced to the pueblo of Conchos. In that same year fifty presidial soldiers, a number of settlers who enlisted at the villa of San Felipe el Real, 100 Indians from La Junta del Rio del Norte and 50 more . . . participated in subduing the general uprising of Fuertenos, Mayos, [and others] . . . . In the year of 1741, after the 12 Indians mentioned had returned from the expedition with their families, they left the pueblo of Conchos for the vicinities of Saltillo, Parras, and Coahuila, where they supported themselves by committing murders and robberies at the borders. In their last [attacks] near the presidio of Sacramento, also known as Santa Rosa, they captured [an Indian woman] . . . . I had given orders to Pascual, one of the Apache chiefs, to investigate . . . . [H]e came upon the aggressors in the Sierra Mojada."

p. 194: Berroteran: "On February 12 [1743] at the site of Venado, about twenty-five leagues east of the presidio of Conchos [the Indians were captured by Pascual and a squad of Berroteran's men]."

p. 194: Berroteran (arguing against the proposal before the Crown to close northern presidios): "Everything related up to this point sufficiently demonstrates the past and present need in Nueva Vizcaya for its respective presidios with their captains and soldiers . . . . The brief intervals of respite that the savage, pagan Indians permit this realm to enjoy . . . should be regarded prudently as periods of convalescence from a bad illness and preparation for another more serious one threatened by the Apaches, who have penetrated frontiers . . . . With these [presidios] eliminated, the Apache Indians would have completely free access to the more than 180 leagues that stretch from the presidio of San Jose del Paso to that of San Juan Bautista del Rio Grande."

p. 200: Berroteran (describing his trek from Monclova to Conchos along the Rio Grande): "In [1729, I traveled] from the presidio of San Juan Bautista, along the course of the Rio del Norte . . . by way of the watering hole of Santo Domingo and the San Rodrigo, San Antonio, and San Diego de las Vacas Rivers. Having gone as far as the last without finding a ford across it, I turned back along the south bank and traveled for two days to return to [the Rio Grande]. After crossing to the north bank [in the vicinity of modern Del Rio], I walked for four or five days, slowed by the lack of water for either horses or men. I saw that it was necessary to travel along the south bank because the mountains on the north side impeded our passage . . . . I sent our seven Indian scouts to search the hills and mountains for water holes and a route by which we could continue our march. After seven days, two of them returned with the news that they have found neither a watering hole nor a route, and that they had not had anything to drink for two days. They had seen water, but at such a great depth that it took them four days to find a way to get down to it."

p. 203: Berroteran: "From the junction of the Rio Conchos and the Rio Del Norte to the presidio of San Juan Bautista, there is no place along the reach of either river where a presidio can be built, because pasturage is scarce and the mountains and hills provide no open spaces."

p. 478: editors' note: "Captain Urrutia mounted a campaign during the winter of 1739 that attacked a rancheria in the vicinity of the San Saba."

p. 511: editors' note: "Fray Molina's account [of the San Saba massacre] is significant to presidial history for several reasons. It closes the chapter on Apache depredation in the province, which up to this point had constituted the only serious internal threat, and marks the first confrontation of Spaniards in Texas with the Comanches and Wichitas."

p. 515: Molina: "I went to the courtyard and saw with true wonder and fright that all that could be seen anywhere were Indians armed with rifles and dressed in the most hideous clothing . . . . [T]hey had adorned themselves with the skins of wild beasts, the tails of the animals hanging and dangling from their heads, deer antlers, and other embellishments of various animals; some had plumes on their heads."

p. 518-519: Molina: "I think it is impossible for the Apache Indians to settle down and establish residence on the Rio de San Saba or for many leagues around it . . . . [T]hey are not protected [from the northern tribes] . . . . It is known that they live far away and nearer to our settlements on other rivers."

Hagan, William T.

1976 United States-Comanche Relations The Reservation Years. Yale University Press, New Haven.

As his Preface indicates, Hagan's project was "[T]o trace the order of the Comanches in the reservation years." The book systematically plots the development of the United States policies vis-a-vis the Plains tribes since the 1860s. Hagan notes the difficulties of separating the policies and documentation that affected the Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa Apache. He states:

p. xiv.: "The Comanche experience even differed somewhat from that of the Kiowas and Kiowa Apaches, the two tribes party to the same treaties as the Comanches and sharing the same reservation with them. However, these Indians were so closely related in the reservation period that it is some times difficult, if not impossible, to separate the Comanche story from that of the Kiowas and the Kiowa-Apaches."

p.xv: "During the reservation period the agent was not only the key individual in implementing the policies conceived in Washington, he also originated most of the documentation upon which the historian must depend in attempting to reconstruct the relations between the United States and the Indians. Unfortunately, the Indian side of the story is much more difficult to recapture. Documentation in the usual sense is almost non-existent, and Comanche family traditions suffer from the same distortions that family pride and present concerns inflict on white oral history."

On the social organization of the Comanche in 1867, Hagan (p.8) writes: "The term tribe could not then with any accuracy be applied to the Comanches. At any given time they might be found scattered over a region that stretched from western Oklahoma and the central part of Texas westward to the vicinity of the Rio Grande . . . . The band was the basic political unit of the Comanche and in 1867 there were said to be at least nine . . . . Estimates of the number of the Comanche varied widely, from as low as 1,800 to over 20,000. The actual figure probably was around 3,000, although no one could be sure." [2]

Hagan dedicates a good deal of space to the early treaties negotiated between the United States, Texas and some Comanche groups and provides some maps showing the land game that was played with these treaties (maps. 2, 3, and 4, on pp. 22, 40, and 41, respectively). Hagan also recognizes the extent and importance of the Comanchero trade as well as the trade in captives and their ransom practiced by the Comanche, the Kiowa, and the Kiowa-Apache (pp. 24-25, 44-46), which took them from New Mexico to Mexico and across the Rio Grande into Texas.

As the title indicates, Hagan's book concentrates almost exclusively on the reservation period and the late 1800s, thus providing little to elucidate the period of Comanche presence in Texas of greatest concern to this affiliation study. However, the book provides vast information on archival sources for the period and has a good bibliography.

Hester, Thomas R., Stephen L. Black, D. Gentry Steele, Ben W. Olive, Anne A. Fox, Karl J. Reinhard, and Leland C. Bement

1989 From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas. Research Series No. 33, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.

This is one of a series of archeological overviews produced under contract to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under the direction of Larry Banks. The monograph deals with the area bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the east, the Edwards Escarpment on the north, the Pecos River on the west, and the Rio Grande on the south. Given the vast and diverse nature of this region, the monograph is segmented into smaller sub-regions with overviews completed by different authors. The summary of the Lower Pecos Canyonlands (as the Amistad NRA was called within the volume) was authored by Leland C. Bement; the senior author, Thomas R. Hester, completed the historic Native American summary.

Bement begins by describing the history of archeological investigations in the region, most of which occurred prior to 1980, and then classifies sites according to a combination of their physical location (terrace sites, rockshelters, etc.) and cultural material (lithic procurement, stone alignments, kill sites, burial sites, etc.). This discussion is followed by a description of the material culture (lithic artifacts, plant artifacts, etc.) and followed by brief descriptions of the chronological framework for the Lower Pecos. The latter is quite brief, employing the phase sequence first proposed by Turpin and Bement in 1985, but, as of the present, still untested.

The concluding section suggests avenues for future research, and is, perhaps, the most significant. It identifies specific research topics on chronology and other issues that do indeed need to be sorted out for the region. However, the chapter is too brief to offer new insights. It generally continues to characterize the lifeways of residents of the Lower Pecos as one that was stable, and based on adequate exploitation of desert succulents and supplemented with bison during specific epochs (i.e., the Paleoindian and the final portion of the Late Prehistoric/Early Historic).

Hester's chapter discusses the historic Native Americans of the Lower Pecos as part of the larger, generalized group of hunters and gatherers who occupied south, coastal, and south central regions of Texas. While this discussion has elements of the stable, static populations implied in the chapter by Bement, Hester received his bachelor's degree under Thomas N. Campbell and William Newcomb, the foremost ethnohistorians in Texas. Thus, his chapter recognizes that the region was home to an amazing number of small, diverse groups "each with a distinctive name, and with territories (often shared with other groups) used for hunting, plant food gathering, and fishing" (p. 79). While other summaries of the historic period have mentioned the variety of native groups and the works of Campbell, few others have used these materials in a report for an archeological audience and have encouraged archeologists to employ Campbell's data. Relevant information from Hester's chapter for this Amistad NRA study follow:

p. 79: "Coahuilteco is the label first used in the 19th century to refer to a language attributed to numerous hunting and gathering groups in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico . . . . [R]esearch by . . . Campbell (1975, 1977, 1979, 1983) and Ives Goddard (1979) has demonstrated that . . . other languages besides Coahuilteco were present in the region."

p. 79: "Little is known about specific groups [but we do know that] the Coahuiltecans lived in small groups, each with a distinctive name, and with territories used for hunting, plant food gathering, and fishing. They were semi-nomadic, moving across the landscape, sometimes overlapping into territories of other [groups], and camping at preferred locales for a few weeks at a time."

p. 80: "Many groups would congregate in those areas where [prickly pear fruits] could be found in abundance. Seasonal movements were also keyed to the availability of certain animals, especially bison that came into south Texas during the fall and winter. Social and political organization appears to have been minimal. The family was the basic social unit; there were no tribes or chiefs except for those leaders that might be chosen for certain activities."

p. 82: "Goddard (1979) suggests that at least four other languages . . . are known from the south Texas region. These are Comecrudo, Cotoname, Solano, and Aranama . . . . The Solano language is linked to a group (or groups) who were at Mission San Francisco de Solano in 1703-1708 [modern Guerrero, Coahuila] . It is possible that the Terocodame group spoke this language."

p. 82-83: "In the early Historic period, the Spanish recorded identifiable Tonkawa groups ranging into south Texas to hunt bison . . . . However . . . the Tonkawa did not move south of the Red River into Texas, until the middle to late 17th century . . . . Though they were largely hunters and gatherers, they apparently sometimes placed more emphasis on bison-hunting."

p. 83: "In the 1600s-1700s the Lipan Apaches moved into Texas from their homeland [north of Texas] . . . . The emphasis in their way of life [while in Texas was] raiding, and it is likely that they were disrupting the culture of the Coahuiltecans as much as the Spanish mission system."

p. 83: "In the lower Pecos, there are mid to late 18th century accounts of Apaches hunting bison . . . . They often traded deer and bison pelts in such far-flung areas as Saltillo, Coahuila, and Victoria . . . . No one has yet been able to recognize any distinctive archeological remains of the Lipan Apaches. Their campsites of the 18th and 19th centuries cannot, at present be identified."

p. 83: "The public often links archeological specimens . . . to [the] Comanche. In reality, however, the Comanche are fairly late intrusive peoples who came into Texas after the beginning of the Historic period . . . . [T]hey pushed the Lipan Apache into central and south Texas."

p. 84: "It has been impossible to identify their [Comanche] archeological traces."

p. 84: Other intrusive groups mentioned are the Kiowa, Kiowa-Apache, Mescalero Apache, Cherokee, Delaware, Caddo, Seminole, Pawnee, and Kickapoo.

Hickerson, Nancy Parrott

1994 The Jumanos Hunters and Traders of the South Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hickerson is a linguistic anthropologist by training. Her interest in the Jumano grew from an interest in the Kiowa who speak a Tanoan language, a language family that is well represented in the eastern Rio Grande pueblos of New Mexico. Because some members of the Tanoan speakers lived in what early Spanish chroniclers called the "Jumanos" pueblos, she concluded that these people were all related but that some were the nomadic occupants of the Southern Plains while others were the sedentary eastern Tanoans living in the pueblos.

This book is easy to read, but, in the opinion of both Kenmotsu and Wade, has serious flaws (see Plains Anthropologist review of the publication by Kenmotsu [1995]). For example, Hickerson employed few documents to support her thesis. The documents she did use were translated several decades earlier and add little new insight to the study of these natives. It is not clear why other documents that would have shed light on their ethnic and cultural affiliations were researched. Second, Hickerson fails to consider archeological data in a meaningful way. For example, she concludes (p. 217-218) that Perdiz arrow points are widely found throughout Texas because the Jumano acquired them at La Junta de los Rios (modern Presidio, Texas) and distributed them across the land during trading events. This conclusion cannot be supported. A large volume of data conclusively demonstrate that Perdiz arrow points were manufactured by many groups using local lithic resources (see Johnson 1994). Other conclusions (Jumano as long-distance traders of turquoise, salt, and other goods; Jumano as breeders of livestock that they pastured on the Plains; etc.) are equally insupportable. There is no archeological evidence that trade was either extensive or substantial. There is also no evidence that native groups in Texas bred livestock in large quantities on the Southern Plains or elsewhere.

Another flaw is her tendency to offer statements of fact absent references to support them. For example, (p. 100), she considers the area around Palo Duro Canyon to have been an Jumano base camp as it was ideal for access to buffalo and had good water. No citations are offered; instead it appears that this area is chosen because it meets all the ecological requirements for a base camp. While we agree that the ecological requirements for base camps are present in this area, many other areas also meet the same ecological requirements. Since the archeological investigations of that park and nearby Lake Alan Henry have failed to identify any evidence of Jumano occupation in this locale and since there is documentary evidence that places them further to the south, we find her argument spurious.

The book is included in this annotated bibliography because it is likely to be read by some readers. While readers will have to make their own evaluations, we felt compelled to note that the differences between her conclusions and ours are substantial. The major point on which we agree is that the Jumano were a distinct group who were important players in the events of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.

Hook, Jonathan B.

1997 The Alabama-Coushatta Indians. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Hook is a Cherokee who has worked and lived near the small Alabama-Coushatta Indian Reservation in Polk County, Texas. His long time interest in these people and his doctoral research led to the present publication. While much of the book deals with recent twentieth century history and the current situation of the Alabama and Coushatta living on this Texas reservation, he also provides some details of their earlier history.

Today, the two groups are blood kin, but they formerly derived from distinct Muskogean-speaking groups. The Coushatta were located near and on an island in the Tennessee River, whereas the Alabama were situated along the Mississippi River in present-day Mississippi. Each lived in relatively sizable towns subsisting on wild plants and animals, agriculture, fishing, and trading. By the late eighteenth century they were moving east and/or south, largely into Spanish Louisiana.

p. 29: "The Coushatta . . . moved in 1802 to a site 80 miles south of Natchitoches on the Sabine River. There they numbered about 200 men."

p. 30: "By 1805 the Alabamas had settlements on the Angelina River, Attoyac Bayou, and the Neches river. A combined population of Alabamas and Coushattas in 1809 within 70 miles of Nacogdoches was estimated to be 1,650 people."

p. 31: "In 1830 Alabama Indians lived in three communities in what became Tyler County, Texas . . . . The majority of the approximately six hundred Coushattas lived in three towns."

p. 32: "In 1854 the Alabamas received a grant of 1,280 acres in Polk County from the Texas legislature . . . . [I]n 1859 the Alabamas allowed the [Coushattas] to join them on their reservation."

Howard, James H.

1984 Oklahoma Seminoles. Medicines, Magic, and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

This volume covers the medicinal and herbal remedies of the Oklahoma Seminole, showing how these remedies are woven into the fabric of the religious and daily life of these people. It is based on ethnographic and archival research among the Seminole. The portion of the volume germane to the present study deals with the brief history presented in the preface and chapter one, and in the description of the mortuary practices of the Seminole.

p. 3: "[T]he trivial name, Seminole, is a modern historic artifact, coming from the Spanish cimarron meaning 'wild.' It referred originally to the fact that these Indians had moved into the wild, unoccupied territory, and were thus distinguishable from both the missionized Florida Indian remnants at Saint Augustine and also the main body of the Creeks. Since the Muskogee language has no 'R' sound, the Spanish 'Cimarrones' became to the Indians 'Simalones'" soon changed to 'Seminoles,' their present name."

p. 6: "As early as 1700 many blacks had arrived in Florida, mostly runaway slaves from the Carolinas . . . . These escaped slaves became essentially free under the Semilones [sic], who tended to treat them more humanely than did the British colonists. In most instances the blacks established their own towns, separate from those of the Seminoles. These towns were made up of both free blacks and slaves."

p. 13: "The first group [of Seminoles] removed to the west, 116 captives, arrived in the Indian Territory in June, 1836. From that time until 1843, Seminoles and Seminole Negroes in groups ranging from a dozen or so to larger parties numbering in the hundreds were on various occasions transported to the west."

p. 246: "Even today, traditional Seminoles prefer to bury their dead in family cemeteries, most often with small wooden grave houses erected over the graves. These cemeteries, with their groups of grave houses, can be seen here and there in Seminole County, a reminder of the strength of native tradition."

p. 246: "A Seminole woman is always buried in new clothing. Favorite old clothes are also placed in the casket as well. A man is buried in his best clothes, not necessarily new. A jar of sofki is often put in the casket to nourish the deceased . . . . Cigarettes are also put in . . . . Just before it is lowered into the grave, the lid of the casket is unscrewed."

p. 247: "The Seminole bury their dead with the feet to the east. At the west, near the head, a small wooden stake is driven into the ground, and a few feet west of it a small fire is kindled."

p. 248: "Willie showed me a number of Seminole grave houses . . . . They are all about three and a half feet high, made of a wooden frame to which an asphalt shingle roof has been attached. The sides are made of upright palings with spaces in between so that one can look through. Inside is the mound of the grave. I also noticed wreaths and in one or two a box containing some favorite items of clothing and objects."

John, Elizabeth A. H.

1975 Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds: The Confrontation of Indians, Spanish, and French in the Southwest, 1540-1795. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Drawing on her graduate studies, Elizabeth John wrote this impressive tome on the interaction of the various ethnic groups in the Spanish borderlands of modern Texas and New Mexico for the general public. The effort grew out of her belief that while the history of interaction among various European-American groups had been told, their relationship to and their interaction with various Native American groups had not. The tome is impressive for both its breadth and its scholarship. John (personal communication, 1997) has noted that the published version, while large, was reduced by the publisher to a size manageable to the lay public. Even in its reduced state, however, the volume is impressive, affording the reader a clearer vision of the unique relationships that sprung up between various newcomers and responsible head men in individual tribes. Moreover, those relationships demonstrate the unique agendas of specific native groups. Hence, unlike monographs that focus on specific Eurocentric ideas or programs, John shows that the situation was more fluid. Similarly, she demonstrates that decisions made in Europe affected, in a very direct way, the lives of Native Americans in this portion of the Spanish Borderlands. Specific passages that relate to the Amistad NRA are:

p. xiii: "By painful trial and error, Indian and Spanish communities evolved toward peaceful coexistence in eighteenth-century New Mexico and Texas. Santa Fe and San Antonio were seats of lively interaction among Indian allies come to trade and to talk, to nourish the bonds of brotherhood."

p. 1: "[S]uperimposed on the multiplicity of Indian worlds were the Spanish provinces of New Mexico and Texas and the French province of Louisiana. Measured on the European scale of empire, none of the three ever amounted to much, but they unleashed forces of change that transformed the lives of Indian peoples throughout the arena.

p. 46: "Five times Oñate repeated the ceremonial acceptance of Pueblos vassals: twice for clusters of pueblos east of the Manzanos, presumably the Tompiro and Jumano peoples." [See Jumanos in the Ethnohistory chapter for an alternative view.]

pp. 54-55: "Apache raids were an old problem to Pueblos, long antedating Spanish occupation. Indeed, the Spaniards had understood that their relatively easy initial acceptance by the Pueblos stemmed partly from the Pueblos' desire for allies against the Apaches."

pp. 59-60: "The basic unit of Apache life was the extended family: parents, their unmarried sons, their daughters, and their daughters husbands and children. They camped together under the leadership of the head of the family, essentially a self-sufficient unit. Several family groups usually remained together within a limited territory . . . . Apache organization was extraordinarily fluid. The dissatisfied could easily shift to another local group or band. Nomenclature was fluid, too: Local groups and bands were often known by the name of a noted leader or some feature of their territory. As leadership changed or people moved, old names often fell into disuse and new names emerged. Most persistent were names derived from cultural traits, such as Mescalero or Jicarilla, but the actual composition of these groups must also have shifted considerably during the turbulent seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."

p. 193: "Increasing turmoils so beset the Jumanos and Cibolos that in mid-summer 1692 Juan Sabeata rode to the Julime pueblo on the Conchos to seek help."

p. 194: "That was the Jumanos' last stand against the agressors from the north [the Apache]. Sometime between 1700 and 1718 the Jumanos of the plains gave up the struggle against the Apaches and threw in their lot with their former enemies so completely that they came to be known as Jumano Apaches."

p. 258: "The first encounter between the fleeing Apaches and the Spaniards of Texas was as accidental as it was fateful. About 1720 a few Apache explorers ventured through Elotes Pass, northwest of San Antonio, and stumbled upon two settlers from the presidio, out looking for missing horses. The settlers . . . approached them, only to be attacked."

p. 259: "Two days after the raid [of August 1723, Captain Flores] left Bexar with 30 soldiers and 30 mission Indians, determined to track the raiders to their rancherias.

Five weeks and 330 miles later, he found a camp of some 200 Apaches, probably in the vicinity of modern Brownwood."

p. 264: "Growth made San Antonio at once more attractive and more vulnerable to Apache raiders. The herds of the Canary Islanders, pastured north and west of the presidio, and those of the new missions downstream freshly tempted raiders. The mission congregations, chiefly composed of Coahuiltecan groups long plagued by Apaches, drew to the San Antonio Valley the pursuit of old vendettas."

p. 265: "[A prisoner in 1731] readily identified the arrows of Apaches, Pelones, and Jumanes, and he assured his captors that all three nations were very numerous and very warlike. Old Joseph de Urrutia, now stationed in Bexar, was amazed to hear of those groups allied: in the 1690s he had known the Jumanes and Pelones to be among the fervid enemies of the Apaches. That they should now combine forces against the Spaniards was indeed alarming."

p. 287: "Even as Apaches moved to the Medina and looked to the shelter of Spanish presidios, their enemies gathered on the prairies. In mid-July 1750, four Tejas brought to the San Gabriel missions the rumor that the interior nations were assembling to campaign against the Apaches . . . . The great campaign did not occur. Perhaps the Apaches' new rapprochement with the Spaniards gave their enemies pause. Still the Apaches could not feel entirely safe, even on the Medina. In April 1751 some of them moved southward to the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, in the jurisdiction of Coahuila rather than Texas."

p. 294: Fray Alonso Giraldo de Terreros "founded a mission for Lipans in Coahuila in December 1754 . . . . Mission San Lorenzo, near the presidio of San Fernando de Austria, seemed successful at first, but, when other duties called Fray Terreros away, the Lipan neophytes lost their enthusiasm for the experiment. In October 1755 they burned the mission and fled."

p. 339: "The Taovayas occupation of former Apache territories angered and alarmed their old enemies. Lipan raiders harried the new villages, then scurried south to take refuge in the shadow of the Spanish frontier. Their certain expectation of vengeful pursuit made the Lipans reluctant to settle at the San Saba mission when it was established for them in 1757, and their fears proved quite justified."

p. 349: "Of the dozen-odd nations involved in the San Saba atrocity, the council targeted for the punitive campaign only the virtually unknown Wichitan and Tonkawan bands. Tejas has undoubtedly played a major role, but war against those long-time vassals of the Crown was unthinkable. Comanches had attacked, too, but their formidable reputation and their roving existence ruled out a campaign against them."

p. 360: "El Gran Cabezon [a Lipan chief] flatly refused to settle on the San Saba [in 1761]. The earlier tragedy there, the alarming proximity of Comanches and Norteños, and their continual horse thefts from the presidio convinced the chief that the area would never be safe for Apaches . . . . He would consider settling on the upper Nueces River . . . a rugged area known well to Apaches but not yet penetrated by Comanches and Norteños. El Gran Cabezon set three conditions: more soldiers than ever before must be detailed for a big buffalo hunt; the daughter of . . . the big chief of the Natages must be returned to her people from captivity somewhere in Nuevo León; and soldiers must accompany the Apaches on their campaigns against the Comanches during the prickly-pear season.

p. 362: "The Lipans' enemies were not slow to find them. In March 1762, Comanches destroyed a Lipan rancheria in a canyon near San Lorenzo . . . . As many as a dozen bands established some tie with the missions at El Canon, though the stable core was limited to the four bands of El Gran Cabezon, El Turnio, Teja, and Boruca."

p. 363: "In June, 1762, [Taovayas] made several raids on the horse herd at San Saba."

p. 363: "Norteños scored heavily agains the Lipans in the San Antonio sphere that summer [1762]. They attacked a rancheria on the Frio River . . . destroyed another on the Guadalupe River . . . and killed more than forty Apache hunters on the Colorado River."

p. 379: "[In 1770,] the deadly Osage onslaught drove many Indians to retreat in despair. The Tawakonis, Iscanis, Tonkawas, and Kichais fell back toward the presisios of Bex and La Bahia."

p. 410: "While visiting the Tawakonis, de Mezieres also contacted the Tonkawas, who ranged between the Trinity and Brazos rivers. By 1772 they had absorbed the kindred Yojuanes and Mayeyes."

pp. 439-440: "much of the difficulty centered upon the Bolson de Mapimi, a rugged mountain and desert badlands running southward from the Rio Grande between the Sierra Madre Occidental of Coahuila on the east and the Conchos Valley on the west. The northward-moving Spanish frontier . . . [left] it a sanctuary of indio barbarso, how chiefly Mescalero and Natagé Apaches, who made it their base for raids into Nueva Vizcaya, Coahuila, and even southward."

p. 444: "The first two campaigns of young Galvez [in 1770] were extraordinarily successful. On the autumn campaign he led about 135 frontier soldiers and Indian allies from Chihuahua to the Pecos River, where he surprised an Apache camp."

p. 446: "Keen to carry war into the Apache sanctuaries, O'Conor combined the dirve into the Bolson de Mapimi with a search for new sites on the Rio Grande for the presidios of San Saba and Cerro Gordo. In 1773 he launched a campaign from Santa Rosa presidio in Coahuila."

p. 501: "Croix . . . presented 16 points for discussion [in 1777] .... It was a formidable questionnaire:

1. How long has the Apache tribe . . . been known on their frontiers and since when have they made war on us?

7. What favorable or adverse results ought to be inferred from the delivery of five Mescalero Indians which the Lipan chief, Poca Ropa, made in the general campaign?

pp. 502-503: "The [1777] Monclova council's most important service was to clarify . . . the numbers and locations of the various eastern Apaches . . . . [T]heir consensus was the best information available to Europeans at that time. They knew Lipans now as residents of both sides of the Rio Grande, under shelter of the presidios of San Juan Bautista, Monclova, and Santa Rosa de Aguaverde, though part of them withdrew sometimes to the Upper Nueces Valley. The Natages sometimes camped with their Lipan relatives, but they tended to live on the plains near El Paso and New Mexico. The Mescaleros lived in the mountains in and near the Bolson de Mapimi."

pp. 535: "The [Lipans] were especially shocked in the spring of 1779 when Coahuila's Governor Ugalde joined with the Mescaleros to wage war against the Lipans."

p. 613: "[In 1779] the badly crippled, demoralized Lipans fell back into the region between the presidios of Bexar, Rio Grande, and La Bahia, and the seacoast . . . . Their eastward flight from the Comanches carried the Lipans within easy reach of Cocos and Mayeyes."

1988 The Riddle of Mapmaker Juan Pedro Walker. In Essays on the History of North American Discovery and Exploration, edited by Stanley H. Palmer, pp. 102-132. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

John commonly employs historic maps in her research and Juan Pedro Walker, a prominent mapmaker of the early nineteenth century who drew several authoritative maps of early Texas, intrigued her. As she (p. 102) notes in this paper, his story is important to understanding the mapping of the trans-Mississippi West and Texas as it informs us that the mapmaker has a role in the "event of discovery." Walker was born in an English and French family in Spanish New Orleans, giving him an early introduction to languages. By the age of 17, Walker was beginning a career surveying with American surveyors along the Mississippi River. He went on to study in Pennsylvania but kept close ties with certain surveyors and family friends. Those ties led him to the conclusion that his future lay with the Spanish, largely in the Spanish province of Texas.

p. 102: "Most early explorers could only make crude sketchmaps Succeeding maps would develop greater detail . . . . But no area could be mapped with any precision until measured by surveyors . . . rarely undertaken until issues of boundaries became urgent."

p. 116: "Walker . . . had precisely the cartographic skills so desperately needed in the Internal Provinces. It appeared that he could capitalize upon his skill by honoring the commandant general's request that he locate in Coahuila rather than Texas."

John, Elizabeth A.H., and John Wheat (editors & translators)

1989 Views from the Apache Frontier: Report on the Northern Provinces of New Spain by Jose Cortex, Lieutenant in the Royal Corps of Engineers, 1799. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

John is an ethnohistorian with a long-time interest in the interaction of Spaniards and natives. While conducting research at the British Library she identified documents by Lieutenant Cortes that she anticipated were of considerable interest to individuals doing research on the Spanish Borderlands and/or on Apache Ethnohistory. Believing that additional documents might be found, she doggedly followed the trail of Cortes' documents. Once compiled, she had them translated by Wheat and added her own preface and epilogue.

The documents are, indeed, quite revealing and any researcher of the Apache presence in the Spanish Borderlands should review them. Cortes was an astute observer of Apache and other Native Americans throughout the northern frontier where he was stationed as part of his years in the elite Royal Corps of Engineers. In addition, he appears to have conducted his own documentary research of earlier writings by priests, soldiers, and others. The result is a report that presents a great deal of information on the Apache. Their internal divisions, lifeways, movement, subsistence, and other aspects are detailed within the report, providing substantial fodder for understanding their unique and complex place in the history of Texas and much of the Southwest. The following excerpts have relevance for the Amistad NRA:

p. xvii: "[P]roper names . . . are presented as they appear in the manuscript. Retaining the disparate spellings serves the purposes of ethnohistorical and linguistic analysis by demonstrating in original context the many forms that Indian nomenclature takes in the documentary record. It is essential in this instance because the overwhelming confusion of Cortes regarding Texas Indians resulted from the wildly varied spellings that he found in his documentary research."

p. xix: "The Apaches whom Cortes observed most closely were Chiricahuas."

p. 10: "Cortes, like most of his contemporaries, confused the Red and Canadian rivers [and his hand-drawn map contains these confusions] . . . . All Texas rivers between the San Antonio and the Red are shown running sharply north-south, reflecting another common misconception that was not corrected until another officer in the Spanish service, Juan Pedro Walker, began mapping the Interior Provinces in the next dacade [e.g.,1810s]."

p. 49: "The Spanish know as Apache nations the Tontos, Chiricaguis, Gilenos, Mimbrenos, Faraones, Mescaleros, Llaneros, Lipanes, and Navajos. All of these tribes are called by the generic name Apaches, and govern themselves independently of one another."

p. 52: "The Faraones also constitute a very large group and are believed to be a branch of the Xicarillas. They inhabit the mountains between the Rio Grande del Norte and the Pecos. They are bounded on the west by the province of New Mexico, on the north by the same province, on the east by the Mexcaleros, and on the south by part of the frontier of Nueva Vizcaya.

The Mescalero nation inhabits the mountains adjacent to the Pecos River, on either side, extending south to the mountains that constitute the top of the Bolson de Mapimi, and ending in that area on the right of the Rio Grande. Its terminus on the west is the Faraones tribe, on the north the vast territories of the Cumancheria, on the east the land of the Llanero Indians, and on the south the desert of the Bolson de Mapimi.

Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Concho And Toro Position Case Study”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *