DRAFT REPORT for Review and Comment Only

REASSESSING CULTURAL EXTINCTION: CHANGE AND SURVIVAL AT MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, TEXAS

Edited by Alston V. Thoms, Principal Investigator Technical Editors: Dawn A.J. Alexander Rhonda Brinkmann Julia M. Gottshall Jennifer L. Logan Christopher H. Sasser Funded by and Submitted to: National Park Service San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, Texas

Prepared and Submitted by: Center for Ecological Archaeology Texas A&M University, College Station

A Joint Publication by: Center for Ecological Archaeology, Texas A&M University Reports of Investigation No. 4 and San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, Texas National Park Service Contract No. 1443cx760098001

2001

ABSTRACT This study focuses on Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, one of four missions comprised by San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. It provides baseline information for future consultations regarding implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Native American presence at the missions is linked inextricably to Coahuiltecans, the ethnically and linguistically diverse native inhabitants of south Texas and northeast Mexico. Only Coahuiltecans were missionized at San Juan, but they undoubtedly interacted with other groups, including Apache, Caddo, Comanche, Karankawa, Tlascalan, Tonkawa, Wichita, and non-Indians. San Juan’s archaeologically recovered skeletal population (ca. 1731-1862) represented Native Americans and racially mixed individuals, but none were identified as known individuals. Academically oriented anthropologists argue that geographic Coahuiltecans eventually assimilated into the region’s Tejano population and, effectively, became extinct. They are not a federally recognized tribe. However, local popular literature and interviews with present-day San Juan community members reveal that segments of the San Juan community trace their ancestry to mission Indians and have recently formed several Coahuiltecan-oriented Native American organizations. Genealogical research confirms that some community members are lineal descendants of individuals who lived at San Juan during late Colonial times. Although none of the known progenitors appears to have been a neophyte at mission San Juan, they may well have been of Native American descent, as were many of San Antonio’s residents. All Native American human remains archaeologically recovered from San Juan’s mission compound were reinterred in 1999 under the auspices of the Catholic Church, the entity that retained legal possession of the remains and under whose jurisdiction the excavations occurred. With the exception of human remains discovered intentionally or inadvertently after 1990 on federally owned, as opposed to Church-owned, property at mission San Juan, NAGPRA does not to appear to be directly applicable at this time.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The San Juan lineal descent and cultural affiliation study benefited from the support of many individuals and organizations, and because their names may not appear elsewhere in this report, we—the project’s research team and report producers—take this opportunity to acknowledge their contributions. The project was funded by the National Park Service (NPS) through the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (SAAN) and was overseen by SAAN professional and administrative staff. We are especially indebted to the technical assistance and historical information about Mission San Juan that was consistently and expertly provided by Dr. Rosalind Rock, SAAN’s Park Historian and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for our project. We also appreciate the encouragement and advice received from Park Superintendent Stephen Whitesell, Contracting Officer Wayne Owens, and Chief of Professional Services Mark Chavez. Mr. James Oliver, SAAN’s Landscape Architect, provided property maps and related information pertaining to Mission San Juan. Dr. Rock, Mr. Chavez, and SAAN Park Archaeologist Susan Snow, reviewed draft versions of this report, as did Ms. Alexa Roberts, NPS cultural anthropologist with the Cultural Resources and National Register Program, Intermountain Support Services, Santa Fe. Valuable insights into NAGPRA’s applicability to skeletal remains and funerary objects from Mission San Juan were provided by Ms. Roberts, Ms. Virginia Salazar, an NPS NAGPRA specialist in Santa Fe, and by Mr. Jason Roberts, an NPS lawyer and NAGPRA specialist in the Washington D.C. office. The collective input of these individuals is recognized and greatly appreciated; it aided substantially in keeping the project on course and consistent with NAGPRA. Members of our research team were consistently welcomed into the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community and always assisted by its representatives. Mr. Guadalupe Gaitán, president of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill Catholic Men’s Club, and Ms. Janie Garza, an avid community historian, were especially helpful in paving the way for our work there. Representatives of the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM) also provided considerable assistance, especially Mr. Mickey Killian, Mr. Raymond Hernandez, and President Ramon Juan Vasquez, Jr. Mr. Killian shared the results of years of his own historical and genealogical research. We are especially indebted to the individuals interviewed during the course of this project, including Mr. Killian, as well as Mr. Rick Mendoza, Mr. Rey Rios, and Ms. Rebecca Stuart. They continuously responded to our queries and provided a great deal of useful information for the present project. The project benefited from discussions with representatives of the Catholic Church. Father Larry Brumer, a former parish priest at Mission San Juan who now serves at Mission Espada, shared his recollections of Mission San Juan during the late 1960s and early 1970s when archaeological investigations were first conducted there. Father James Galvin, San

iv

Juan’s current parish priest, also discussed with us the nature and diversity of community opinions and provided valuable insights about Native American issues. Ms. Anne Fox, an archaeologist at the Center for Archaeological Research (CAR), University of Texas at San Antonio, was especially helpful in our efforts to inventory potentially NAGPRA-related items from Mission San Juan that are held in collections at CAR. She also shared her recollections of archaeological investigations at the mission over the last 30 years, during most of which she played key roles. Her input was invaluable. Other CAR personnel, notably Drs. Robert Hard and Britt Bousman, provided useful information that aided our understanding of the history of archaeological investigations at the mission. Mr. Mark Denton and Mr. William Martin, both with the Texas Historical Commission, discussed aspects of the State’s role in the archaeological studies at San Juan during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Center for Ecological Archaeology’s (CEA) team members for the San Juan lineal descent and cultural affiliation project and their respective roles are as follows: Dawn A.J. Alexander Adán Benavides Rhonda Brinkmann Patricia A. Clabaugh Jeffrey H. Cohen Michael S. Crow Charlotte E. Donald Julia M. Gottshall Jennifer L. Logan J. Bryan Mason Eva Norton Debbie Schertz D. Gentry Steele Alston V. Thoms

Technical Editor (CEA) Project Genealogical Specialist and Author Technical Editor (Texas Transportation Institute) Project Inventory Specialist and Author Project Cultural Anthropologist and Author Project Research Assistant and Graphics Specialist Project Research Assistant and Author Technical Editor (CEA) Primary Project Research Assistant, Technical Editor, and Author Project Research Assistant, Graphics Specialist, and Author Office Manger Staff Accountant Project Photographer and Author Project Principal Investigator and Author

Although we—report editor, contributors, and technical editors—wish to acknowledge contributions made by the people and organizations mentioned above, as well as others who inadvertently remain unnamed, we accept the responsibility for our own contributions, including any errors in fact or oversights this report may contain.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ x List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... xiii Management Summary............................................................................................................. xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO A LINEAL DESCENT AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION STUDY FOR MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, TEXAS .................... 1 Alston V. Thoms Project Chronology and Contacts ................................................................................... 5 Research Objectives and NAGPRA Compliance ........................................................... 8 NAGPRA’s Applicability to Mission San Juan ............................................................ 12 Mission San Juan’s Indian Occupants: Geographic Coahuiltecans .............................. 15 Arguments for Extinction of Geographic Coahuiltecans .............................................. 17 Arguments for Survival of Geographic Coahuiltecans ................................................. 18 Organization of the Report............................................................................................ 19 Chapter 2: HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR REASSESSING COAHUILTECAN EXTINCTION AT MISSION SAN JUAN ................ 21 Alston V. Thoms San Antonio’s Pre-Mission Era, 1528-1718 ................................................................. 22 San Antonio’s Mission Era, 1718-1824 ........................................................................ 26 Post-Mission Era, 1824-Present .................................................................................... 37 Summary and Concluding Comments .......................................................................... 42 Chapter 3: POPULAR LITERATURE ................................................................................... 45 Jennifer L. Logan Architecture................................................................................................................... 48 Ethnic Diversity ............................................................................................................ 49 Reemergence of Mission Indian Identity ...................................................................... 50 Concluding Comments.................................................................................................. 52 Chapter 4: INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................... 55 Jeffrey H. Cohen Methodology ................................................................................................................. 55 Defining Our Group ...................................................................................................... 56 Genealogies ................................................................................................................... 56 Cultural Affiliation........................................................................................................ 57 Tradition........................................................................................................................ 59 Community ................................................................................................................... 61 Chapter 5: PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPONENT ...................................................................... 63 D. Gentry Steele The Identified Descendants........................................................................................... 63 Mission San Juan Capistrano and the San Juan and Berg’s Mill Community ............. 63

vii

Chapter 6: GENEALOGY ...................................................................................................... 71 Adán Benavides, Jr. Maternal Lineal Descent of Mickey Killian ................................................................. 71 State of Mission Records .............................................................................................. 79 Findings......................................................................................................................... 80 Chapter 7: ETHNOHISTORY ................................................................................................ 81 Jennifer L. Logan Regional Ethnography and Ethnohistory ...................................................................... 81 Mission San Juan .......................................................................................................... 83 Concluding Comments.................................................................................................. 93 Chapter 8: LINGUISTICS ...................................................................................................... 95 Jennifer L. Logan Coahuiltecan Language ................................................................................................. 95 Affiliated Languages ..................................................................................................... 96 Concluding Comments.................................................................................................. 99 Chapter 9: ARCHAEOLOGY .............................................................................................. 101 Jennifer L. Logan Material Culture .......................................................................................................... 102 Cultural Affiliation...................................................................................................... 109 Concluding Comments................................................................................................ 113 Chapter 10: BIOARCHAEOLOGY ..................................................................................... 115 Jennifer L. Logan Regional Skeletal Populations .................................................................................... 115 General Health Status of Skeletal Populations ........................................................... 116 Skeletal Remains from Mission San Juan................................................................... 116 Skeletal Remains from Outside the Mission San Juan Compound............................. 124 Concluding Comments................................................................................................ 125 Chapter 11: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS: NATIVE AMERICAN LINEAL DESCENT AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION ISSUES AT MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, TEXAS....................................................................................................... 129 Alston V. Thoms Perspectives on Coahuiltecans and Mission-Indian Heritage ..................................... 130 Native American Cultural Change and Survival ........................................................ 132 Lineal Descent, Cultural Affiliation, and NAGPRA-Related Concerns..................... 142 Recommendations for Management and Additional Research ................................... 147 REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................... 149 Mission San Juan Capistrano (41BX5) ....................................................................... 183 San Juan Annotated Bibliography ..................................................................................... 193 Archaeology ................................................................................................................ 193 Ethnography ................................................................................................................ 198 Ethnohistory ................................................................................................................ 204 Linguistics ................................................................................................................... 205 Bioarchaeology ........................................................................................................... 211

viii

San Antonio ................................................................................................................ 214 Historical and Census-Related .................................................................................... 215 APPENDIX A:

MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (41BX5) UTSA ARTIFACT BOX INVENTORY (excluding sketetal remains)...................................................................... 173 APPENDIX B:

MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (41BX5) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND NAGPRA INVENTORIES ............................................................................................... 181 APPENDIX C:

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 191 APPENDIX D:

QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................... 219 APPENDIX E:

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ......................................................................................... 227 APPENDIX F:

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED ......................................................................... 303 APPENDIX G:

LIST OF POTENTIAL FUTURE CONTACTS ............................................................... 307 APPENDIX H:

SELECTED LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS.................................................................. 311

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map showing the locations of Spanish Colonial missions, the villa, presidio, and roads in the San Antonio area (after Ahlborn 1985:18). ................................................... 2 Figure 2. Map of Mission San Juan and vicinity showing properties owned by SAAN, the Catholic Church, and other entities (modified from property map provided by SAAN). .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Map showing the locations of Spanish Colonial missions, presidios, and settlements, as well as the Caminos Reales (Chipman 1992:108-109, 148-149, Figures 14 and 20; and McGraw et al. 1998:9, Figure 1). ........................................................................................... 25 Figure 4. Map showing the locations, identified rooms, approximate periods of use for church structures, and burial places at Mission San Juan (after Schuetz 1968: Figure 1; 1974, and 1980b)..................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 5. Photograph of teepee in the mission square where a Native American Church service was held Friday night (November 26, 1999) before the Saturday morning reburial ceremonies (photograph by Alston V. Thoms). ..................................................................... 41 Figure 6. Photograph of parishioners and community members, including representatives of the AIT-SCM (foreground), attending the Saturday morning (November 27, 1999) funeral mass held prior to the Native American reburial ceremony led by Raymond Hernandez (photograph by Alston V. Thoms). ........................................................................................ 41 Figure 7. Photograph of Archbishop Patrick Flores delivering the homily at the funeral mass that preceded the Native American reburial ceremony on Saturday morning, November 27, 1999; also depicted are Father James Galvin (leaning forward, center foreground), San Juan’s parish priest; and Monsignor Balthasar Janacek (seated to the right), the parish liaison between state/federal agencies and Indian groups on matters of old Spanish missions (photograph by Alston V. Thoms). ........................................................................................ 41 Figure 8. Mickey Killian Genealogy. ........................................................................................... 58 Figure 9. Rebecca Stuart Genealogy. ............................................................................................ 58 Figure 10. Rick Mendoza Genealogy. .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 11. Mickey Killian, a local community member who has engaged in personal genealogical research for over 20 years and actively works with community members to establish their Native American heritage. Killian preferred the presence of the extant church for the background of his photograph. Remnants of the original San Juan Mission walls are in the foreground. He holds a portrait of his great-grandmother, Refugia Díaz. She was the granddaughter of Santiago Díaz, Alcalde of San Juan Pueblo in 1819, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ......................................................................................... 64

x

Figure 12. Siblings Rebecca Stuart and Nicasio Montes. Nicasio holds a picture of his father and his father’s brother, while Rebecca holds a portrait of her grandparents. Like Killian, they chose to be photographed against the extant church for their portraits, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ......................................................................................... 65 Figure 13. Members of the extended family of Rick Mendoza, who unanimously selected the Tufa house as the background for their portraits. Present in the photograph from left to right are: Rick Mendoza’s father, Joe Mendoza (seated); Rick Mendoza; Rick’s wife, Monica, and their daughter, Quetzali; Lola Carreón’s daughter-in-law, Maria Carreón; Rick’s grandmother, Lola Carreón; Rick’s aunt (paternal), Anita Rodríguez (née SánchezMendoza); and Anita’s friend, Porfirio Tejeda, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ................................................................................................................................................ 65 Figure 14. Members of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community socializing around the ticket table at the Berg’s Mill Family Reunion, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ....... 66 Figure 15. Many of the younger children at the Berg’s Mill Reunion were entertained by swinging at a piñata, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ............................... 66 Figure 16. A late-afternoon impromptu street dance at the Berg’s Mill Reunion, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). ......................................................................................... 67 Figure 17. Inside the Tufa house, an audience attends presentations given by local residents on the community’s history, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele) .... 67 Figure 18. An image of a Station of the Cross, marked by a large cross placed against one of the mission’s walls, embodies the strong religious ties binding the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community together, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele). .............................. 68 Figure 19. A Station of the Cross is marked by a cross placed against the wall surrounding the mission, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele) ............................................. 69 Figure 20a. Maternal ancestry chart for Mickey Killian (based on Killian interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Cadena interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Killian 1982). ......................................................... 72 Figure 20b Continued. (based on Killian interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Cadena interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Killian 1982; Chabot 1937:191-192). .......................................................................... 73 Figure 21. Antonio Cantú’s certificate of baptism, November 26, 1899, naming her parents Lucio Cantú and Adelina Montes. Courtesy of Mickey Killian. ........................................... 74 Figure 22. Routes of Cabeza de Vaca across Texas and Mexico, 1534-1536 (after Krieger 1955:Figure 1). ....................................................................................................................... 93

xi

Figure 23. Approximate location of tribal entities observed by Cabeza de Vaca within the south Texas study area (group locations estimated using descriptions from Campbell and Campbell 1981). ..................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 24. Approximate pre-mission locations for groups admitted to Mission San Juan Capistrano, 1731-1772 (after Francis 1999:40, Figure 2-1)................................................... 87 Figure 25. Map showing locations of archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan from 1968-1998 (after Durst 1999:32 and Schuetz 1968:Figure 1).............................................. 108 Figure 26. Map of approximate locations (1690-1750) in the state of Texas for ethnolinguistic groups thought to have possessed Toyah material culture (after Johnson 1994:279, Figure 106). .......................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 27. Map with locations of burial places revealed after subsequent excavations shown. Adapted from Schuetz (1968:Figure 1, 1974, and 1980b). .................................................. 119

xii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary information for periods of church and burial-place usages and associated sacramental records (data from Ewers 1973; Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c; Rock 1999:16). ....................................................................................................................... 32 Table 2. Summary census and other historical information for Indian populations at Mission San Juan (data from Schuetz 1980a:128; supplemented by Rock 1999 and Schuetz 1980c). .................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 3. Non-anthropological references to descendants of Indian neophytes at Mission San Juan Capistrano and other places in San Antonio. ............................................ 46 Table 4. The Santiago Díaz-María Josefa Gutiérrez household based on extant census records. 77 Table 5. Named Indian groups at four Spanish Colonial missions in San Antonio (after Campbell and Campbell 1996, Table 1)................................................................................. 85 Table 6. Examples of Comments from Ethnographic Literature about Coahuiltecan Extinction. .............................................................................................................................. 88 Table 7. Native American group affiliation of individuals in residence at Mission San Juan. ... 89 Table 8. Names and tribal affiliations of mission Indian land grantees from San Juan. ............. 90 Table 9. Ethnic make-up of San Antonio and its missions from available statistical reports, 1790 and 1792. ....................................................................................................................... 90 Table 10. Probable linguistic affiliation of Indian groups at Mission San Juan (after Campbell and Campbell 1996, Table 3)................................................................................. 97 Table 11. Summary information on the classification of Coahuilteco and the Coahuiltecan language family. ..................................................................................................................... 99 Table 12. Chronology of archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan Capistrano (see Figure 30 for location of rooms and excavation areas). ............................................... 105 Table 13. Archaeological commentary on Coahuiltecan extinction. ......................................... 108 Table 14. List of artifacts, including probable funerary objects (grave goods) recovered from burials at Mission San Juan (Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980a; coffin nails and fragments of coffin wood excluded).............................................................................. 110 Table 15. Assumptions of cultural affiliation of mission Indian material culture. .................... 114

xiii

Table 16. Summary of pathological data by region (after Reinhard et al. 1989:138, Table 22). ............................................................................................................................. 117 Table 17. Comparison of historic and prehistoric pathological frequencies in coastal populations (after Reinhard et al. 1989:139, Table 26). .......................................................................... 117 Table 18. Human bone reported by Schuetz’s excavations at Mission San Juan 1967, 1969, and 1971. .................................................................................................................... 120 Table 19. Institutions housing skeletal material from Mission San Juan Capistrano. ............... 121 Table 20. Master’s theses concerning skeletal populations from Mission San Juan Capistrano. .............................................................................................. 122 Table 21. Preliminary comparison of MNIs for skeletal remains from unfinished church (Room 26), Mission San Juan. ......................................................................................................... 127

xiv

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY (Alston V. Thoms, Principal Investigator)

The present study focuses on Native Americans who traditionally lived and worked at Mission San Juan and in the surrounding community. Its primary objective is to provide baseline information to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (SAAN) for future consultation with Native American groups regarding implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). This study also provides information that enables other cultural groups whose roots may stem from Mission San Juan to better establish their connected ancestry. Project results are also intended for use by park management to understand community values about park resources, present accurate interpretative programs, and make decisions about the park’s culturally significant resources.

Native American Remains and Funerary Objects from Mission San Juan NAGPRA’s potential applicability to Mission San Juan stems in part from archaeological excavations carried out by Mardith Schuetz within the mission compound in 1967, 1969, and 1971, under the auspices of the Catholic Church. These investigations resulted in the removal, study, and curation of skeletal remains from more than 100 individuals and the associated funerary objects presumed to be those of aboriginal and/or missionized Coahuiltecans. “Coahuiltecan” is a geographically defined designation widely used for linguistically and ethnically diverse bands of hunter-gatherers who inhabited Coahuila and other states in northeast Mexico as well as south Texas. Ultimately, several universities were involved in the study of the human remains from San Juan, but, when NAGPRA became law in 1990, most of the remains and funerary objects were officially curated at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). At that time, several other human bones and funerary objects from the mission were also held at SAAN headquarters in San Antonio. As of June 2001, recovered funerary objects remain in the temporary custody of UTSA, while all the human remains were reinterred in 1999 under the auspices of the Church, the entity that retained legal possession of the remains and associated funerary objects.

Joint-Management Roles of NPS and the Catholic Church The National Park Service (NPS) now plays a key role in the management of Mission San Juan in cooperation with the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. Their joint-management role began in 1978 when Missions San Juan, Concepción, San José, and Espada became part of SAAN. The Church owns the mission compound itself and shares management responsibilities with SAAN. Most of the adjacent property is now owned and managed solely by SAAN, although the City of San Antonio owns and operates the public streets and the San Antonio River Authority owns and manages the river.

Prior to the reburial, Archbishop Patrick Flores performed a funeral mass and noted that it had been a mistake for the Church to

xv

grant permission for the protracted study of the remains of its parishioners. He also acknowledged and thanked avowed Indian descendants for their role in pursuing reburial. Two Native American Church services were held the night before the reburial to help prepare the Indian contingents for the morning ceremonies. Members of two Native American groups carried out the actual reburial ceremony: American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions and the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation.

organization known as American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions signaled a marked change in the manner in which San Antonio’s mission Indian history would be presented. For the first time in the city’s modern history, avowed descendants of mission Indians began to publicly promote Coahuiltecan components of their biological and cultural heritage. In doing so, they drew heavily from historical records and writings about geographic Coahuiltecans by anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians.

UTSA archaeologists also recovered Native American remains in 1999, when a single gravesite was discovered inadvertently during construction of a drainage channel along the boundary line between Churchand NPS-owned properties. The remains were analyzed and identified as a young adult female of Native American origin. They were subsequently returned to SAAN and reinterred with approval of the Texas Historical Commission (THC).

To renew and construct their own versions of native history and heritage, they selected specific information from the pool of data generated by the academic community and incorporated it into what they knew about mission Indians from family histories and community lore. Not surprisingly, total agreement is lacking between the cultural histories presented by academic and mission Indian communities, as is typically the case when perspectives between victors and vanquished or dominant and minority groups are compared. There is also a diversity of perspectives among today’s Native American groups who trace their heritage, or parts thereof, to Mission San Juan, including American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions, The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, and the Pamaque Band of San Juan Indians. To gain a more holistic perspective on intercommunity controversies, it will be necessary to carry out additional investigations with representatives of the various groups that promote mission Indian heritage in San Antonio.

Native American Cultural Change and Survival at Mission San Juan Only in the last decade or so have anthropologists and historians begun to understand that although effectively “merged” into secular society, San Antonio’s mission Indians may never have been assimilated to the point that they were unrecognizable. Prior to this, most professionals accepted conclusions based on the dominant culture’s view of the disappearance of Native American lifeways in South Texas. With emergence of groups whose members claim genealogical descent from natives in the Spanish colonial communities, the earlier belief that full assimilation had occurred was called into question. Formation in 1993 of the

While the majority of people listed in the San Juan records as either Indian or part Indian probably descended in part from geographic Coahuiltecans, other Native American tribes and groups are represented as well. Undoubtedly, the community

xvi

missionization and miscegenation processes. Acculturated or Ladino (i.e., Spanishspeaking, Christianized Indians) Coahuiltecans, increasingly known as Indians, mestizos, mulattos, Mexicans, Hispanics, Tejanos, or sometimes Spaniards, left the mission grounds and were assimilated into the civilian communities. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in their new roles as members of “lower-economic tiers,” their native heritage came to be almost invisible to much of the outside world. The descendants of Ladino Coahuiltecans adapted to the dominant culture through concealment and camouflage.

included Tlascaltecan artisans (and their descendants) whose distant ancestors came from aboriginal homelands in central Mexico, but who themselves were born somewhere in today’s northeast Mexico, settled at the mission and were then buried there. As noted, members of BIArecognized tribes (e.g., Comanche, Apache, and Tonkawa) were also missionized in San Antonio and may have married into the community without leaving a record of their tribal affiliation. It is possible that other Native Americans came to San Juan during the late 1700s including Caddoan descendants of communities in east Texas, and Puebloan descendants from New Mexico. In short, lineal descent issues at San Juan extend well beyond individuals whose “documented” biological makeup was wholly or substantially geographic Coahuiltecan. These issues are also complex and, as this study shows, merit further study.

Throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, these “veiled” Coahuiltecans appear to have continued as an identifiable segment of the San Juan community. Archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan in 1967 served to spark and revitalize the community’s public commitment to Indian heritage. These sparks caught fire, especially with the controversies that surrounded reburial issues in San Antonio during the late twentieth century. As a result, people with Indian heritage once again became readily visible, this time as resurgent Coahuiltecans.

Historical Contexts (Chapters 1 and 2) From historical and cultural evolution perspectives, geographical Coahuiltecans arguably epitomize the concepts of cultural change and survival. First encountered in the early 1500s as native hunter-gatherers, the aboriginal Coahuiltecans began to suffer from apocalyptic depopulation with the arrival of Old World explorers. Through considerable metamorphosis, neo-organized Coahuiltecans emerged early in the postcontact era and continued to do so throughout the reducción or in-gathering process, from the middle 1600s and through the early 1800s.

The Catholic Church came to recognize the claims of these parishioners and worked in cooperation with Native American organizations in 1986 to ceremoniously rebury several archaeologically recovered skeletal remains. In November 1999, Church officials and members of the American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions and The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation participated in religious services for reburial of all the human remains recovered from San Juan during archaeological excavations in 1967, 1969, and 1971.

A vast majority of these people ultimately came to live, at least for a time, at missions in south Texas and northeast Mexico. Once there, a new round of metamorphoses occurred as a result of

xvii

During the 77th regular session (2001) of the Texas Legislature, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 787 “recognizing the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions.” The Texas Senate passed a similar resolution to “commend the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecans for their exemplary preservation of their heritage and their many contributions to the culture of our state and nation.” The President of the Senate formally presented members of The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation with the resolution in the Senate chamber on May 18, 2001.

Antonio’s news media has regularly reported on the values and concerns of people who traced their ancestry to Mission San Juan and other Spanish Colonial missions in the city. Native American Groups (Chapters 2- 5) Today, there are several Native American groups (i.e., resurgent Coahuiltecans) in San Antonio whose members trace their ancestry to geographic Coahuiltecans. Among those are the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan. Many members of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation are also members of a non-profit group, the American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM, see Chapter 3).

Popular Literature Contexts (Chapter 3) Popular literature about San Antonio’s missions and the Indians who lived there does not routinely refer to Coahuiltecan Indians or any other specific ethnic groups for that matter. For more than 100 years, however, popular accounts have attested to a continuous presence of Native American people living around the missions, especially San Juan. An individual interviewed in the late 1800s reported that in 1836 the Mexican Army elected not to cut off or divert the irrigation ditches that supplied water to the Alamo (i.e., Mission Valero, secularized in 1794) because the water was still being used by mission Indians.

During the late 1990s, resurgent Coahuiltecans began to recount their own histories on the worldwide web and in ethnically based magazines, as well as in the popular literature. Initial conversations with prospective interviewees for the present project also revealed that numerous San Juan families had strong traditions about their “Indian blood.” Among these traditions were stories about Indians in the area, including one grandfather nicknamed “El Indio” who aptly looked the part. Two interviewees recounted stories about how a parent, grandparent, or great-great grandparent chased away stormy weather by shouting and waving a butcher knife or hatchet. This behavior closely resembles a practice of Nuevo León Indians, which was reported by Juan Bautista Chapa in the late 1600s. The point here is that what may well have been centuries-old native traditions were still practiced in the mid-twentieth century and are recalled to the present day.

By the turn of the century, San Antonio’s tourist literature reported that San Juan was the mission where the neighborhood people looked more like Indians than was the case anywhere else in Texas. There are also numerous reports in the popular literature of Indian families— descendants of the original mission population—living and sometimes farming around the mission throughout the twentieth century. Since the late 1960s, San

The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, a resurgent Coahuiltecan group, recently

xviii

the late mission and early post-mission periods would have had Ladino Coahuiltecans in their family trees.

requested and was granted a formal sponsor relationship with the federally recognized Wichita and Affiliated Tribes based in Anadarko, Oklahoma. The group’s request was based in part on historical evidence that sometime in the late eighteenth century the Wichita Tribe assimilated the Cantona, a Native American group possibly affiliated with Coahuiltecans. The resolution noted “that the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes hereby sponsor the participation of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation in all official and appropriate matters involving their traditional homeland to include properties owned and controlled by the U.S. Government.”

Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Contexts (Chapters 7 and 11) Coahuiltecan does not designate a tribe in the same sense as Tonkawa, Comanche, or Caddo. Anthropologists often use the word “tribe” to denote a group of related bands that speaks a common language, shares most cultural traits, have definable territories, albeit often vaguely so, and that are held together by kinship and varying degrees of socio-political ties. Alternatively, Coahuiltecans were not nearly so bound together, insofar as this designation encompassed hundreds of small, seemingly autonomous bands, some of which spoke mutually unintelligible languages. What these diverse bands had in common was their hunter-gatherer lifeways that were well adapted to an environmentally similar portion of the coastal plains drained by the Rio Grande and smaller rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico in south Texas and northeast Mexico.

Genealogical Contexts (Chapter 6) Adán Benavides’ genealogical research for the present project focused on Santiago Díaz’ family. Díaz served as an alcalde at Mission San Juan during late Colonial times. Mickey Killian, one of the individuals interviewed for the present project, had compiled considerable information about the history of Mission San Juan and traced his own ancestry to Santiago Díaz. Benavides’ research verified that Santiago Díaz was indeed among Mickey Killian’s ancestors, but reliable evidence was not found to indicate that Santiago or his wife, Maria Josefa Gutiérrez, were Indian neophytes. However, some of the Díaz family members were listed in various records as being Indian, mestizo, and mulatto, as well as Español. As such, a door is clearly open to the possibility that descendants of the Díaz-Gutiérrez household were at least part Indian. It also seems possible, if not probable, that at least one of the individuals who descended from the Díaz-Gutiérrez family is likely to have married a Ladino Coahuiltecan. In any case, many people living in San Antonio during

Only a very small percentage of the hunter-gatherer groups identified by Cabeza de Vaca in the 1530s can be reliably linked to Coahuiltecan groups encountered by French colonizers and Spanish explorers in the late 1680s. Further, only a fraction of the groups seen during the late seventeenth century are well-documented in Spanish Colonial government and missionary records. Early records show considerable overlap in band representation at San Juan and Espada, but it is also clear that Coahuiltecans were well represented at Missions San José and Concepción. The latter two missions were notably more ethnically diverse, however, and included

xix

Linguistic Contexts (Chapter 8)

Apache, Karankawa, Comanche, and possibly Tonkawa, along with representatives of many other groups who remain unidentified as to language or ethnicity. Other groups are known to have occupied the region as well including the Wichita and Kiowa.

Through the years, there has been considerable debate among linguists about the nature and classification of the Coahuiltecan language family and the Coahuilteco language itself. While there is agreement that Coahuilteco was once spoken, there are no known speakers today and all of the languages spoken by native south Texas Indians are poorly documented in historical records. It is becoming widely accepted that during the pre-Columbian era, Coahuilteco dialects (as a first language) may not have been spoken as extensively in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico as was once believed and that several very different languages were spoken in the region as well. With the coming of the Europeans and the onset of the Spanish Colonial era, however, Coahuilteco appears to have become a lingua franca for the region. In other words, the fact that many people spoke Coahuilteco dialects in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries probably tells us more about Spanish Colonial history and the missionization process than it does about pre-Columbian ethnic and cultural affiliation.

By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Indian people who remained affiliated with the missions and churches in the San Antonio area probably represented several ethnically and linguistically diverse groups, but were still decidedly geographic Coahuiltecan in character. Of course, other survivors undoubtedly found their way into what would become mission, rural, and other urban communities in south Texas and northeastern Mexico where they often worked as laborers. As Native Americans moved through the missionization process and toward what was essentially citizenship, their ethnicity changed as reported in church and government records. These records suggest a tendency to list a given individual as having less Indian affiliation through time as she/he presumably became more integrated into the non-Indian community. In any case, by the late 1790s there was a marked decline in the proportion of Indians relative to non-Indians, mulattos, and mestizos.

Although new rounds of linguistic research are underway, there remains little consensus about which languages can be included under the rubric and whether Coahuiltecan is a legitimate language family. Representatives of the American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions, the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan are among those working to compile new information about languages spoken by geographically defined Coahuiltecans.

Between 1824 and 1895, most of the Spanish surnames on the church registry were replaced by the names of Catholic immigrants from Alsace, Germany, France, Italy, and elsewhere. From the mid-1900s to the present, however, Spanish surnames again increased in number. Today the San Juan community is represented most strongly by its Hispanic heritage, although Catholic Euroamericans have remained a significant component of the community.

xx

Tonkawa) for pre-contact era native peoples who lived in southern Texas.

Archaeological Contexts (Chapter 9) Archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan began during the Depression Era and continue to the present. Mardith Schuetz excavated three cemetery areas within the compound in the late 1960s and early 1970s and argued that many of the burials and most of the Native American artifacts represented Coahuiltecan populations. Subsequently, Thomas Hester and others working in south Texas related artifacts and archaeological sites dating to the Late Prehistoric period and earlier to Coahuiltecan populations.

Bioarchaeological Contexts (Chapter 10) A primary goal of the 1967 archaeological excavation of Mission San Juan's unfinished church was the recovery of a sample of skeletal remains that would be representative of extinct (i.e., aboriginal or neo-organized) Coahuiltecans. Analysis of recovered remains and associated funerary objects revealed, however, that most the people had been buried at this location between the 1760s and the 1790s, and perhaps as late as the early 1800s. Several of the interments represented individuals whose bodies had been reburied. Most of the human remains were clearly those of Indians, arguably geographical Coahuiltecans, but others represented a population that had already undergone miscegenation (i.e., Ladino Coahuiltecans). Human remains recovered from the floor of the extant church in 1969 were interpreted as representative of a racially mixed population characteristic of the late Colonial and early Post-Colonial periods (1780s1860s).

In general, archaeological research reveals that elements of pre-contact ceramic and chipped-stone technologies continued to be employed by native people after they entered Spanish missions in the 1700s. Leon Plain, the primary Late Prehistoric ceramic type in south Texas, continued to be made by Indians after contact with Europeans and is virtually identical to native ceramics found in a mission context and known as Goliad Ware or simply “Coahuiltecan ceramics.” Guerrero arrow points, a plain triangular form made from chipped stone and sometimes chipped glass, have been equated with Coahuiltecan use in Texas and northern Mexico. Numerous examples of Goliad Ware and Guerrero points have been recovered at Mission San Juan.

Excavations in 1971 at the site of the first stone church, in use between about 1756 and sometime in the late 1780s, revealed additional burials that were left in place. The presence of numerous empty grave pits was interpreted as evidence that their contents had been exhumed and reburied elsewhere, presumably in conjunction with desanctifying the original burial site. Based on ages of funerary objects associated with the graves and church records, some of these burials undoubtedly dated to Mission San Juan's early Colonial Period (ca.1731-1750s) and were probably associated with the original jacal church.

Historically known Coahuiltecospeaking peoples of south Texas may represent what one researcher calls latterday Toyah people, who were represented in part by Leon Plain ceramics. In spite of links between the material culture of mission Indians and sites dating to the Late Prehistoric period, most researchers today hesitate to identify a specific cultural affiliation (e.g., Coahuiltecan, Karankawa,

xxi

THC noted that Coahuiltecans were not among the federally recognized tribes and encouraged Native American groups to address issues of federal recognition. NPS maintained, in accordance with NAGPRA’s provisions, that: (1) the remains and funerary objects had been recovered prior to NPS assuming any management control; (2) they never had legal possession of remains and funerary objects from the mission compound, due to their management agreement with the Church; and (3) accordingly, reburial issues were beyond NPS’ purview. By the mid- 1990s, the State had relinquished its claim to the human remains and recognized that ownership and legal control rested with the Catholic Church. The Church maintained its position that the reburial issue was not NAGPRArelated and that only the Archdiocese had standing to seek the return of the remains from UTSA and that it would continue to do so.

Of all the examined human remains from Mission San Juan, those from the vicinity of the first stone church are the most likely to have included neo-organized Coahuiltecans who entered the mission from the “wilderness” prior to 1750. It is also possible that the remains of a female Native American discovered along a proposed drainage ditch southwest of the mission compound in 1999 are representative of neoorganized Coahuiltecans or perhaps aboriginal Coahuiltecans. However, most recent bioarchaeological studies of the San Juan remains tend to minimize a “Coahuiltecan” connection and emphasize the heterogeneous nature of the mission's Native American skeletal population. Conclusions about NAGPRA and Related Issues at Mission San Juan Questions about lineal descent, cultural affiliation, and the scientific importance of human remains recovered in the late 1960s from Mission San Juan were raised once again in 1986. It was then that the San Antonio Archdiocese expressed its intent to THC to rebury the human remains that had been recovered during Schuetz’ excavations. THC maintained that comprehensive analyses still needed to be undertaken and recommended that questions about final disposition of the remains should be discussed by representatives of the Archdiocese, UTSA (where the remains were then held), the State Archaeologist’s Office (part of THC), NPS, and any direct descendants of the deceased. Additional bioarchaeological studies were undertaken during the late 1980s and 1990s. NAGPRA was passed in 1990. Efforts by local Native American groups to claim repatriation rights were initially tied to NAGPRA, but it soon became clear that this case was not a NAGPRA issue.

NAGPRA-related opinions and interpretations in this subsection are consistent with information provided by NPS personnel, including Alexa Roberts and Virginia Salazar of the Santa Fe office and Jason Roberts of the Washington D.C. office. Synthesis and interpretation of the information compiled for the present project allows the following conclusions:

xxii

•

NAGPRA applies to human remains and associated funerary objects discovered on NPS-owned land at Mission at San Juan, subsequent to its enactment in 1990. In such cases, NAGPRA regulations (43CFR10) should be followed explicitly.

•

The Catholic Church contends that NAGPRA is not applicable to Native American remains and associated

associated funerary objects from Mission San Juan. This is because all burials found to date represent remains of unknown individuals to whom lineal descent has not been traced in a manner that meets NAGPRA’s definition of lineal descendant. Although some of the remains have undergone DNA analysis, the results have not been applied to issues of lineal descent. For the present time, the situation is somewhat analogous to a mass grave wherein the names of some individuals buried therein are known, but none of the individual remains has been identified as a known person. However, DNA or similar studies may identify individual Native Americans interred at the mission, as well as their direct lineal descendants among today’s population. To the extent that such studies are successful, the door would be open to NAGPRA-related repatriation under a claim(s) of lineal descent, assuming that such action would be consistent with Church ownership and legal possession of the remains and funerary objects.

funerary objects from Mission San Juan that are in its legal possession. The Act does apply, however, to any museum, agency, or institution that received federal funding. The Church also maintains that it is not a federal repository, therefore NAGPRA does not apply to human remains and associated funerary objects from the mission. Skeletal remains and related objects recovered from Church-owned property at Mission San Juan indeed have been “held” at repository facilities covered by the Act (i.e., UTSA and SAAN). However, the Archdiocese of San Antonio maintains that these remains and items are “on loan” from the Church. As such, the Act does not appear to apply in this case because neither UTSA nor SAAN can be said to be in legal possession of human remains and funerary items that were on loan from another entity. •

•

Establishment of cultural affiliation under provision of NAGPRA is not directly applicable to human remains or associated funerary objects from San Juan that are attributable to geographic Coahuiltecans because Coahuiltecans, by any name, are not among the federally recognized tribes. Recently, however, a federally recognized group, the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, granted the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation a sponsor relationship. As such, it appears to open a cultural-affiliation door, albeit indirectly, to human remains and funerary objects recovered from Mission San Juan that can be attributed to geographically defined Coahuiltecans.

•

NAGPRA’s lineal-descent component is not yet applicable to human remains or

xxiii

Lineal descent from geographically defined Coahuiltecans is probable. The present study demonstrates that there are indeed living descendants of San Juan’s eighteenth and early-nineteenth century community members. Among those are the descendants of Santiago Díaz and Maria Josefa Gutiérrez. However, no member of the immediate DíazGutiérrez family was identified as being from a particular band of mission Indians, although each was, at one time or another, listed as mestizos y mulattos (i.e., part Indian) as well as Spaniards. In short, a preponderance of evidence indicates a strong likelihood that there are people living today who descended

are underway to renew them. The strongest tie that seems to bind some present-day community members to mission Indians, by whatever name, is their keen sense of a deeply rooted Native American heritage. Seen in this light, cultural affiliation is quite probable and as such this linkage is also consistent with the spirit of NAGPRA.

from San Juan’s eighteenth and nineteenth century residents who would fall under the rubrics of geographic and Ladino Coahuiltecans, as defined herein. Seen from this perspective, lineal descent is applicable to the spirit of NAGPRA. In any case, our research has opened doors to further research that may yet trace descendants of San Antonio’s known mission Indians to a known neophyte at a particular mission. •

Recommendations for Management and Additional Research

Cultural affiliation is probable between segments of the contemporary San Juan community (e.g., the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan) and the inhabitants of the mission at the time of the burials in question, including geographic Coahuiltecans. For example, “threatening” behavior was reportedly used to chase away stormy weather by sixteenth century geographic Coahuiltecans and twentieth century members of the San Juan community. There may also be important religious ties, although this topic was not addressed by the present study. Nonetheless, some of today’s community members are members of Native American groups, termed resurgent Coahuiltecans herein, as well as the Native American Church wherein peyote plays a strong role in religious ceremonies as it did in various Indian ceremonies witnessed by Catholic priests throughout the Spanish Colonial era. There are also links, including pottery and lithic traditions, which tie Ladino Coahuiltecans to identifiable earlier Coahuiltecan groups. No evidence was found to indicate that these traditions continue to be carried out by members of present-day Native American groups associated with the mission, but efforts

xxiv

•

SAAN representatives should continue to expand their consultation with Native American groups: (1) American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions, Inc.; (2) the Tap Pilam–Coahuiltecan Nation; (3) the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan; (4) the Lipan Apache Band of Texas; (5) the Tribal Council of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas; (6) Tonkawa Tribe, Tonkawa, Oklahoma; and (7) the Erab ChoctawApache Tribe, Zwolle, Louisiana. Other groups and individuals with potential interests should be sought out as well, including the Caddo, Mescalero Apache, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Comanche, and Kiowa, all of whom are known to have occupied territory in the vicinity of Mission San Juan during the historic era.

•

Future research efforts should include implementation of Mardith Schuetz’ call in 1968 for a major study to identify, locate, and gather oral histories from individuals who trace their ancestry to San Juan’s mission Indians, as well as other people of Native American lineage who lived there during the Spanish Colonial period. Most of the older descendants she met 30 years ago have

purposes. Chroniclers of the Spanish Colonial era documented the importance of peyote in the mitotes, or ceremonies, among native people throughout much of south Texas. One of the individuals interviewed for the present project reported having grandparents who “would have their peyote ceremonies.” Within the last decade, Native American Church ceremonies that traditionally incorporate the use of peyote have been held at Mission San Juan.

since died, but their descendants may still reside in the area and provide sources of additional information about the values and concerns of people traditionally associated with the mission. •

•

•

Lineal descent can also be traced by beginning with individuals identified in Spanish Colonial records and tracing them through the centuries to their present-day descendants. Toward that end, genealogical investigations should be undertaken of individual Indians identified in San Juan’s secularization records, as well as of Indians identified in the records from other San Antonio Missions, especially Concepción and San José, where the records are more complete and the mission Indian populations were larger.

•

Lineal descent and cultural affiliation studies at other missions would be greatly facilitated by the availability of detailed historical reports for each mission. Of the literature reviewed for the present project, Rosalind Rock’s comprehensive history of Mission San Juan was especially important. It revealed details not found in other sources, including information about Indian groups who came to live there, recruiting expeditions to the coast and off-shore islands, the difficulties of maintaining Indian populations, and the relationships among Indians at different missions in south Texas and northeast Mexico.

Efforts should also be undertaken to assess Mardith Schuetz’ suggestions that cemeteries dating to the Spanish Colonial era may be located within the presently enclosed area south of the unfinished church and in the entire plaza area associated with the first stone church. Judging from the recent discovery of a Native American burial well to the southwest of the compound, along the NPS-Church property line, there may be other burials on NPSowned properties as well. Remote sensing techniques, including subsurface interface radar, should be explored as a means to identify burial sites. It may be necessary, however, to conduct exploratory excavations to verify the presence of graves and firmly establish the aerial extent of any identified cemeteries. Organization of the Report

Chapter 1 establishes a research context for the study, outlines the general nature of the debate surrounding Coahuiltecan extinction and how it relates to NAGPRA issues of lineal descent and cultural affiliation, and summarizes the project’s own history. Chapter 2 establishes a historical context for reassessing Coahuiltecan extinction. Chapter 3

Another avenue for future research regarding links between mission Indians, or other Indians who lived at the mission, and their present-day descendants, is the role of peyote in religious ceremonies and for other xxv

Juan that are or were (prior to the reburial of human remains in November 1999) held at the Center for Archaeological Research, the University of Texas at San Antonio; (B) table listing the cultural materials from Mission San Juan that are or were (prior to the reburial of human remains in November 1999) housed at SAAN facilities; (C) annotated bibliography of sources pertaining to Coahuiltecans and San Antonio’s mission Indians; (D) sample questionnaire used by Cohen as a guide for the interviews he conducted; (E) relevant transcriptions of the interviews with four individuals who trace their ancestry to mission Indians; (F) list of names and addresses of individuals and groups consulted; (G) list of other individuals and groups knowledgeable of traditional history and who are potentially interested in being considered for future consultation by authorized park personnel; and (H) copies of selected letters and documents pertaining to potential NAGPRA issues and related recognition issues at Mission San Juan.

documents how descendants of San Antonio’s mission Indians have been presented in popular and tourist-based literature since the midnineteenth century. Interviews with four individuals who trace their ancestry to mission Indians are summarized and analyzed in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 provides photographs of these individuals, as well as descriptions of the project’s photographic component. Genealogical research, which hoped to link one of today’s residents to those who resided at the San Juan mission during the late Spanish Colonial period, is discussed in Chapter 6. Overviews of ethnohistoric, linguistic, archaeological, and bioarchaeological data pertaining to Coahuiltecans are provided in Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Chapter 11 summarizes and evaluates the project’s findings and their potential to address NAGPRA issues of lineal descent and cultural affiliation that may apply to Mission San Juan. Appendices included at the back of this report include the following: (A) table listing cultural materials from Mission San

xxvi

Chapter 1: Introduction – Page 1

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION TO A LINEAL DESCENT AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION STUDY FOR MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, TEXAS Alston V. Thoms Mission San Juan Capistrano was founded in 1731 along the banks of the San Antonio River and astride the Caminos Reales—Royal Roads—that linked Mexico City with frontier posts and missions in east Texas and Louisiana. By that time there were four other missions established nearby along the San Antonio River: Missions Valero, Concepción, San José, and Espada (Figure 1). These missions, their Franciscan clergy, and their support staff, including artisans hired from interior Mexico, functioned to transform Native Americans, mostly hunter-gatherers, into productive Spanish citizens who served the Crown as farmers, skilled laborers, and artisans and became practitioners of the Catholic faith (Rock 1999). Most of the San Antonio missions maintained their “missionization” role through the early 1800s when final secularization occurred under the auspices of a newly independent Mexican government. Mission San Antonio de Valero—the Alamo—was secularized and closed in the late 1700s. Missions San Juan, Concepción, San José, and Espada continued to function in one fashion or another as Catholic churches, serving increasingly ethnically diverse communities to the present day. The National Park Service (NPS) now plays a key role in the management of Mission San Juan in cooperation with the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. Their joint-management role began in 1978 when Missions San Juan, Concepción, San José,

and Espada became part of the new San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (SAAN). The church owns the mission compound itself and shares management responsibilities with SAAN. Most of the adjacent property is now owned and managed solely by SAAN, although the City of San Antonio owns and operates the public streets and the San Antonio River Authority owns and manages the river (Figure 2). To effectively manage cultural and natural resources under its jurisdiction at Mission San Juan, NPS needed to understand the values and concerns of Native Americans and other contemporary communities traditionally associated with the mission (SAAN 1998). Toward that end, several historical-research and interview projects have been initiated in recent years (Rock 1999). The present study focuses on Native American peoples who traditionally lived and worked at Mission San Juan and in the surrounding community. Its primary objective is to provide baseline information to the SAAN for future consultation with Native American groups regarding implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA, Public Law, 101-601; Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990). It is important to note from the outset that all Indian people known to have been missionized at San Juan have long been grouped by academic researchers under a Native American rubric of “Coahuiltecan” (Campbell and Campbell 1996; Schuetz 1980a, 1980b).

Page 2 – Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1. Map showing the locations of Spanish Colonial missions, the villa, presidio, and roads in the San Antonio area (after Ahlborn 1985:18).

NAGPRA’s potential applicability to Mission San Juan stems from archaeological excavations conducted within the mission compound in 1967, 1969, and 1971. Those investigations resulted in the removal, study, and curation of skeletal remains and associated funerary objects presumed to be those of aboriginal and/or missionized Coahuiltecans (Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980b). Until it can be demonstrated that Native Americans of non-Coahuiltecan affiliation were present at Mission San Juan and that their remains are potentially buried there, NAGPRA inventories and related research at the mission probably need not look very far beyond the native hunter-gatherer populations known collectively as Coahuiltecans. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park funded this project and wrote its scope of work entitled “Lineal Descent and Cultural Affiliation Study, San Juan Mission” (SAAN

1998). The study was carried out by staff and consultants at the Center for Ecological Archaeology (CEA), Texas A&M University, College Station. Initial work began in February 1999, although most of the research was undertaken between June 1999 and June 2000. Draft versions of this report were submitted to SAAN for review and comment in August 2000 and June 2001. The final report was submitted in August 2001. As noted, the study’s primary objective is to provide baseline information to SAAN for future consultation with Native American groups regarding implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Importantly, this study also provides information that enables other cultural groups whose roots may stem from Mission San Juan to better establish their connected ancestry. Project results will be


fR

National Parks Service

.P . ad ilro Ra

Gr a

dA

y Roa d

an

d.

S .A

Ashle

City of San Antonio Archdiocese of San Antonio

660 ft

0

200m

ho r

ity

0

er

a in ad Ro

Ri v

la m

Mission San Juan Compound

Sa

n

Ant onio

t

V il

Au

San Juan Acequia

Figure 2. Map of Mission San Juan and vicinity showing properties owned by SAAN, the Catholic Church, and other entities (modified from property map provided by SAAN).

used to assist park management in understanding community values about park resources, presenting accurate interpretative programs, and making decisions about the park’s culturally significant resources. Scope of Work As per the project’s scope of work (SAAN 1998), CEA’s proposal (Thoms 1998), and research strategies outlined in quarterly progress reports submitted to SAAN, the project’s research team was required to perform the following duties: •

Inventory potentially NAGPRA-related items from Mission San Juan that are held in collections at the University of Texas in San Antonio and at NPS headquarters in San Antonio (see Appendices A and B, respectively).

•

Conduct a lineal descent and cultural affiliation study for Mission San Juan that includes: (1) archaeological, historical, ethnographic/ethnohistoric, and linguistic overviews, especially pertaining to Coahuiltecans and other Indian groups (see Chapters 2, 3, 7-10); (2) annotated bibliographies for San Juan covering archaeology, ethnography, ethnohistory, linguistics, missions, physical anthropology, and historical and censusrelated data (see Appendix C); (3) a detailed genealogy of at least one family with a strong potential as lineal descendants of a mission Indian family (see Chapter 6); (4) interviews to obtain oral history information with representatives of four families with a strong potential as lineal descendants (see Chapter 4 and Appendices D-G); and (5) photographs of individuals who were


interviewed and their family members as appropriate (see Chapter 5). •

Develop baseline research for Coahuiltecan groups, including: (1) an annotated bibliography of pertinent sources (Appendix C includes these and other bibliographic annotations for overall study); (2) summaries of the current status of research on Coahuiltecans and related issues of direct lineal descent and cultural affiliation (see all chapters and Appendix H).

•

Evaluate the study’s findings for its utility in implementation of NAGPRA regulations for determining lineal descent and cultural affiliation, as per 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 Section 10.14 (see Chapters 1 and 11).

•

Present the project’s research methods and results in a final report (i.e., the present volume). Project Personnel

The research team for this project included the report’s four primary authors (see below), as well as Patricia A. Clabaugh (CEA collections manager), who inventoried the cultural materials from Mission San Juan and prepared the tables presented in Appendices A and B. Charlotte E. Donald and J. Bryan Mason, as well as Jennifer L. Logan and Adán Benavides, Jr., prepared the annotated bibliography (Appendix C). In addition, Mason assisted with computergenerated maps and charts. Julia M. Gottshall assisted in proofreading the draft reports and making editorial corrections. Final editing was undertaken by personnel at the Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University. During the course of this project, Clabaugh, Donald, Gottshall, Logan, and Mason were graduate students in the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M University and CEA staff members.

Alston V. Thoms, director of CEA and faculty member in the Department of Anthropology, served as the project’s principal investigator, wrote the historical overview (Chapter 2) and synthesized the evidence for lineal descent and cultural affiliation (Chapter 11). He first worked as an archaeologist in south Texas in the mid-1970s when he led a survey team at what would become Choke Canyon Reservoir on the Nueces River. His work during the 1990s as director of a large-scale interdisciplinary cultural resources project on the Medina River a few miles south of San Antonio brought him into contact with members of several Native American groups. These included the San Antonio Council of Native Americans, the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions, and the Coahuiltecan Nation. Adán Benavides, Jr. is the Assistant to the Head Librarian for Research Programs for the Benson Latin American Collection at the University of Texas in Austin. He also works as an historical research consultant and translator of Spanish Colonial documents. He conducted the genealogical research for this project (Chapter 6). His research verified lineal descent between individuals interviewed for this project and Santiago Díaz, an alcalde (chief justice or mayor of a villa) at Mission San Juan. Benavides worked in the early 1970s as an historian for the San Antonio Mission Parkway project. He is well known as the compiler and editor of The Béxar Archives, 1717-1836: A Name Guide (1989) that includes more than 8,000 names that appear in the calendar of the Béxar Archives. Jeffrey H. Cohen, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University (formerly at Texas A&M), served as the project’s cultural anthropologist. He conducted interviews with individuals who trace their ancestry to mission Indians and he


prepared the chapter on oral-history narratives (Chapter 4). His research focus is on indigenous populations in southern Mexico, especially their cultural resource management programs and how, through migration, some groups have been incorporated into global market systems. His recently published book is entitled Cooperation and Community: Economy and Society in Oaxaca (1999). D. Gentry Steele, a well-known professional photographer and a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M, served as the project’s photographer. For the present project, he photographed the 1999 San Juan/Berg’s Mill reunion as well as the individuals and family members who participated in the interviews. His photographs and commentary are presented in Chapter 5. His previous photographic works include Land of the Desert Sun: Texas’ Big Bend Country (1998). He also advised us on bioarchaeological issues. As a bioarchaeologist at Texas A&M, he conducts skeletal-biology studies of North American hunters and gatherers, particularly the earliest Americans. His research includes an overview of bioarchaeological studies in the central, south, and lower Pecos regions of Texas (Steele and Olive 1989:93-114; Reinhard, Olive, and Steele 1989:129-140; Hester and Steele 1989:141-142). He also advised several graduate students whose master’s theses entailed analysis of skeletal remains from Mission San Juan. Jennifer L. Logan, a graduate student in the Department of Anthropology and a CEA staff member, served as the project’s primary research assistant. She prepared the overviews on popular literature, ethnohistory, linguistics, archaeology, and bioarchaeology (Chapters 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively). She also assisted in proofreading and editing the first draft version of the present report. Her archaeological experience includes field and laboratory work in south, central, and east

Texas. Ms. Logan’s master’s thesis is closely related to many of the issues in the present project and is entitled A Tangled Web: The Role of Material and Ideational Definitions of Culture in Evaluating Coahuiltecan Cultural Change. Dr. Thoms served as her committee chair and advisor. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY AND CONTACTS SAAN notified CEA on September 4, 1998, that it had been selected to conduct the lineal descent and cultural affiliation study for Mission San Juan. On September 10, 1998, Alston V. Thoms, met with Rosalind Z. Rock (Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative) and other representatives of SAAN to discuss CEA’s proposed work plan. It was agreed that CEA would obtain interview-based lineal descent and cultural affiliation information from representatives of two groups, the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM) and the San Juan/Berg’s Mill Catholic Men’s Club. Other individuals and groups, however, would be afforded opportunities to provide information as well. CEA finalized and submitted its proposal to SAAN on September 17, 1998. Following several months of negotiations concerning intellectual property rights, access to collected data, and ownership of documents, a contract to conduct the study was signed in January 1999 by Texas A&M and SAAN. In early February 1999, Thoms wrote to the presidents of AIT-SCM and the Men’s Club to request a meeting on February 20 with interested members of each group, especially representatives of families likely to have long histories at Mission San Juan and/or nearby Mission Espada. Dr. Rock helped arrange a separate meeting with a representative of the Catholic Church, Father Larry Brumer, a former parish priest at


Mission San Juan who was then serving at Mission Espada. We met with Father Brumer as scheduled and briefed him on the study. We also held a preliminary work session with Dr. Rock on February 19 to explain our plans for the February 20 meeting at Slattery Hall (San Juan’s parish hall) and discuss the overall project. About 20 representatives of AIT-SCM and the Men’s Club decided to meet together at Slattery Hall on February 20. As it turned out, both groups recognized Mickey Killian as the community member most knowledgeable about Native American ancestry issues. They jointly recommended him as their liaison to identify individuals of Indian ancestry most likely to have long histories at San Juan. For the meetings on February 19 and 20, Thoms presented a project overview and Cohen explained the protocol for conducting interviews with four to six individuals who trace their ancestry to Indian people who lived at the mission during the Spanish Colonial period. Benavides discussed how he would review archives and conduct a detailed genealogical study of an individual whose family is comparatively well-documented in church and other historical records. Father Brumer and representatives of AIT-SCM and the Men’s Club were provided with: (1) spiral-bound copies of selected documents, including CEA’s proposal, the contract summary; (2) copies of regulations for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; and (3) a list of more than 90 bibliographic references pertaining to Indian people at Mission San Juan and vicinity. Our research team was well received by Father Brumer and all the San Juan community members who attended the meeting at Slattery Hall. It should be noted, however, that community members expressed several concerns in particular: (1) over the

last 30 years archaeological and bioarchaeological studies were undertaken at the mission, but it is only recently that copies of the final reports and theses were made available to the community; (2) there had been too few open meetings with community members to explain the needs for these projects or their results; and (3) the “government” has a long history of forcing its will on the community, including matters pertaining to the establishment of a nearby air base in the 1940s, re-channeling the San Antonio River in the 1960s, and creation of SAAN in the 1970s (also see Chapter 4 and Appendix E). On April 15, 1999, Thoms met at Park headquarters in San Antonio with Park Superintendent Stephen Whitesell, Contracting Officer Wayne Owens, Chief of Professional Services Mark Chavez, and Dr. Rock to review and discuss the project’s draft methodological proposal, including a procedural strategy for reviewing literature and conducting interviews. At that time, we also submitted a draft letter for the superintendent’s signature that addressed the project’s purposes and goals, and was intended for receipt by potential affiliated communities, individuals, and data sources. Park personnel, primarily Dr. Rock, reviewed the submitted information and returned copies with SAAN’s comments to us on April 28, 1999. We revised the procedural-strategy document and proceeded accordingly. Our project protocol was also reviewed and approved by Texas A&M University’s Institutional Review Board-Human Subjects in Research. Thoms, Cohen, Steele, Clabaugh, and Logan attended the Berg’s Mill Reunion at Mission San Juan Capistrano on April 18, 1999. The reunion afforded an opportunity to visit with individuals we had met at Slattery Hall in February and, in turn, they introduced us to other community members who have


historical roots at San Juan. We also made plans to meet in June with individuals who might be interviewed. On June 22, 1999, Cohen and Logan met with Mickey Killian, Enrique Flores, Guadalupe Gaitán, Janie Garza, Rebecca Stuart, and other community members at Slattery Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to meet some of the people identified by Mr. Killian who trace their ancestry to Indian people who lived at Mission San Juan. Plans were made to begin formal interviews by early July. Throughout the two and a half year course of this project, the research team continued to discuss issues of lineal descent and cultural affiliation among themselves, as well as with their colleagues, members of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community, and other people with vested interests in the project. This was necessary not only to establish good working relationships, but it kept us apprised of community, professional, and managerial politics that encompassed the project. In doing so, we encountered individuals and groups likely to have important information about the issues at hand, but whom we were unable to include in the project in a meaningful fashion due to monetary limitations and time constraints. Among those was Daniel Castro Romero, Jr., general council chairman of the Lipan Apache Band of Texas, a group that filed a Letter of Intent to Petition for federal acknowledgment with the BIA on May 26, 1999 (United States Department of Interior 2000). The first quarterly report submitted to NPS included a statement expressing concerns that efforts to obtain detailed information about family histories and oral traditions may be thwarted by an ongoing law suit(s) between representatives of the Men’s Club and the Catholic Church. While details about the lawsuit remained unknown, we felt

its effects insofar as some community members seemed reluctant to talk freely with our research team members because they mistakenly perceived SAAN as being linked with the church in managing church-owned property and resolving church issues. While researchers continued to operate effectively within the community, it was under conditions that were less than ideal. Work carried out from July 1 through October 31, 1999, included: (1) interviews with individuals who trace their family histories to Mission San Juan and, in particular, to Indians known or suspected to be affiliated with the mission in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; (2) inventory of archaeological collections recovered from Mission San Juan; (3) further review of studies carried out on skeletal remains from church-floor burials at the mission; and (4) additional documentation of the multicultural nature of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community. From November 1999 through February 2000 the following work was accomplished: (1) transcription and synthesis of interview data from four individuals who trace their family histories to Mission San Juan and, in particular, to Native Americans; (2) initiation of genealogical research to determine whether direct lineal descent can be demonstrated from mission Indians in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries to present-day community members; (3) review of archaeological literature relevant to Mission San Juan; (4) compilation of additional ethnographic information about Coahuiltecans and mission Indians in south Texas; and (5) attendance of the reburial ceremony held at Mission San Juan in November 1999. Work conducted from March 2000 through August 2000 included: (1) copy editing the transcriptions of interviews with four individuals who trace their family


histories to Mission San Juan; (2) completion of genealogical research to determine whether direct lineal descent from Santiago Díaz, a San Juan alcalde in 1817 can be demonstrated for several families in the modern San Juan community; (3) transcription and review of the hand-written archaeological report (Schuetz 1980b) on excavation of the early mission’s convento area in 1971; (4) photographic documentation of four members of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community who trace their ancestry to the community and who were interviewed as part of the present project; (5) completion and submission of the annotated bibliography pertaining to mission history and especially Coahuiltecans and other mission Indians in south Texas; and (6) in-house editing and revising the draft report. A preliminary draft report was submitted to NPS for review and comment in late August 2000. Written comments were received from NPS on October 30, 2000. Telephone discussions were subsequently held with the reviewers at SAAN (Mr. Chavez and Dr. Rock) and with Alexa Roberts, NPS Anthropologist with the Cultural Resources and National Register Services Program in Santa Fe who also reviewed and commented on the preliminary draft. Thoms met with SAAN personnel— Mr. Chavez, Dr. Rock, and Susan Snow (the new Park Archaeologist)—in November to discuss review comments and make plans for submission of the final draft report. Telephone discussions about NAGPRA’s applicability to skeletal remains and funerary objects from Mission San Juan where held in December between Thoms and Virginia Salazar (NPS NAGPRA specialist in Santa Fe) and Jason Roberts (NPS lawyer and NAGPRA specialist in the Washington D.C. office). Information derived from conversations with Ms. Salazar, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Roberts led to the concepts and interpretations presented later in this chapter under the heading “NAGPRA’s Applicability

to Mission San Juan” as well as in Chapter 11. A revised final draft was submitted to SAAN in early June 2001 for a second round of review and comments. CEA responded to comments and modified the final draft accordingly. A final report was printed and submitted to SAAN in November 2001. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND NAGPRA COMPLIANCE Two closely related research objectives characterize the present project: (1) provide information that assists the NPS in understanding the values and concerns of American Indians associated with the mission; and (2) provide baseline information for conducting NAGPRA-specific consultations with Indian groups likely to have been associated with Mission San Juan. The first objective is straightforward enough, but the second one requires a basic understanding of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, better known as NAGPRA. Regulations for NAGPRA implementation include detailed definitions and criteria for determining lineal descent and cultural affiliation (United States Department of the Interior 1999). Elements of the following discussions are expanded in the other chapters, but it is important to provide a context about the diversity of opinions that exist concerning the issues at hand. NAGPRA Clauses and Definitions The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 is intended to ensure that federally recognized tribes are afforded an opportunity to have ownership and control of the remains of their ancestors. The Act also ensures that recognized tribes are afforded an opportunity to have ownership


and control of associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. NAGPRA affords protection for Indian gravesites and cemeteries on federal and tribal lands. It contains provisions instructing public and private museums, universities, and other institutions that receive federal funding to undertake the following: (1) inventory their holdings of Native American remains and NAGPRA-related objects; (2) consult with Indian groups and representatives of museums and the scientific community; and (3) based on findings of lineal descent or probable cultural affiliation, repatriate human remains and funerary objects to the appropriate lineal descendant(s) or culturally affiliated Indian tribe (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990). NAGPRA’s requirements for an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects include the statement that: Each Federal agency and each museum which has possession or control over holdings or collections of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects shall compile an inventory of such items and, to the extent possible based on information possessed by such museum or Federal agency, identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of such items [Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990:3053].

The Act further stipulates return or repatriation of remains and certain objects held by federal agencies and museums: if...the cultural affiliation of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects with a particular Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is established, then the Federal agency or museum, upon request of a known lineal descendant of the Native American or of the tribe or Native Hawaiian organization...shall expeditiously return such remains and funerary objects

[Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990:3051].

There are also specific clauses in NAGPRA pertaining to ownership of Native American human remains and objects found after 1990: (a) The ownership or control of Native American cultural items which are excavated or discovered on Federal or tribal lands after the date of enactment [1990] of this Act shall be (with priority given in the order listed)— (1) in the case of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects, in the lineal descendants of the Native American; or (2) in any case in which such lineal descendants cannot be ascertained, and in the case of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony— (A) in the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization on whose tribal land such objects or remains were discovered; (B) in the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization which has the closest cultural affiliation with such remains or objects and which, upon notice, states a claim for such remains or objects; or (C) if the cultural affiliation of the objects cannot be reasonably ascertained and if the objects were discovered on Federal land that is recognized by a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the United States Court of Claims as the aboriginal land of some Indian tribe— (1) in the Indian tribe that is recognized as aboriginally occupying the area in which the objects were discovered, if upon notice, such tribe states a claim for such remains or objects, or (2) if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a different tribe has a stronger cultural relationship with the remains or objects than the tribe or organization specified in paragraph (1), in the Indian tribe that has the strongest demonstrated relationship, if upon notice, such tribe states a claim for such remains or objects [Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990:3051].


NAGPRA also provides definitions to key terms used in the Act. Among the definitions especially important to the present project are: • “Federal agency” means any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. Such term does not include the Smithsonian Institution. • “Federal lands” means any land other than tribal lands which are controlled or owned by the United States, including lands selected by but not yet conveyed to Alaska Native Corporations and groups organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. • “Indian tribe” means any tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians (emphasis added). • “Museum” means any institution or State or local government agency (including any institution of higher learning) that receives Federal funds and has possession of, or control over, Native American cultural items. Such term does not include the Smithsonian Institution or any other Federal agency. • “Native American” means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States. • “Right of possession” means possession obtained with the voluntary consent of an individual or group that had authority of alienation. The original acquisition of a Native American unassociated funerary object, sacred object or object of cultural patrimony from an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with the voluntary consent of an individual or group with authority to alienate such object is deemed to give right of possession of that object, unless the phrase so defined would, as applied in section 7(c), result in a Fifth Amendment taking by the United States as determined by the United States Claims

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1491 in which event the “right of possession” shall be as provided under otherwise applicable property law. The original acquisition of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects which were excavated, exhumed, or otherwise obtained with full knowledge and consent of the next of kin or the official governing body of the appropriate culturally affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization is deemed to give right of possession to those remains [Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990:3049].

NAGPRA Regulations Regulations for implementing NAGPRA are especially important for the present study. They are formally listed and entitled as Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 43— Public Lands: Interior; Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of the Interior; Part 10—Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999). Section 10.2 of the NAGPRA regulations also contains definitions that are especially pertinent to the present project. • The term “possession” means having physical custody of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony with a sufficient legal interest to lawfully treat the objects as part of its collection for purposes of these regulations. Generally, a museum or Federal agency would not be considered to have possession of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony on loan from another individual, museum, or Federal agency (emphasis added). • The term “control” means having a legal interest in human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony sufficient to lawfully permit the museum or Federal agency to treat the objects as part of its collection for purposes of these regulations whether or not the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural


patrimony are in the physical custody of the museum or Federal agency. Generally, a museum or Federal agency that has loaned human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony to another individual, museum, or Federal agency is considered to retain control of those human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony for purposes of these regulations [U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:195].

tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony of an earlier group:

Subpart 10.14 of the regulations, entitled “Lineal descent and cultural affiliation,” addresses important procedural aspects for NAGPRA. It reads in part:

(2) Evidence of the existence of an identifiable earlier group. Support for this requirement may include, but is not necessarily limited to evidence sufficient to:

(a) General. This section identifies procedures for determining lineal descent and cultural affiliation between present-day individuals and Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations and human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony in museum or Federal agency collections or excavated intentionally or discovered inadvertently from Federal lands. In respect to tribal lands, Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations may also use them. (b) Criteria for determining lineal descent. A lineal descendant is an individual tracing his or her ancestry directly and without interruption by means of the traditional kinship system of the appropriate Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization or by the common law system of descent to a known Native American individual whose remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects are being requested under these regulations. This standard requires that the earlier person be identified as an individual whose descendants can be traced (emphasis added). (c) Criteria for determining cultural affiliation. Cultural affiliation means a relationship of shared group identity that may be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group (emphasis added). All of the following requirements must be met to determine cultural affiliation between a present-day Indian

(1) Existence of an identifiable present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with standing under these regulations and the Act; and

(i) Establish the identity and cultural characteristics of the earlier group,

(ii) Document distinct patterns of material culture manufacture and distribution methods for the earlier group, or

(iii) Establish the existence of the earlier group as a biologically distinct population; and

(3) Evidence of the existence of a shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and the earlier group. Evidence to support this requirement must establish that a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization has been identified from prehistoric or historic times to the present as descending from the earlier group. (d) A finding of cultural affiliation should be based upon an overall evaluation of the totality of the circumstances and evidence pertaining to the connection between the claimant and the material being claimed and should not be precluded solely because of some gaps in the record.


(e) Evidence. Evidence of a kin or cultural affiliation between a present-day individual, Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization and human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony must be established by using the following types of evidence: geographical, kinship, biological, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion. (f) Standard of proof. Lineal descent of a present-day individual from an earlier individual and cultural affiliation of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Claimants do not have to establish cultural affiliation with scientific certainty (emphasis added) [U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:214215].

NAGPRA’S APPLICABILITY TO MISSION SAN JUAN NAGPRA’s potential applicability to Mission San Juan stems from archaeological investigations carried out there in 1967, 1969, and 1971 that resulted in the removal, study, and curation of skeletal remains presumed to be those of aboriginal and/or missionized Coahuiltecans (Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980b). As noted, the NAGPRA-related opinions and interpretations in this subsection, along with related discussions in Chapter 11, are consistent with information by provided NPS personnel, including Alexa Roberts and Virginia Salazar of the Santa Fe office and Jason Roberts of the Washington D.C. office. This subsection also provides information about how two Indian groups—American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions and the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation— have been recognized in the San Juan community, as well as by the Catholic Church and the State of Texas.

Cultural Affiliation At present, there does not appear to be a direct link to NAGPRA-related repatriation under a claim of cultural affiliation (also see Chapter 11). This, in part, is because the Act applies specifically to “federally recognized” tribes and Coahuiltecans are not among the tribes and related organizations recognized by the U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). NAGPRA applies specifically to human remains and associated funerary objects discovered on federal and tribal land after passage of the Act in 1990. The Act also applies to any human remains of funerary objects held in federally funded repositories prior to the Act, even if the repository does not have right of possession. The remains and objects in question here, however, were recovered from church-owned property. Therefore, they are not necessarily covered by the Act due to their non-federal and non-tribal origin. It is important to note here, however, that the Act certainly applies to Native American remains or NAGPRA-related items recovered from NPS-owned property around the mission compound. While Coahuiltecans are not presently among the federally recognized tribes, a potentially affiliated group took the first step in 1997 towards a long and strictly regulated process to obtain federal recognition. The current process was established by the BIA’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Research in 1978, revised in 1994, and became effective on March 25, 1994 (Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Gardner et al. 2000:33-35). On December 3, 1997, the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation submitted a Letter of Intent to Petition to the Assistant SecretaryIndian Affairs of the Department of the Interior. As of April 2000, the group had not submitted supporting documentation, without which the process cannot proceed (United States Department of the Interior 2000). The


Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation maintains close ties and shares members with a San Antonio-based, non-profit organization known as AIT-SCM. In a recent study of cultural affiliation conducted for Fort Sam Houston and Camp Bullis Training Site, both of which are located in the San Antonio area, it was recommended that groups not currently recognized, such as the Coahuiltecans, consult with federally recognized tribes and seek their formal sponsorship. The intent of establishing such a relationship is to afford a formal opportunity for unrecognized tribes to address NAGPRA issues. A precedent for this approach is a Lipan Apache group, not currently recognized as a separate tribe, that established a formal working relationship with the federally recognized Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico (Gardner et al. 2000:112). The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation recently requested and was granted a formal sponsor relationship with the federally recognized Wichita and Affiliated Tribes based in Anadarko, Oklahoma. Its request was based in part on historical evidence that sometime in the late eighteenth century the Wichita Tribe assimilated the Cantona, a Native American group possibly affiliated with Coahuiltecans (Gardner et al. 2000:4246). The resolution noted “that the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes hereby sponsor the participation of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation in all official and appropriate matters involving their traditional homeland to include properties owned and controlled by the U.S. Government” (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 2000; Appendix H). This resolution may well open a door, albeit indirectly, to NAGPRA’s applicability to human remains and funerary objects recovered from Mission San Juan.

Lineal Descent Neither does there, as yet, appear to be a direct link to NAGPRA-related repatriation under a claim of lineal descent. In this case, lack of a direct link is due to the fact that none of the human remains recovered during the excavations in question has been identified by name or as a specific individual. Said differently, lineal descent, as per NAGPRA, must be traced to a known Native American. All of the excavated human remains from Mission San Juan, including those classified as Native Americans, are as yet unidentified. Although some of the remains have undergone DNA analysis (see Chapter 10), the results have not been applied to issues of lineal descent. As discussed later in the text (see Chapters 2, 9-11), skeletal remains of many individuals were recovered from grave pits, none of which were marked with headstones or other means of denoting whose body was interred there. Moreover, none of the associated funerary items was marked in such a fashion as to identify the interred individual by name. In other words, the names of many individuals interred in the floors of the mission churches are known from church records, but none of the remains has been identified as belonging to a particular person buried there. For the present time, all burials recovered from Mission San Juan are considered to represent remains of unknown individuals to whom lineal descent cannot be traced in accordance with NAGPRA. It is important to note at this juncture, however, that research conducted for the present study (see Chapters 3-7, 11) demonstrates a likelihood that descendants of mission Indians and other members of San Juan’s eighteenth and early nineteenth century communities still live in the area today. As such, it is likely that today there are de facto lineal descendants of individuals buried at or


near the mission during Spanish Colonial times. Accordingly, there is substantial potential for DNA or similar studies to identify individual Native Americans interred at the mission, as well as their direct lineal descendants among today’s population. To the extent that such studies are successful, the door would be open to NAGPRA-related repatriation under claim(s) of lineal descent.

November 1999, church officials and members of the American Indians in TexasSpanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM), the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, and other Native American groups, participated in religious services for reburial for all of the six human remains recovered from San Juan during archaeological excavations in 1967, 1969, and 1971 (Thoms 1999, 2000).

Museums and the Catholic Church

The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and the 77th Session of the Texas Legislature

The Act applies in general to human remains, associated funerary objects, and related items that are in the possession of most museums and university facilities, including UTSA and SAAN. Skeletal remains and related objects recovered from Mission San Juan indeed have been “held” at facilities covered by the Act (i.e., UTSA and SAAN; see Appendices A and B). However, the Catholic Church has maintained that these remains and items are “on loan” from the church (see Chapter 11 and Appendix H). As such, the Act does not appear to apply in this case because neither UTSA nor SAAN can be said to be in “possession” of human remains and funerary items that are on loan from another entity. Community, American Indians in TexasSpanish Colonial Missions, and the Catholic Church Regardless of NAGPRA’s apparent nonapplicability in this case at this time, there are San Juan/Berg’s Mill community members who trace their biological and cultural ancestry to mission Indians and who have long argued for the return and reburial of the excavated human remains (Schuetz 1968; Thoms 1999). The Catholic Church came to recognize the claims of these parishioners (see Chapters 2, 3, 11, and Appendix H). It worked in cooperation with Native American organizations in 1986 to ceremoniously rebury several archaeologically recovered skeletal remains (Hall 1986; Perdue 1986). In

During the 77th regular session (2001) of the Texas Legislature, the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation sought public recognition through the legislature. The House of Representatives passed (i.e., enrolled on 05/14/01) House Resolution 787 “recognizing the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions” (Turner 2001; Appendix H). This resolution also acknowledged that although the United States government did not recognize the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation, “the Coahuiltecan tribe’s distinguished history in the Lone Star State merits strong consideration for official acknowledgement from the State of Texas and the United States...” It concluded as follows: WHEREAS, Descendants of this intrepid tribe celebrate time-honored occasions, such as Indian Decoration Day, and also use ceremonial music and dress as ways of upholding tribal customs; in addition, renewed efforts to ascertain more knowledge about their ancestry are on going; and WHEREAS, Throughout the years, the Coahuiltecans have played an integral role in Texas’ development, and the Native American tribes who were the first Texans have greatly enriched our shared heritage with their culture; and WHEREAS, Given the tribe’s justifiable pride in its distinct history and culture, the Texas House of Representatives finds that


it is indeed appropriate to bestow such recognition as will encourage the preservation of The Tap PilamCoahuiltecan’s unique cultural heritage and to support those activities consistent with the state’s interest in preserving all of Texas’ diverse cultural and natural resources for future generations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 77th Texas Legislature hereby recognize the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation for its immeasurable contributions as an indigenous people of Texas and commend the tribe’s efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions [Turner 2001].

The Texas Senate passed (i.e., enrolled on 05/11/2001) a similar, albeit shorter, resolution (SR 1038) “commending the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation” (Zaffirini 2001; Appendix H). It resolved “that the Senate of the State of Texas, 77th Legislature, hereby commend the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecans for their exemplary preservation of their heritage and their many contributions to the culture of our state and nation; and be it further resolved that a copy of this Resolution be prepared for the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation as an expression of esteem from the Texas Senate” (Zaffirini 2001). The President of the Senate formally presented members of Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation with the resolution in the Senate chamber on May 18, 2001 (Raymond Hernández, personal communication 2001). MISSION SAN JUAN’S INDIAN OCCUPANTS: GEOGRAPHIC COAHUILTECANS Although most Indian people who lived and worked at the San Antonio missions during the eighteenth century have been grouped under the Coahuiltecan rubric, they actually represented a diversity of linguistically and ethnically distinctive hunter-gatherer groups whose homelands

were mainly in today’s south Texas and northeast Mexico (Campbell 1983). A few representatives of other Indians groups, including Caddos from east Texas, Tonkawas from central Texas, and Apaches and Comanches from areas to the west, also occupied several of the San Antonio missions (Campbell and Campbell 1996). As averred throughout this report, historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists have consistently grouped all Indians listed in sacramental records at Mission San Juan under a general Coahuiltecan rubric. Over the last several decades, there has been considerable confusion and a lively debate about the meaning of the term “Coahuiltecan” among members of academic communities, as well as individuals and groups who trace their ancestry to San Antonio’s mission Indians. To avoid further confusion, it is necessary to call the reader’s special attention to usage of the term Coahuiltecan in the present report. Coahuiltecan is used here in a geographic sense to denote those groups of huntergatherers whose homelands during the very late prehistoric and early historic periods were in south Texas and northeast Mexico, from the coast into the rugged hill country of the interior. This usage conforms, in general, to the manner in which Coahuiltecan was described in the 1907 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico: A name adopted by Powell [1891] from the tribal name Coahuilteco used by Pimentel and Orozco y Berra [1865] to describe a group of small, supposedly cognate tribes on both sides of the Rio Grande in Texas and Coahuila. The family is founded on a slender basis, and the name is geographic rather than ethnic, as it is not applied to any tribe of the group, while most of the tribes included are therein extinct, only meager remnants of some two or three dialects being preserved. Pimentel (Lenguas, II, 409, 1865) says: “I call this language Tejano or Coahuilteco, because according to the missionaries, it was the


one most in use in the provinces of Coahuila and Texas, being spoken from La Candela to the Rio San Antonio.” The tribes speaking this language were known under the names of Pajalates, Orejones, Pacaos, Pacoas, Tilijayos, Alasapas, Pausanes, Pacuaches, Mescales, Pampopas, Tacames, Venados, Pamaques, Pihuiques, Borrados, Sanipaos, and Manos de Perro…[Hodge 1907:314-315].

During the 1700s, several thousand Indians came to live at Mission San Juan, albeit never more than about 300 at any one time. Historical data also indicate that many of the geographic Coahuiltecans who are listed in the mission’s records may not have lived on the grounds for very long. Individuals, families, and groups undergoing missionization often fled to places well beyond mission lands and renewed their hunter-gatherer lifeways (Rock 1999). Nonetheless, church records indicate that by the end of the eighteenth century more than 1,500 people had been buried in one of several cemetery areas at Mission San Juan (Schuetz 1968, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c). Many other Coahuiltecans, of course, were interred at other mission cemeteries or elsewhere in the greater San Antonio community (De la Teja 1995; Poyo and Hinojosa 1991; Schuetz 1980a). Still, other missionized Coahuiltecans, perhaps even most as some have argued, fled from Old World civilization in general to live out their lives in the less settled parts of the frontier territories (cf. Hester 1989a, 1989b, 1998). By the late 1770s, Mission San Juan was in decline, although as noted it continued to function through the period of secularization (1794-1824) when it was converted into a secular parish. Upon secularization, a dozen geographic Coahuiltecan families were each granted a residential space at the mission and a plot of their own farmland around the old mission (Schuetz 1968). For more than a decade after secularization, the mission operated under the jurisdiction of newly

independent Mexico with a secular clergy who served the community’s mainly Hispanic and ladino (Spanish-speaking Indian) citizens (Rock 1999). After secularization was completed under Mexico in 1824, services at the mission churches were intermittent at best. In 1841, after Texas Independence, the legislative body recognized ownership of the churches of the former missions by the Catholic Church, marking a return of its full-time activity to the area. During the middle to late 1800s, immigrants from other parts of the United States, Europe, and Africa settled at San Juan and added substantially to its already ethnically diverse but decidedly Catholic community. In 1879, the Berg family opened a wool mill and soon thereafter the community became known as Berg’s Mill. Many of today’s residents trace their ancestry back to the mission Indians as well as to nonIndians who lived in the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community about 100 to 200 years ago (Rock 1999). What complicates issues of assessing lineal descent and cultural affiliation with mission-period Indians is a long-held contention among some ethnographers and archaeologists that Coahuiltecans are extinct as a cultural group (e.g., Hester 1989a, 1998). The issues are complex and, in no small measure, dependent on just what kind of extinction is being discussed (cf. Hester 2000). It is also worth noting that NAGPRA implementation has been and continues to be a contentious issue in Texas precisely because of a widely held belief that many of Texas’ “original” Indians were biologically or culturally extinct by the late nineteenth century (cf. Thoms 1997).


ARGUMENTS FOR EXTINCTION OF GEOGRAPHIC COAHUILTECANS For more than 300 years, people have written about the extinction of Coahuiltecan Indians. In the mid-1600s, during the early days of missionization, Alonso de León, a Spanish military leader and historian who lived in northeast Mexico, wrote of the pending extinction of the “Indians of the north,” the very groups who came to be known as Coahuiltecans (Chapa 1997[1690]). More than a century later, in 1776, Fray Pedro Ramírez, Father President of San Antonio’s missions, averred that if the mission Indians did not become healthier and procreate more effectively, they would soon become extinct and the missions would close (cited in Rock 1999:59-60). An 1836 history of Texas, written from a decidedly Anglo-American perspective, included reports that although Indians still lived in the new republic, they were “but remnants of broken tribes” (Edwards 1990:93 [1836]). James Mooney’s (1928) anthropological study of Native American demography reported that although as many as 15,000 Coahuiltecans may have lived in south Texas and northeast Mexico at the time of European contact, diseases, warfare, and missionization rendered them culturally extinct by the early nineteenth century. Coahuiltecans by that or any other name were not among the extant tribes in the 1890 U.S. Government census reports on Indian tribes (Ewers 1973). The best known, often reprinted (most recently in 1999), widely cited, and still-used university-level textbook about Texas Indians is W. W. Newcomb’s The Indians of Texas from Prehistoric to Modern Times, first published in 1961. It includes an assessment that “by 1800 most of the south Texas Coahuiltecans had disappeared, having been destroyed by disease or absorbed into the Mexican population, and many of the

missions had been abandoned or secularized. By the time Anglo-Americans began to settle Texas the far-flung Coahuiltecans had dwindled almost to nothingness. In northern Mexico, small acculturated groups persisted longer, but by the end of the nineteenth century they had also disappeared” (Newcomb1961:37). In the concluding chapter, entitled “Extermination and Oblivion,” it is said that “the Coahuiltecans just seem to have faded away” (Newcomb 1961:335). The type of extinction about which Newcomb and others write seems to be in reference to hunter-gatherer populations and their lifeways per se. For example, Thomas Hester, a well-known Texas archaeologist who has conducted investigations at several Spanish Colonial mission sites, writes that none of the Coahuiltecan hunter-gatherers “survived culturally or biologically to be interviewed by early anthropologists” (Hester 1989a:195). Elsewhere, however, he seems to open a door to Coahuiltecan survival: The missionization process in eighteenthcentury Texas was only partly successful. Many of the mission Indians were lost to Spanish diseases (Hester 1986; Salinas 1986). Many fled back to their territories and did not return to the missions (there, too, they died from diseases or from attacks by Apaches), and only a small percentage (in my opinion)—and this is difficult to quantify—were ever partially or fully acculturated. The last lived on in identifiable Indian households in the San Antonio (Schuetz 1980a) and Goliad (Mounger 1959) areas for two or three decades into the nineteenth century. (Unfortunately, we do not yet have any documentary evidence as to the nature of Indian households in the Guerrero, Coahuila area after Missions San Bernardo and San Juan Bautista were secularized). Even then, it would seem from the meager evidence discussed in this chapter that certain precontact technologies had continued [Hester 1989b:225].


Central to Schuetz’s (1968) first archaeological investigations at San Juan in 1967 is her assumption that Coahuiltecans effectively became extinct soon after the Spanish Colonial period. She argued that studies of the material culture and physical remains were the only pathways to recovering detailed information, not otherwise represented in historical records, about Coahuiltecan lifeways and health conditions. An important goal for Schuetz’s excavations, all of which were co-sponsored by the San Antonio Archdiocese and the Witte Museum and overseen by the State Archaeologist, was the recovery of skeletal remains representative of aboriginal Coahuiltecans. She wrote “they [Coahuiltecans] were extinct as far as racial identity goes in the early nineteenth century and there was not a Coahuiltecan skeletal series in the county. We set ourselves the goal of recovering 35 to 40 adult remains” (Schuetz 1968:1-2). ARGUMENTS FOR SURVIVAL OF GEOGRAPHIC COAHUILTECANS Thousands of travelers and tourists undoubtedly passed through the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community between about 1875 and 1975. Many of them probably stopped for an hour or so, as I did with my family in the late 1950s, to visit the old Mission San Juan, see the nearby stone aqueduct that dated to the Spanish Colonial period, or purchase something from a community store. It is unlikely that they learned very much about the mission Indians, unless they stayed long enough to visit with just the right local folks or the parish priest. Had they asked questions of the people living there at the time, it is likely that a number of those residents would have informed them that many descendants of the mission Indians still lived in the community.

Thomas N. Campbell (1983:347), the best known Coahuiltecan ethnographer, once observed, “all surviving [Coahuiltecan] Indians passed into the lower levels of Mexican society.” He added, however, that as of 1981, “descendants of some aboriginal groups still lived in various communities of Mexico and Texas, although few attempts have been made to discover individuals who can demonstrate this descent” (Campbell 1983:347). In discussing what are herein termed geographic Coahuiltecans who resided at San Antonio’s missions, Hester (2000) recently noted, “it is likely that biological descendants of those native people from south Texas and northeastern Mexico live on in San Antonio.” As discussed throughout the present volume, it is important to reiterate that there are numerous families from the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community who acknowledge and identify with their Indian heritage. That these families have done so for decades suggests they must have retained a keen sense of their biological and cultural ties to the mission Indians and perhaps to their aboriginal ancestors as well (Chapters 2-4). Late twentieth century tourist literature pertaining to Mission San Juan also avers, “Native American and Spanish descendants of the original inhabitants still live near the mission grounds” (San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau 1998). Another brochure notes, “San Antonio missions today represent a virtually unbroken connection with the past. Bearing the distinctive stamp of generations of Indian and Spanish craftsman, they live still as active parishes” (San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 1996). When Mardith Schuetz’s team of paid and volunteer archaeologists first exposed human remains at Mission San Juan, it was immediately apparent that some community members were not pleased with the


excavation and removal of burials for scientific study. The news media televised the discovery of human remains in April 1967. Schuetz decided to hire two local residents to guard one of the burials that could not be removed the first day. She reported: the guards were frightened away during the night by vandals who damaged the skulls…This was the only trouble we had during the six months of work. In learning that sex, age, disease, racial description and forgotten customs might be learned from the work, the hostility toward the excavators disappeared along with the local fear of the dead. By the end of this phase of the excavation, we were able to leave burials exposed and unguarded at night (Schuetz 1968:205-206).

One of the things that Schuetz learned during her first season of archaeological work at San Juan was that strong ties linked the human remains recovered from the mission to members of the local community. The link is both cultural and biological, and it relates directly to the spirit of NAGPRA, if not to the letter of the law: San Juan and San Antonio’s other missions are surrounded by families who claim their descent from mission Indians. Recognizing a need to better document this link, Schuetz went on to recommend that “a study be made immediately, tracing the origins of these families, for only those who were born in the nineteenth century remember the family names beyond the last two generations” (Schuetz 1968:58). In arguing her point that descendants of mission Indians still resided in San Antonio, she observed the following: an interesting fact reflected by this bit of social history [a review of the important people who had lived at San Juan] is the evidence of complete integration of Native Americans into the San Antonio population. There is no evidence of prejudice. Soldiers married Indian women. Indians fought side by side with Texans, and first families of San Antonio had no

qualms over living in the missions with Indians (Schuetz 1968:60).

Schuetz’s (1980a) dissertation on the history of San Antonio’s mission Indians followed up on her archaeological work at Mission San Juan. She argued that mission Indian populations at first waned, but by the 1790s, the numbers were again on the rise. Many Indians eventually moved outside the missions’ walls and were rapidly incorporated into the regional labor force and “became as important to the makeup and development of San Antonio and southern Texas as any other ethnic group” (Schuetz 1980a:vi). Her contention was that the act of “being readily absorbed into the Hispanic population was not the same as ‘to become extinct’”—rather, the Coahuiltecans were “converted” into “Christianized citizens of the Spanish Crown with the same rights and privileges as other Spanish subjects” (Schuetz 1980a:2, 5). Since that time, other historians have come to similar conclusions (e.g., De la Teja 1995; Poyo and Hinojosa 1991). ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT The present chapter establishes a research context for the study, outlines the general nature of the debate surrounding Coahuiltecan extinction and how it relates to NAGPRA issues of lineal descent and cultural affiliation, and summarizes the project’s own history. Chapter 2 establishes a historical context for reassessing Coahuiltecan extinction. Chapter 3 documents how descendants of San Antonio’s mission Indians have been presented in popular and tourist-based literature since the mid-nineteenth century. Interviews with four individuals who trace their ancestry to mission Indians are summarized and analyzed in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 provides photographs of these individuals, as well as descriptions of the project’s photographic component. Genealogical research, which hoped to link one of today’s


residents to those who resided at the San Juan mission during the late Spanish Colonial period, is discussed in Chapter 6. Overviews of ethnohistoric, linguistic, archaeological, and bioarchaeological data pertaining to Coahuiltecans are provided in Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, respectively. Chapter 11 summarizes and evaluates the project’s findings and their potential to address NAGPRA issues of lineal descent and cultural affiliation that may apply to Mission San Juan. Appendices included at the back of this report are: (A) table listing cultural materials from Mission San Juan that are or were (prior to the reburial of human remains in November 1999) held at the Center for Archaeological Research, the University of Texas at San Antonio; (B) table listing the cultural

materials from Mission San Juan that are or were (prior to the reburial of human remains in November 1999) housed at SAAN facilities; (C) annotated bibliography of sources pertaining to Coahuiltecans and San Antonio’s mission Indians; (D) sample questionnaire used by Cohen as a guide for the interviews he conducted; (E) relevant transcriptions of the interviews with four individuals who trace their ancestry to mission Indians; (F) list of names and addresses of individuals and groups consulted; (G) list of other individuals and groups knowledgeable of traditional history and who are potentially interested in being considered for future consultation by authorized park personnel; and (H) copies of selected letters and documents pertaining to potential NAGPRA issues and related recognition issues at Mission San Juan.

Chapter 2: Historical Overview and Context – Page 21

CHAPTER 2:

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR REASSESSING COAHUILTECAN EXTINCTION AT MISSION SAN JUAN Alston V. Thoms This chapter presents a review of historic data pertaining mainly to the native peoples, primarily geographic Coahuiltecans, who underwent missionization at the San Antonio missions in general and at Mission San Juan in particular. It also provides information about other groups who were incorporated into the mission community through the centuries and who gave the mission a distinctive ethnically diverse and spiritually Catholic character that persists to the present day (Rock 1999). In keeping with the project’s NAGPRA-related issues (SAAN 1998) and in light of the nature of skeletal population and funerary objects recovered at San Juan (Francis 1999; Humphreys 1971; Schuetz 1968), emphasis is placed on the mission’s inhabitants and cemeteries in use prior to the early 1860s. Thereafter, deceased community members were interred in the present-day San Juan/Berg’s Mill cemetery located about a quarter of a mile east of the mission (Schuetz 1968, 1980a). The history of San Antonio’s missions and communities is well known through books, edited volumes, and articles written during the last 100 years or so. Our Catholic Heritage in Texas, 1519-1936 (Castañeda 1976[1936]) and The Alamo Chain of Missions (Habig 1976) have served as standards for more than a quarter of a century. Among the more recent and informative histories are The San Antonio Missions and Their System of Land Tenure (Almaraz 1989), San Antonio de Béxar: A Community of New Spain’s Northern Frontier (De la Teja 1995) and Tejano Origins in Eighteenth-Century

San Antonio (Poyo and Hinojosa 1991). Almaraz (1992) also prepared a two-volume study of San Antonio’s mission’s for SAAN: Faith Along a River: Franciscan Missions of Spanish Colonial San Antonio, 1718-1836. Especially noteworthy as a history of the premission era is Juan Bautista Chapa’s Historia del Nuevo Reino de León, originally written in the 1690s and recently published as Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 1630-1690 (Chapa 1997[1690]). The most detailed history to date of the Indian people who lived at San Antonio’s missions during the Spanish Colonial era is Mardith K. Schuetz’s (1980b) dissertation entitled The Indians of the San Antonio Missions, 1718-1821. Schuetz also compiled considerable historical information about Mission San Juan in conjunction with archaeological investigations she carried out at the mission site between 1967 and 1971 (Schuetz 1968, 1969, 1974, 1980a, 1980c). The most comprehensive history of the mission and its inhabitants, however, is Los Habitantes: A History of Texas’ Mission San Juan Capistrano and Its People (Rock 1999), a detailed report recently written by Rosalind Z. Rock, park historian for SAAN. For the present undertaking, Rock’s invaluable report was available to us in draft form and served as a mainstay for our research. The following sections review the history of the pre-mission, mission, and post-mission eras. The chapter concludes, consistent with anthropologist Schuetz (1980b:2) and historian Rock (1999:viii, 168), that rather than becoming “extinct,” mission Indians

Page 22 – Chapter 2: Historical Overview and Context

were effectively integrated into the Hispanic population and, through the centuries, their descendants continued to maintain a keen sense of their Native American heritage. As noted in Chapter 1, Hester (1989b) at one time argued that geographical Coahuiltecans were culturally and biologically extinct, but recently modified his position to recognize the likelihood that biological descents of these Native Americans continue to live in San Antonio (Hester 2000). What became extinct—or, perhaps better said, changed irrevocably—were the aboriginal huntergatherer lifeways. However, elements of those lifeways live on, in part, as the present study illustrates, in religious beliefs (e.g., Native American Church), social behavior (e.g., shouting at or threatening the thunder), and foodways (e.g., nopalitos and tunas) of descendants of mission Indians and those with whom they have interacted. SAN ANTONIO’S PRE-MISSION ERA, 1528-1718 Native Americans have lived continuously in south Texas and northeastern Mexico for more than 12,000 years (Hester 1980; Black 1989; see Chapter 9). Spanish presence in south Texas and across northern Mexico began in 1528 with the survivors of the Narváez expedition, notably Cabeza de Vaca and others, who ended up shipwrecked on Galveston Island and eventually traversed south Texas and northern Mexico on foot (Covey 1993). Responding in part to implied tales of treasure brought to Mexico City by Cabeza de Vaca, the Coronado and de Soto expeditions were undertaken. Both expeditions reached into parts of Texas in 1542 (Chipman 1992). Coronado traversed the American Southwest and visited the Panhandle area. De Soto crossed much of the American Southeast. Under the leadership of Luís de Moscoso after de Soto’s death, the expedition traversed east Texas and one

contingent traveled southwest along what would become the Camino Real, perhaps as far as today’s city of San Marcos on the Guadalupe River (Bruseth and Kenmotsu 1993). It would be almost 150 years before the Spanish returned in significant numbers and began a sustained presence in south Texas in 1689. They came to oust La Salle’s illfated French colony at Matagorda Bay on the Texas coast, but the settlement had already been deserted with some of the few survivors living among the Indians. Subsequently, the Spanish established a series of presidios and missions intended to protect New Spain’s frontier from French Louisiana (Chapa 1997; Foster 1997a). The earliest detailed record about the native people of south Texas and northeast Mexico is Cabeza de Vaca’s account of his 1528-1536 “adventures” along the coast and within the interior of south-central North America (Covey 1993). Shipwrecked with the Narváez expedition on Galveston Island in 1528, Cabeza de Vaca (treasurer and second in command of the expedition) was the ranking leader of those who survived the shipwreck and storms. Ultimately, he, two other Spaniards, and a Moor of African descent were the only survivors who returned to “civilization.” The four survivors lived apart for several years with different Indian groups along the coast, primarily those who would later be called Karankawas. They ultimately rejoined one another and walked across what is today interior south Texas and northern Mexico to reach the Spanish settlement of Culiacán and eventually Mexico City in 1536 (Covey 1993). These Old World travelers encountered many different bands of hunters and gatherers along the Texas coast, across south Texas, and in northeast Mexico. Deer were a primary food source almost everywhere. People along the coast relied heavily on fish and blackberries, while those in the more interior parts of south


Texas made extensive use of prickly pear fruits and pads, as well as pecans (Chapter 7). Descendants of the Indian people there and others who inhabited the interior regions would come to be known collectively as Coahuiltecans. They were so designated in the mid-1800s by linguists (Chapter 8) and, later, by anthropologists, archaeologists, and physical archaeologists applied this term broadly to the pre-contact inhabitants of the region (Chapters 7, 9, and 10). The academic community first referred to a subset of these native inhabitants as “Coahuiltecans” because they reportedly spoke a common language, Coahuilteco, either as their first language or perhaps as a lingua franca (Campbell 1983; Hester 1989a; Schuetz 1980b:41, 44). Ethnographic and linguistic research over the last few decades, however, has revealed that there were many different dialects, if not languages, within what was once called Coahuilteco. Moreover, recent research has shown that several language families, among whom relationships remain unclear, were probably represented by linguistically diverse, but culturally similar, hunter-gatherer groups living in south Texas and northeast Mexico during the post-contact period, if not earlier (Hester 1989a, 1989b, 1998; also see Chapters 7 and 8). These hunter-gatherer groups inhabited a vast area that extended some 150 miles along either side of the Rio Grande, from its mouth more than 300 miles inland at least to Eagle Pass, Texas. Much of this region fell within the Spanish Colonial provinces of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas, which border Texas today (Figure 3). At one time, Coahuila extended north to the Medina River. Interestingly, the term “Coahuiltecano” appears in some cases to have been used by Spanish authorities during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in reference to culturally and linguistically diverse native inhabitants of Coahuila and other parts of

today’s northeast Mexico, and south Texas (Rock, personal communication 2000). It is in this geographic sense that the term Coahuiltecan is used throughout this chapter. Profound changes in the very nature of the diverse Coahuiltecan lifeways were set in motion by the arrival of the Spanish in the New World. Cabeza de Vaca reported, for example, that during their stay on Galveston Island, “half of the natives died from a disease of the bowel and blamed us” (Covey 1993:60). Diseases may well have been spread anew by members of the de Soto expedition in 1542. Over the next 300 years, dozens of European-introduced epidemics spread north from central Mexico into northeast Mexico and south Texas (Chapa 1997; Ewers 1973; Foster 1997a). Many of the epidemics, often smallpox or measles, reached the San Antonio missions and caused widespread death among the native inhabitants and immigrants (Rock 1999; Schuetz 1980b:161-170), including those at San Juan. According to Cabeza de Vaca, the Spanish living along and near the Pacific coast in west-central Mexico were already “killing, enslaving, and dispossessing the Indians” by 1536, when he and his shipmates finally reached “civilization” near present-day Culiacán (Covey 1993:123). Widespread population decimation from diseases, slave raiding, and warfare intensified in northeast Mexico with Spanish colonization in the seventeenth century (Foster 1997a). Chapa (1997:100) predicted in the 1690s that the native population of what was then Nuevo León, a much larger area than the state occupies today, would become extinct within a few decades. Conflict with the native people of the region was an inevitable outcome of Spanish expansion north, which either displaced them altogether or “gathered” them into the


missions. These “Coahuiltecans” responded by raiding settlements, taking captives, horses, and other supplies; by 1624 some of the raids were carried out by mounted fighters (Chapa 1997:52; Foster 1997a:18). The first military expedition against the “Indians of the North” began in 1665, in this case against the Cacaxtle Indians. Organized in Saltillo, the expedition came to include some 130 Spanish soldiers and 300 Indian troops, mostly Bobole (identified as a Coahuiltecan group from northeast Coahuila [Campbell 1983; Hester 1980:42]). The expedition encountered the Cacaxtle near the Nueces River, some 100 miles south of San Antonio and killed one hundred of them (Chapa 1997:56; Foster 1997a:3). In May 1693, a Spanish expedition to east Texas encountered some of the presumably less hostile Cacaxtle along the Rio Grande along with the Ocana (another group from northern Coahuila); 18 days later other Cacaxtle were found encamped along the Colorado River (Foster 1995:269, 280). Uprisings were common among the Coahuiltecans of northeast Mexico during the middle and late 1600s. Many Indians were killed outright and many more were captured, enslaved, and forced to labor in the mines; others were hanged for their roles in uprisings (Chapa 1997: 41-64). The Borrados were among the groups who rebelled in the mid1680s (Chapa 1997: 57, 62-63). They, along with dozens of other bands, some of whom were loosely organized into confederacies, were missionized in northeast Mexico (middle to late 1660s) and in the San Antonio missions (1731 to late 1780s), including San Juan (Schuetz 1980a:51, 55-57). Several other groups who interacted extensively with the Spanish in northeast Mexico prior to 1690 came to be represented at the San Antonio missions after 1718. They included the Camasuqua, Pana, and Mescal (a Cotoname band), the Coco (a Karankawa band), Sana

(i.e., Tonkawa), Tejas (a Caddo group), and Tlascaltecas, a Nahuatl-speaking people (Campbell and Campbell 1996; Foster 1997b; Schuetz 1980b). The Tlascaltecans at the missions were descendants of native people known by that name who were brought originally by the Spanish from Tlaxcala (central Mexico) during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries to settle Coahuila and Nuevo León (Rock, personal communication 2000). In 1650, Captain Alonso de León (the younger), a Spanish military official and historian, noted that although numerous missions had been established, efforts to convert the Indians of Nuevo León to Catholicism were unsuccessful, and that the wrath of God and the Spanish military would ensure the Indians’ eradication (Foster 1997a:18). Chapa (1997:100) reported that in 1690 there were some 250 native groups, or “nations,” living in what is today south Texas and northeast Mexico. Of those, some 90 had been “located and gathered” at various missions during the preceding 25 years, but he added that “it will be necessary to gather other tribes, for those here today will already have perished” (Chapa 1997:100). De León’s and Chapa’s histories clearly reveal that Indian communities in northeast Mexico and south Texas suffered dramatically from rapid depopulation during the century before the San Antonio missions were established, and this of course had a profound effect on the region’s history (cf. Foster 1997a:18). Anthropologists have long argued that sociopolitical and biological impacts primarily from epidemics and warfare in Texas and northeast Mexico were of such magnitude that some groups became extinct altogether, including the Coahuiltecans, and missionized Indians in general (Ewers 1973:113; Hester 1989a:195). Ewers (1973:113) notes:


Many Indian people sacrificed their tribal independence as their numbers decreased but ensured their biological survival by combining with other linguistically and culturally related tribes…New political groupings emerged through the merging of remnant tribes. Even among the larger tribes who continued to retain their tribal identity, endogamous taboos may have been relaxed in the extensive band reorganizations necessitated by severe losses in the most disastrous epidemics.

There can also be little doubt that many people who first came to San Antonio’s presidio, villa, and missions were representative of a racially and ethnically mixed population characteristic of the Spanish Colonial era. Enslaved Africans were brought to northeast Mexico during the late 1500s to work in mines, and mulattos (i.e., people with mixed African and Indian parentage) were among the region’s early settlers (Chapa 1997). Foster (1997a:11) points out that seventeenth and eighteenth century documents

and census records demonstrate that mulattos and people of African descent were prevalent in the regional population, and that by 1780 in some parts of northern Mexico they outnumbered Spanish and Indians combined. Of course, “pure” Indians, along with people classed as mestizos (mixed Spanish and Indian parentage) and various others representing “mixed” combinations of European, African, and Indian genes, also constituted a major portion of the population (De la Teja 1995). The foregoing review of pre-mission era history in the San Antonio region leads to an inevitable conclusion: geographically defined Coahuiltecans living in the region in 1718 must have been of a very different character—ethnically, linguistically, and probably racially—from the people met by Cabeza de Vaca almost 200 years earlier. Moreover, San Antonio’s mission Indians probably differed ethnically, linguistically,

Figure 3. Map showing the locations of Spanish Colonial missions, presidios, and settlements, as well as the Caminos Reales (Chipman 1992:108-109, 148-149, Figures 14 and 20; and McGraw et. al 1998:9, Figure 1).


and racially from the Cacaxtle and other Coahuiltecans living in south Texas and northeast Mexico in the mid-1600s. In other words, the precise behavioral patterns and skeletal characteristics of geographic Coahuiltecan Indians who came to be interred at Mission San Juan might not be expected to closely match those of geographic Coahuiltecans interred in the region during the pre-contact (i.e., prehistoric) era. Nonetheless, there can be little doubt as to a continued presence of strong cultural and biological ties that linked geographic Coahuiltecans of the pre-contact past to those of the mission era (Chapters 7, 9, and 10). SAN ANTONIO’S MISSION ERA 1718-1824 In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the Spanish founded several missions in east Texas and eventually across the Sabine River in what became Spanish Louisiana (Chipman 1992; see Figure 3). As the French threat waxed and waned during the early 1700s, the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar and the mission of San Antonio de Valero were established in 1718. Mission San José was soon added and, within a dozen years, three of the east Texas missions were moved to the San Antonio River, becoming Missions Concepción, San Juan, and Espada. They continued to function as such until secularization occurred in 1794, and to some degree until final secularization in 1824 (Schuetz 1980b; see Figures 1 and 3). With the exception of Valero (the Alamo), the churches at the missions have continued with few interruptions to serve the surrounding communities. Mission San Juan’s history is, in many ways, a microcosm of the overall missionization process in south Texas and northeast Mexico, although the process began more than a decade earlier at some of the missions (cf. Rock 1999).

By the time San Antonio de Valero was established in 1718, numerous loose, interband alliances or confederacies of Coahuiltecans whose territories once extended to the San Antonio area, had already been broken by decades of missionization in northeast Mexico, and new confederacies had been established (Schuetz 1980b:59). One of the new confederacies was the Xarame, which reportedly included not only the Xarame proper, but also other Coahuiltecan bands, including the Siaban and Payaya (Schuetz 1980b:48). In 1700, the Xarame and their allies were “congregated” at Mission San Francisco Solano, one of three missions established near the Rio Grande in what is today the Mexican state of Coahuila (see Figure 3). This mission moved three times in Coahuila before being relocated in 1718 along Texas’ San Antonio River. Renamed Mission San Antonio de Valero, it was first populated with some 70 Xarames, Siabanes, and miscellaneous allies, all of whom had close ties with Coahuiltecan and Tonkawan groups north of the Rio Grande (Schuetz 1980b). Ranchería Grande, also known as Ranchería Grande de los Ervipiames in recognition of the prominent role played by that group (i.e., Yerbipiames, synonymous with Chivipanes, Hierbipianes, Huvipanes, and Yrbipia), was also among the reorganized Coahuiltecan confederacies (Newcomb 1993; Schuetz 1980b:59-60). The Yerbipiames were known initially for their hostility to the Spaniards but, in 1698, they entered Mission San Francisco de Javier in Coahuila, which had been established specifically for them. As will be discussed later in this chapter, a large band of Yerbipiames was eventually incorporated into Mission San Antonio de Valero (Schuetz 1980b:337). Other bands moved north to near the Red River, allied themselves with Comanches and Wichitas, and in the late 1700s were apparently “absorbed” into the Tonkawa tribe (Newcomb 1993). During that same period, several


soldiers of Coahuiltecan and Tlaxcaltecan stock apparently joined with Apaches and Choctaws in southeast Louisiana. Today, their descendants are part of the Ebarb Choctaw-Apache Tribe, a state-recognized group (Gaillard 1998:176-179; Gregory 2001). Schuetz (1980b:126) argued almost all of the surviving Coahuiltecans had been missionized by 1800.

1980b:337). Born about 1679, Juan Rodríguez grew up in Coahuila, probably spent time at Mission San Francisco de Javier where he may have been baptized at age eight or nine. He appears to have been involved in an uprising in 1700 at the Presidio de Coahuila, today’s Monclova. By 1716, he had emerged as the leader or Captain of Ranchería Grande (Schuetz 1980b:338).

Constituents of Ranchería Grande were first encountered by the Spanish in Coahuila in 1670 and later, between 1707 and 1721, at various places along or near the Caminos Reales, and elsewhere between the Colorado and Trinity Rivers (see Figure 3). By the early 1700s, their encampments often contained from 500 to 2,000 people, not only Yerbipiame, but also Payaya, Xarame, and other groups from the lower Rio Grande basin that included both gentiles and Christian apostates from missions in northeast Mexico (Foster 1995; McGraw et al. 1991; Newcomb 1993). Also present were members of Tonkawa and Bedais groups from north of the Colorado River and Caddoan representatives from east of the Trinity River (Foik 1933:16; Forrestal 1935:35; Newcomb 1993:25-26). This “consolidated group of remnant and refugee Indians” (Newcomb 1993:26) probably epitomizes loosely bound, multiethnic and multi-linguistic “confederacies” that were undoubtedly characteristic of south Texas and northeast Mexico during San Antonio’s pre-mission and mission eras.

In 1721, he served as a guide for one of the Spanish expeditions to the Tejas (Caddoan) villages in east Texas. That same year he asked for, and was granted, a mission (San Francisco Xavier de Nájera) in San Antonio. In 1722, he arrived with 50 families at the selected site, between Missions Valero and San José, which would become Mission Concepción (see Figure 1). Mission San Francisco Xavier de Nájera was built but was short-lived; it never progressed beyond the preliminary phase with temporary structures (Rock, personal communication 2000). His band eventually entered Valero (Newcomb 1993:26). Juan Rodríguez arrived in San Antonio, accompanied by his wife who was from a separate band (Iman), and their three children, who eventually married into other south Texas and northeast Mexico bands represented at the missions, the Ticmamar, Xarame, and Siaban. One of Rodríguez’ sons also married a Sana (Tonkawa) woman and eventually became an alcalde at Valero. A grandson married an Apache-mulatta and another grandchild married an Española from Villa San Fernando (Schuetz 1980a:339).

Juan Rodríguez, a Yerbipiame, and his family are especially illustrative of how the missionization process operated at an individual level and, via acculturation, served to integrate Coahuiltecans and other racially similar but ethnically different Indians into the local Hispanic culture (Schuetz 1980b). He was considered to be one of the “most powerful chiefs in Texas” due to his leadership of the diverse Ranchería Grande group from 1716 to 1722 (Schuetz

Mission San Juan In 1730, officials of the Spanish government and Catholic missionaries laid the foundation for the establishment of Missions San Juan, Concepción, and Espada. Their initial intent was to recruit and congregate some 1,000 Indians from three Coahuiltecan bands/groups, the Pacaos, Pajalat, and Pilatos, who resided or “ranged throughout” south


Texas’ Medina, Nueces, and Frio river basins (Rock 1999:5). The next year, Mission San Juan was formally established, actually reestablished, along the banks of the San Antonio River, a few miles south of Mission Valero and presidio of San Antonio de Béxar. First established in 1716 as one of several east Texas missions, it was known as Mission San José de los Nazonis (see Figure 3). Soon thereafter, it was temporarily abandoned due to conflicts with the French in Louisiana, and then reopened in 1721. The mission continued to operate in Louisiana until 1730, when it was moved briefly to a site on the Colorado River and finally to its present location in San Antonio. There, it was renamed San Juan de Capistrano to avoid confusion with Mission San José y San Miguel de Aguayo (i.e., San José), which was located a few miles upstream (Rock 1999). Mission San Juan began operation with some 300 residents and reportedly functioned well for the first few decades. In 1762, the Indian population at the mission was 203, and the mission controlled a large ranch about 30 miles to the southeast with some 1,000 cattle, 3,500 sheep, and 500 horses. As of 1762 a total of 847 Indians had been baptized and 645 had been given Christian burials at the mission (Rock 1999; Schuetz 1980c:4-5). By the 1770s this and other missions were in a general state of decline, although they all continued to function for several more decades before being completely secularized. By the close of the eighteenth century, representatives of many different Coahuiltecan groups had resided at San Juan for varying lengths of time. More than 1,500 people had died and been buried at the mission. Most, but not all of them, were Indians. By 1770, Spaniards (non-clergy), mestizos, and mulattos, were also living, dying, and undoubtedly being buried there (Schuetz 1980c).

Church Structures and Burial Places at San Juan Four churches were built and used at San Juan between 1731 and 1790. Each structure was associated with at least two burial places, including the church floor and an area outside the church walls (Figure 4). Table 1 summarizes available information on the periods of church and burial-place usage, as well as selected demographic data from the mission’s sacramental records. The original church at Mission San Juan was a jacal structure (i.e., wattle and daub or mud/stick) built in 1731 and used (with modifications) until at least 1746 and perhaps as late as 1756. Exact locations of the jacal church and associated burial places have not been determined, but they were probably somewhere in the southwest part of the present-day mission compound, perhaps at or near the first stone church (Schuetz 1980c). Records indicate that a new stone church, often called the “first stone church,” had been completed and was in use by 1756 (Schuetz 1980c:3-4). Archaeological excavations carried out in 1971 revealed walls and floors of the first stone church. Associated buildings with underlying structural remains and several pits were also encountered (Chapter 9). Underlying features included, but were not limited to, a jacal structure, post holes, numerous burials (identified and left in place), empty grave pits, and possible storage pits, many of which may have been associated with the original jacal church, convento, and cemetery (Schuetz 1980a:30, 42). Schuetz (1980a:35) suggested the “entire plaza” area for the first stone church may have been built over or around early mission period graves (see Figure 4).


Figure 4. Map showing the locations, identified rooms, approximate periods of use for church structures, and burial places at Mission San Juan (after Schuetz 1968: Figure 1; 1974, and 1980b).

The first stone church was in use by 1756 and continued at least until 1772 (the end of the construction period for the “unfinished church”), and perhaps as late as 1790, by which time the extant (i.e., current) church building was in use (see Figure 4). During its use period, numerous individuals were interred below the floor of the first stone church and perhaps in nearby rooms or just beyond them (Schuetz 1980a:43-46, 129). It remains unclear whether most of the burials and empty grave pits found at and near the first stone church were temporally associated with it or with the earlier jacal church. Schuetz observed, however, that the types of glass trade beads found in and near several gravesites, and probably buried with the deceased, were used mainly between 1700 and 1740. Thus, at least some of the burials occurred when the jacal church was in use. Several rectangular pits in the floor of the first stone church and adjacent rooms were interpreted as empty grave pits because they contained “loose scattered human bones, primarily foot and hand bones” and glass beads (Schuetz 1980a:30-31). The loose bones indicated to Schuetz that many burials

from this church were exhumed and reburied elsewhere, probably in the floor of the extant church. It was from there as well as from the unfinished church that she had already recovered numerous secondary burials (Schuetz 1974; 1980a:30-31, 42). In any case, exhumation and reburial probably occurred in conjunction with the dismantling of the first stone church and adjacent rooms and requisite de-sanctification of the church grounds (Schuetz 1980a). Construction began in the 1760s on what was to be the third church, a new and larger stone structure located a short distance east of the first stone church, in what would become the southeast corner of an enlarged mission plaza (see Figure 4). The work apparently continued for more than a decade, but the building was never fully completed, and in 1789 it was described as “about half finished,” hence its designation as the “unfinished church” (Schuetz 1968:233, 1974:49). The structure apparently lacked the type of permanent roof that was typical of most other Spanish Colonial missions in the region. Archaeological and archival investigations,


however, led to a conclusion that the structure probably did function as a church, at least in a provisional way, judging from the “details of interior finishing, the presence of burials, and the 1779 will of one individual who requested to be buried in that church” (Schuetz 1974:49).

1969:123). All subsequent studies also have indicated that the skeletal remains from the unfinished church represented a significantly more racially mixed population, and hence probably more acculturated, than would be anticipated for a late pre-contact or early protohistoric Coahuiltecan population (Chapter 10).

Although the unfinished church may not have been used regularly for very long as a chapel per se, its floor area served as a burial place for several decades, from as early as 1762 through initial secularization in 1794 and into the early 1800s (Schuetz 1968:215; 1980b:43-44,129). Schuetz (1969:101, 1980b:46) suggested in 1969 and again in her 1980 report on excavations of the first stone church that the area just south of the unfinished church (i.e., southeast corner of the mission compound) should be tested to determine whether it may have served as a camposanto (i.e., cemetery) as well. None of the archaeological reports examined for the present project followed up on this recommendation.

The fourth church, still in use today (i.e., extant) is located along the middle section of the west wall of today’s mission compound (see Figure 4). Archaeological, bioarchaeological, and archival evidence indicate that it was in use as the mission church in 1789 and that its floor probably served as a burial and reburial place until 1862. At that time the present-day San Juan/Berg’s Mill cemetery was established and began to be used regularly by the parishioners (Schuetz 1974:49). A few burials occurred in the late 1860s or soon thereafter, judging from a visitor sometime after the American Civil War who commented on the deteriorated state of the church and noted that the floor area was disturbed recently for graves (Rock 1999:99).

When the gravesites in the unfinished church were excavated in 1967, it was expected that the remains recovered from them would be representative of a Coahuiltecan population. The rationale for the expectation that the burials were those of Coahuiltecans was that none of the records indicated that there were ever other nonCoahuiltecan groups at the mission and no Europeans were known to have been buried in the unfinished church (Schuetz 1968:2, 214). None of the individuals interred there were buried in coffins, native artifacts were fairly common, and most of the historic artifacts could be dated to the last half of the eighteenth century. Results of the preliminary study of the skeletal population indicated more variation than expected and suggested that the burials were not representative of a “random sampling of Coahuiltecans, but were a highly selected group” (Humphreys

Construction of the extant church building, however, dates to several decades before the structure was used as church. It was built in part over the foundation of a structure that was probably a granary. It was remodeled and refloored several times during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Another building, of as yet undetermined function and with a different alignment, underlies the extant church and may be temporally associated with the first stone church. Human remains were recovered from primary and secondary burial pits below the floor of the extant church (Schuetz 1969). Clothing remnants, coffin remains, and other items spatially associated with the grave pits in the church floor clearly dated the burials from the late eighteenth to the midnineteenth centuries. As such, the burials as a group were considered to be “post-mission,


but still Colonial,” and they represented acculturated Indians and an evermore ethnically diverse mission community (Schuetz 1974:49, 1980a:129). Of the skeletal remains complete enough for racial identification, most were identified in the preliminary studies as Indian or probable Indian, but at least one Caucasoid was present, and racial identification was uncertain for several of the individuals. Schuetz (1974:31) considered this skeletal population to be consistent with census data indicating that San Juan’s inhabitants were racially mixed by the time of initial secularization in 1793 and throughout the late Colonial period. Residents at Mission San Juan A formal Act of Possession for Mission San Juan was issued on March 5, 1731, for about 300 Benados (Venados) and Toloujaas (Teloja, Teloxa), bands of hunter-gatherers who today are usually considered to be culturally, if not linguistically, Coahuiltecan (Chapter 7). Soon thereafter, other geographically Coahuiltecan groups were recruited and became prominent there, including the Olojas (also known as Pitalaques), Pacoas, Pajalat, Chayopines (Sayopoine, Chaiopin), and Orejones (Rock 1999:2-10; Schuetz 1980b:57). By 1753, Pamaques, Paguacanes, and Piguiques were living at the mission, along with at least one Viayan who had married into a Pamaque family (Rock 1999:31). During the 1760s, representatives of other geographically Coahuiltecan groups, including Borrados, Manos de Perro, and Sanipas, arrived at Mission San Juan. In the 1770s, still others, not always identified as to group name, were recruited from the gulf coast, offshore islands and elsewhere in the wilderness. Among the identified groups were the Guanbrauta, Aiaguia, and Malaquita. As noted earlier, San Antonio’s missions were

already in decline by the 1770s, signaling their pending secularization, but recruitment continued nonetheless (Rock 1999; Schuetz 1980a). In spite of an ongoing Apache threat in the 1780s and 1790s, some of the mission Indians still fled and mixed with gentile and apostate groups. Recruitment also continued, sometimes forced (Rock 1999:30-31, 47-53). New group names continued to appear in the mission records through the early nineteenth century, including the Salcedo in 1809 and the Vallejo in 1815 (Schuetz 1980c:11-12). Many of the Indian groups represented at San Juan at one time or another during the eighteenth century were also found at one or more of the other San Antonio missions, as well as at missions along the Rio Grande (Schuetz 1980b:49-57). Schuetz (1980b:126) argued that the 150year-long reduction effort or in-gathering (i.e., “missionization”) of Coahuiltecans was virtually complete by 1800 and that many of these Indians and their more acculturated descendants had been incorporated into San Antonio’s growing non-mission community. By then, thousands had died and been buried at the San Antonio missions. More than 1,150 were laid to rest at Mission San Juan alone (Schuetz 1980c:10). As the reduction process continued through the mid-1700s and the number of Coahuiltecans living at the missions declined in the late 1700s, more and more people of mixed Indian and non-Indian ancestry were incorporated into the mission communities. Even so, as late as 1783, the mission Indians are reported to have spoken an “almost uniform language,” presumably some version of Coahuilteco, as well as “slightly imperfect Castillian” (Rock 1999:56). Nahuatl was used as a lingua franca in some areas, although relatively few people in the San Antonio area probably knew it (Schuetz 1980b:16).

Church (approximate dates in use) --- Burial places/cemeteries (approximate dates in use) Jacal Church, ca. 1731-1745/1756 • Church floor • Surrounding buildings/plaza area First Stone Church, ca. 1745/56-1772/1792 • Church floor • Surrounding buildings/areas (?) Unfinished Church, construction 1762-1779/93 • Church floor (from 1760s to early 1800s) • Camposanto may be south of church Extant Church, ca. 1780/1793-2000 • Church floor • Camposanto (south of unfinished church?) • Extant San Juan/Berg’s Mill Cemetery Sacramental Records for Mission San Juan Baptisms Marriages: 85 [1731-1756], 87 [1756-1772] Deaths/Burials

17311740

17411745

17461756

17571762

17631772

17731798

17991862

18632000

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------? ?????????????????????????????????????????????

17311740 278 ? 147*

17411745 237 ? 94

17461756 323 ? 251*

17571762 55+ ? 153

----------------------------------? ?????????????????????????? --------17631773179918631772 1798 1862 2000 144 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 147* 364* ?* ?*

Comments

Located near first stone church (Room 31)? Location of campo santo unknown Primary use of structure for burials Burials in extant cemetery since 1862 All records incomplete *

Epidemics


Table 1. Summary information for periods of church and burial-place usages and associated sacramental records (data from Ewers 1973; Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980a, 1980b, 1980c; Rock 1999:16).


At Valero, and presumably at the other San Antonio missions as well, there appears to have been relatively little “mixing of the races” until the mid-1700s when an increasing number of mulattos appear in the census. By the late 1770s when the missions as a whole were in decline, townspeople of various ethnic affiliations were renting rooms at Mission San Juan and the names of retired soldiers show up on mission rolls (Rock 1999:29). In 1820, approximately 1,800 people were living in San Antonio de Béxar, 57.5 percent of whom were classified as Spaniards and 42.3 percent as Indians, mestizo, and other designations that denoted Indian ancestry (Schuetz 1980a:182). These “racial” classifications, however, were more social than biological. With successful completion of the missionization process, Indians were considered to be gente de razón (a person of reason qualified to be a citizen) and sometimes they were even referred to as being Español. Archival records show clearly that former mestizos often became Spaniards, as did some former Indians, and others once listed as Indian came to be listed as mulattos or mestizos (Rock 1999:79-80; Schuetz 1980b:182, 200, 204-205). The 1792 census for San Juan Capistrano Mission [Census-San Juan Capistrano (CSJC) 1792] illustrates the decidedly multiracial and multi-ethnic character of the mission’s residents (ca. 60). Twenty-six people listed as Indians were members of several geographically Coahuiltecan groups, but not necessarily native Coahuilteco speakers, including Malaquita, PamaquePiguiques, and Borrado (cf. Campbell and Campbell 1996) all of whom had been associated with the mission for several decades. Also present were three Tlascaltecans who were referenced as being from the Boca de León community in Nuevo León. As noted earlier, these Tlascaltecans were derived from a native group originally from central Mexico, members of which were

resettled in Coahuila and Nuevo León. Two other Indians listed in the 1792 census were married to “mulattos,” one from Los Adaes (east Texas) and another listed as from both Reynosa and Béxar. Another Indian was listed as married to a “mestizo” from the presidio of San Antonio de Béxar. Among 13 other “mulatto” residents listed in the 1792 census were people from Los Adaes, Reynosa (south of the Rio Grande), San Francisco de Patos, Hacienda de Mamulique, Presidios Rio Grande and San Antonio de Béxar, and Mission Espada. Two people were listed as mestizo, one from Nacogdoches and one from Reynosa. Three others were listed as being “natives” or naturales of Reynosa, Lampazos, and San Francisco de Patos. Only five people (less than 10 percent) are listed as being Spanish. It should be remembered, however, that in some censuses an individual may be designated as both an Español as well as a “native” of a mission. As Rock (1999:79880) points out, however, there were very few Spaniards who were truly native to the missions. A listing as a native possibly could denote an Indian who had become a gente de razón and accordingly came to be referred to as “Español” by virtue of having completed the missionization process. With the initial secularization of Mission San Juan in 1794, 12 Indian families, all of those still residing within the compound, were granted small tracts of land and officially became tax-paying Spanish citizens. Included were individuals identified as being Orejón, Pamaque-Pehuique, Malaquita, Chaiopin, and Venado, all groups who had been part of the mission community for decades (Schuetz 1980c:10). Other geographic Coahuiltecans were living there at the time, including José Cayetano Valle who was serving as Indian governor; he was Guanbrauta-Aiaguia and his wife was either Orejón or Chaiopin. Schuetz


(1980c:10) traced him through 1817 in the census records. During the early 1800s, less and less attention was given to listing specific band names in the census record, although people often continued to be listed as Indians (Rock 1999:78). Others were listed as “natives” of a particular area. For example, two people in the 1815 census are said to be natives of New Mexico. Salvador Flores, a 30-year-old man, was listed as being a mission Indian in 1815, but neither he nor others who had once been listed as such were so designated in the 1823 census (Rock 1999:78, 80). San Juan’s alcalde in 1815 was Santiago Díaz, a man whose family is noted in mission archives under a variety of ethnic/racial rubrics, including, Indian, mestizo, Spaniard, and nativo de Béxar (Rock 1999:142). Three of his descendants were interviewed for the present project (Chapters 4, 5, and 6). By the time secularization was completed under Mexican rule in 1824, it was no longer important to list an individual’s racial affiliation or mixture thereof. Apparently, concepts of citizen equality were increasingly well developed following the Enlightenment period of the late 1700s and early 1800s (see Benavides, this volume, Chapter 6). What this suggests is that many Indians “disappeared” from the records simply because officials chose to reclassify or unclassify them, not necessarily because they had become racially or culturally indistinguishable from Hispanic citizens per se. Recruitment Issues and Population Maintenance From the outset in the 1730s, trouble brewed at Mission San Juan, although the mission continued to carry out its role of training Indians to be farmers, skilled laborers, and productive “Spanish” citizens and converting them to Catholicism (Rock

1999:11-17). Spanish settlers from the Canary Islands arrived at Presidio San Antonio de Béxar on March 9, 1731, only four days after Mission San Juan Capistrano was formally established. These settlers formed the nucleus of the villa of San Fernando de Béxar. Soon thereafter, they found themselves in conflict with the missions over land use and the use of Indians as day laborers. There were also struggles between the civil government and the church over how the mission should be managed. The mission Indians also complained to the civil authorities about mistreatment by the missionaries. Apaches routinely raided the area, stole livestock, and killed and kidnapped mission Indians. Smallpox and other epidemics caused many deaths. Historical records indicate that it was always difficult to maintain enough Indians at the mission to meet labor needs (Rock 1999). The Indians regularly fled their mission homes to seek what they must have considered a better way of life in the wilderness. Table 2 presents population figures for Indians residing at the mission during the mission period. The most persistent problem for the missionaries was with “runaways.” In 1737, for example, some 180 people—Olojas, Venados, Orejones, and Chayopoines (Saiopines)—fled the mission for the wilderness, leaving only 23 Indians in residence. The following year, soldiers and the mission priest were sent to retrieve them. They returned with some 120 Chayopines (Rock 1999:12; Schuetz 1980c:4), undoubtedly including new recruits. Fifteen years later, in 1753, Pamaques, Paguacanes, and Piguiques who had arrived there sometime during the interim fled San Juan and went to Mission San Francisco de Vizarrón near the Rio Grande in Coahuila (Rock 1999: 31-39).


These particular San Juan Coahuiltecans had relatives at Vizarrón and, once together, they incorporated new members, including gentiles (non-mission Indians from related bands) and at least one coyote (Indianmestizo). The San Juan priest argued for their return to San Antonio, but the group was reluctant to leave and threatened to flee to the wilderness (Rock 1999:33). No clear resolution was reached in the heated debate between the two missions about which one had jurisdiction over these groups (Rock 1999; Schuetz 1980c:4). Several marriages had taken place between some of the San Juan people and Vizarrón ladinos (Spanishspeaking, Christianized Indians), including several Viayans, a group whose first language may have been something other than Coahuilteco, which further complicated the situation (Campbell and Campbell 1996; Rock 1999:40). Through the decades, many groups fled from Mission San Juan; sometimes they returned, other times they did not (Rock 1999). Expeditions—soldiers accompanied by missionaries—were mounted and sent to the “wilderness,” including the gulf coast and offshore islands, to bring back the runaways. They often returned with new Indian recruits instead. San Juan’s runaways are known to have joined with other apostates, sometimes even with the Apache, and raided settlements south of the Rio Grande. Others fled to the coast, or elsewhere in the “wilderness” and sometimes joined with gentile groups (Rock 1999:30-32, 57). Documents from the era indicate that on one occasion in 1776, an expedition from San Juan “separated out and tied up” women and young girls from a ranchería (Indian encampment). Seemingly this was a necessary precaution to ensure that they would not escape and that the men would follow them to the mission (Rock 1999:59). As late as 1795, officials reported that San Juan’s Indians sought to flee and mix with gentile Indians (Rock 1999:70). Recruitment

from among the gentile Indians for purposes of “in-gathering” or reducción was necessary to accomplish the goals of training and converting the Indians to Catholicism. Of course, the practice also served to maintain sufficient populations to ensure the upkeep of the mission’s compound, labores (fertile fields), acequias (irrigation ditches), and various workshop enterprises. Judging solely from available, albeit limited, census data (see Table 2), it appears that San Juan’s mission Indian population remained fairly constant through to the 1770s, at which time the numbers were reduced by about half. Thereafter, the population remained fairly stable until 1790. The same demographic pattern also holds for the San Antonio missions as a group (Schuetz 1980b:128-129). An overall population of some 1,000 Indians resided there between 1720 and 1772, but was followed by a marked decline and then relative stability for several decades. Another drop followed in 1790, but thereafter the numbers held for some time. Given mortality and flight patterns, the periods of “nominal stability” are best explained by “continuous recruiting” (Schuetz 1980b:128-129). The marked population decline in 1790 (see Table 2) appears at the other missions as well and is explained by Schuetz as follows: Beginning in 1790 the government, perhaps in recognition of the growing complexity of the larger mission communities, changed their census forms…Since more and more Indians were moving outside the missions, and presumably were self-supporting, these were probably now subject to taxation and the differentiation between mission Indians who were tax exempt, and non-mission Indians would have been called for. Therefore, the populations presented as before…appear to reflect only those actually dwelling within the mission walls and explain the apparent drop of those populations from the previous year [Schuetz 1980b:191].


Table 2. Summary census and other historical information for Indian populations at Mission San Juan (data from Schuetz 1980a:128; supplemented by Rock 1999 and Schuetz 1980c).

Date of Census 1731

Indian Residents 300?

1737

23-203

1740

66-218

1745

163-173

1754

120+

1756 1759 1762

265 226-267 203

1772

202

1777

156

1783

99

1784 1785

103 112

1786

110

Comments Act of Possession 180 flee to wilderness Reflects recruitment Authors’ counts differ 120 fled to Vizarrón

Recruitment in 1760s 107 recruited in 1771 Recruitment in 1776 Indians flee in 1780s

In 1772, the Franciscans from Querétaro transferred admission of their missions in Texas to the Franciscans from Zacatecas. This was due to three essential factors: (1) the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish empire forced a realignment of all of their missions to other missionaries like the Franciscans; (2) the friars from Querétaro assumed control of many former Jesuit missions in western and northern New Spain and they had to leave their Texas missions due to staffing problems; and (3) the Spanish crown had long tried to get out of the “mission business” during the last half of the eighteenth century. It succeeded by simply withdrawing financial support. Thus there were political and economic

Date of Census 1789

Indian Residents 80

Comments

1790

24

1791

43

1792

29

1794

Ca. 30+?

Excludes those outside Excludes those outside Excludes those outside 12 adult males

1805 1808 1809

21 19 20

1810

19

1815

15

1819

9+

1827 1835

4 1+

Fought with “Texans”

underpinnings to the decline in mission Indian population 1772 and again after the early 1790s (Rosalind Rock, personal communication 2000). As part of her dissertation research, Schuetz compiled and assessed demographic data pertaining to the San Antonio missions in general, and to Mission Valero in particular. She examined birthrates, fertility issues, life spans, and causes of mortality. She also traced 13 families through missionization during the 1700s and into the post-secularization San Antonio community. One of her important conclusions was that “the gradual stabilization of the population through lowered death rates of both adults


and children and an increasing birth rate by 1792 assured the survival of the Coahuiltecans” (Schuetz 1980b:19). This conclusion is especially important in light of the present project’s goal of assessing the assertion that some members of today’s San Juan community are lineal descendants of its mission Indians. POST-MISSION ERA, 1824-PRESENT Anglo-American colonization of Texas began under Spanish rule, continued through Mexico’s independence from Spain, and accelerated greatly under the Texas Republic and into statehood. Indians continued to live at Mission San Juan after final secularization (1824), but they were notably fewer in number, undoubtedly due in part to the trend not to list racial makeup in the sacramental records. In the wake of secularization and Mexico’s independence from Spain, there were no longer communal lands at Mission San Juan and a secular clergy ministered to the parishioners. Only four property owners living there in 1827 were listed as Indians; at that time, the mission community was considered part of the jurisdiction of the growing city of San Antonio de Béxar (Rock 1999:86, 95). By the time of Texas’ own fight for independence from Mexico, 1835-1836, there was at least one Indian resident of San Juan, Salvador Flores, who participated on the Texas side of the revolution (Schuetz 1968c:13). Within a few years after the Texas Revolution, several Anglo and Hispanic veterans had petitioned for and received land in the San Juan community as compensation for their service during war. Representatives of the new republic soon began to debate issues about ownership of lands adjoining the mission churches and, in 1841, they restored the churches, outbuildings, and

adjacent lots to the Roman Catholic Church (Rock 1999:96-97). The community remained predominately Hispanic for several decades, but Anglo surnames had already begun to replace Spanish names (Rock 1999:112). During the 1840s, there was a marked increase in the number of European and Anglo-American landowners at the old mission. By 1850, R. J. Higginbotham and the heirs of Hendrick Arnold, a well-known free Black who had participated in the Texas Revolution, were joint owners of a sawmill in the community. Later, a wool scouring mill was added. Although Anglos and AfricanAmericans owned land and made investments in San Juan prior to the Civil War, the literature reviewed for the present study does not reveal how many of them actually lived in the community or were buried there. It is worth noting, however, that Anglos historically cast the community’s darker-skinned residents as “poor Mexicans” who lived in conditions of squalor and whose church was in a condition of decay (Rock 1999:99-100). Given that perspective, it does not seem likely that very many of the non-Indian/non-Hispanic residents would have been buried in the floor of the extant church that had been in use since the 1780s. Nonetheless, at least one Caucasoid was among the remains exhumed from the church floor (Schuetz 1974) and a few individuals are reported to have been interred in the church floor until a short time after the Civil War (Rock 1999). Most of the community members who died during and after the Civil War, however, were probably interred in the new cemetery located a few hundred yards east of the mission (see Figure 4; Schuetz 1968). In 1879, Henry and Louis Berg established a wool mill that gave the community a new name, Berg’s Mill (Rock 1999:116-117).


As the community took on more of an Anglo flair in the late nineteenth century, so too did its land use patterns. Management and ownership of the all-important acequias had long been a community affair but, as the adjacent farmland was purchased and consolidated into larger plots, control of the irrigation became a private matter. One of the larger landowners was Celestine Villemain; as a child he emigrated from France with his family and settled in Castroville, an Alsatian French colony about 40 miles west of San Antonio. He began to secure legal rights to the main acequia in the late 1880s and soon thereafter Anglo landowners gained control of other parts of the irrigation system. By 1895, most of the land was no longer held by people with Spanish surnames. In 1900, the San Juan Ditch Company was incorporated and provided water to a growing truck farm industry that, by that time, included Italian immigrants as well (Rock 1999: 106-111). By the 1920s, the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community included people of German and Polish ancestry, along with Italians, descendants of earlier French settlers, AngloAmericans, Hispanics, and Native Americans (Rock 1999:129). “Inter-racial” marriages were not at all uncommon. A case in point is Mickey Killian’s family who descended on his mother’s side from Santiago Díaz, the mission’s alcalde in 1815, as well as from one of the original Canary Island families. Mr. Killian’s father came from the state of Georgia in the 1930s and traced his ancestry back to Ireland (Rock 1999:142-44, also see Chapters 4 and 6). J. Gilberto Quezada, an historian, oralhistory interviewer, and educator, conducted detailed interviews in 1998 with nine San Juan residents, including Mickey Killian. Rock summarized these interviews in her recent report on the history of Mission San Juan. “Indians” and other ethnic groups were among the recurring themes that emerged

from the interviews. Henry Devora, an interviewee who moved to the community about 1970, was among those who commented about Indian issues. He reported that as he came to know his neighbors and learned about the mission’s history, he became convinced that “the majority of the older people belonged to various Indian tribes, if not them their forefathers” (cited in Rock 1999:141). As a community leader and one-time member of the San Antonio Missions Advisory Board, Devora played a key role in renaming a local street Camino Coahuilteco. He was also keenly aware of Schuetz’s archaeological studies and the opposition by some community members to the excavations of the burials, as well as their desire for the remains to be reburied. Devora became sympathetic to these issues and, in the days before the National Park Service played a role in the management of the old mission grounds, he helped bring about the removal of several human bones from a museum display at the mission. He was also instrumental in bringing about a symbolic reburial at Mission San Juan in 1986 (Rock 1999:142). The reburial, which took place on August 2, 1986, in the floor of the extant church, was termed a “symbolic” ceremony by Father Balthasar Janacek (known as Father Balty) who performed the funeral ceremony. Its symbolic nature stemmed from the fact that only a few human bones, rather than all of the archaeologically recovered remains, were reburied. In June 1986, the Archdiocese had requested that THC return for reburial all the human remains recovered during Schuetz’s excavations in 1967 and 1969. THC responded that the request was unacceptable because the remains had considerable scientific value and needed to be studied further before considering the question of final disposition (Mallouf 1986; see Appendix H). Discussions about ownership and control of human remains and artifacts recovered during the excavations are well represented in


correspondences between the Archdiocese and THC, which was part of the State Building Commission in the late 1960s (e.g., Grahmann 1969; Tunnell 1967; see Appendix H). These discussions led to the decision in the summer of 1986 to rebury a symbolic sample of the human remains in the floor of the extant church. Immediately following the symbolic reburial service, Father Balty spoke to about 70 people gathered outside the chapel, including community members, along with representatives of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and the San Antonio Council of Native Americans (Hall 1986; Perdue 1986). In the preface to her history of Mission San Juan, Rock (1999:vi) wrote, “this act signaled a time for the mission natives to begin coming home.” One reporter noted at the time, however, that the ceremony was not expected to end the “years-old dispute about the fate of boxes full of other mission Indian bones now in the custody of the UTSA Center for Archaeological Research” (Perdue 1986:6). Within a few years, other Indian groups were actively working for reburial of the all the remains recovered during excavations at Mission San Juan, as well as for protection of other Indian burial places, including those at the Alamo (Guerra 1994; England 1995:36). Among those groups was AIT-SCM that formed in 1993 and included several members who trace their ancestry to San Juan, including Killian and Raymond Hernández (Chapter 3). A City of San Antonio oversight committee formally approved a resolution in 1995 endorsing this group, also known as the Coahuiltecan Nation, as “an important player in the city’s Mission Trails Project” (Anderson 1995). AIT-SCM requested assistance from THC in repatriating the human remains and funerary objects recovered from Mission San

Juan pursuant to NAGPRA provisions. THC responded that until AIT-SCM achieved federal recognition, it would not be eligible under NAGPRA to carry out repatriation of Native American remains and funerary objects (Tunnell 1994; see Appendix H). SAAN responded to a similar request from AIT-SCM by noting that the issues at hand must be resolved between AIT-SCM and the Catholic Church, which was the entity with legal standing (Amdor 1995; see Appendix H). In other words, SAAN did not consider repatriation and/or reburial of the San Juan remains to be a NAGPRA issue or an issue for NPS resolution. Archbishop Flores of the San Antonio Archdiocese also responded to a request for repatriation from AIT-SCM. He noted the church’s support for preservation efforts and for establishing themselves as descendants of mission Indians, but emphasized: The Archdiocese will not surrender any rights or responsibilities it may have with respect to the remains of those who were originally interred in consecrated ground. Legally, only the Archdiocese has standing to seek the return of the remains from San Juan Capistrano and it will continue to seek their return [i.e., from the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio]. When recovered, they will be reinterred in consecrated ground (Flores 1995a; see Appendix H). In a separate letter to the San Juan parish priest in 1995, Reverend Jorge Baistra, Archbishop Flores noted specifically that NAGPRA “is not applicable to San Juan Capistrano” (Flores 1995b; see Appendix H). In a 1995 interview, Father Balty, by then Monsignor Janacek, commented on the church’s challenge to incorporate the descendants of the San Antonio mission Indians (Torres 1997). His perspective is especially pertinent, given his long-term


representation of the Archdiocese of San Antonio on matters of the “Old Spanish Missions” in its dealings with the City of San Antonio, the State of Texas, and the National Park Service. Janacek attested: Every time I can, I try to reiterate that the missions represent not only the Hispanic presence in the area but the Hispanic and indigenous presence, because the Native Americans were the ones who really built those missions, whose intelligence was put in visible form at these places. They must have been amazing people to have learned as much as they did and to have learned it so quickly. And their work has continued to be with us as a tribute to them. As far as the future is concerned, the challenge for us is going to be how to integrate the idea of the participation of the Native American in these Old Spanish Missions. In reality, we have worked ourselves into a linguistic trap by the name commonly applied to them. We thought that was a clever way of integrating the missions into the community, but one heritage has tended to obscure the other in that name [Torres 1997:187].

Father Balty continued to be involved at Mission San Juan while Native American groups, including AIT-SCM and the newly formed Pamaque Band of San Juan Mission Indians, maintained pressure to rebury all of the human remains removed during excavations in 1967 and 1971. He and Hernández, a co-founder of the AIT-SCM group, played key roles in working out a 1999 agreement to rebury the remains. Representatives of the National Park Service, the Archdiocese of San Antonio, the Texas Historical Commission, and the University of Texas at San Antonio reached the agreement (Barrios 1999a; Rosalind Rock, personal communication 1999). Formal reburial ceremonies were held on Saturday, November 29, 1999, when the

remains of more than 100 individuals were reinterred in the floor of the unfinished church where many of the individuals were first buried more than 200 years earlier (Barrios 1999a, 1999b; Thoms 2000). Two Native American church services were held the night before the reburial to help prepare the Indian contingents for the morning ceremonies (Figure 5; also see cover photos). Saturday morning, Archbishop Patrick Flores performed a funeral mass with assistance from Father Balty (Figure 6). In his homily, Archbishop Flores noted that it had been a mistake for the church to grant permission for the exhumation and protracted study of the remains of its parishioners (Figure 7). He also acknowledged and thanked the Indian descendants for their role in maintaining the pressure for reburial (as principal investigator of the present project, I was among the 100 or so people who attended the ceremonies). Hernández led the Native American reburial ceremony on behalf of AIT-SCM and the Coahuiltecan Nation. In a newspaper article entitled “Indian Remains’ Reburial Today,” Hernández said, “We’re trying basically to honor the past with respect and dignity…The first time they were being buried as Catholics. This time they’re being buried as Coahuiltecans” (Barrios 1999b). The Sunday newspaper included a photograph of the funeral mass, entitled “Laid to Rest Again,” with the following caption: Archbishop Patrick Flores gives communion to members of the Coahuiltecan Nation during reburial ceremonies at Mission San Juan Capistrano. The remains of more than 100 American Indians and Mexican Americans that were removed from the site in 1967 and 1968 were reburied there Saturday. The reburial service included Indian and Catholic ceremonies (San Antonio ExpressNews [SAEN] 1999).


Figure 5. Photograph of teepee in the mission square where a Native American Church service was held Friday night (November 26, 1999) before the Saturday morning reburial ceremonies (photograph by Alston V. Thoms).

Figure 6. Photograph of parishioners and community members, including representatives of the AIT-SCM (foreground), attending the Saturday morning (November 27, 1999) funeral mass held prior to the Native Amercian reburial ceremony led by Raymond Hernandez (photograph by Alston V. Thoms).


Figure 7. Photograph of Archbishop Patrick Flores delivering the homily at the funeral mass that preceded the Native American reburial ceremony on Saturday morning, November 27, 1999; also depicted are Father James Galvin (leaning forward, center foreground), San Juan’s parish priest; and Monsignor Bathasar Janacek (seated to the right), the parish liaison between state/federal agencies and Indian groups on matters of old Spanish missions (photograph by Alston V. Thoms).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS A key component of the historical context for Mission San Juan is that the earliest Indian residents and their progenitors—native inhabitants of south Texas and northeastern Mexico known today as Coahuiltecans—had been interacting regularly with the Spanish for more than 100 years. Apocalyptic depopulation from diseases, slave raiding, and warfare had resulted in significant social reorganization. Entirely new groups formed of survivors from what in pre-contact times were probably linguistically and perhaps

ethnically distinctive hunter-gatherer bands (cf. Ewers 1973). It seems likely that nonIndian genes—mostly Spanish and African—would have been incorporated into the aboriginal population as well (cf. Chapa 1997). During the early part of the eighteenth century, a diversity of Native Americans came to reside at Mission San Juan Capistrano and four other Spanish missions located nearby along the San Antonio River. A few of San Antonio’s mission Indians were from agricultural tribes whose home territories were originally as far as way as central Mexico (e.g., Tlaxcalan, a Nahuatl group) and east Texas (e.g., Tejas, a


Caddoan group). Others who came there, including Apaches, Tonkawas, and Comanches, represented hunter-gatherer groups whose homelands were north and west of San Antonio (Campbell and Campbell 1996). The majority, however, represented linguistically diverse hunting and gathering groups, known collectively today as Coahuiltecans; their homelands were in south Texas, including the coastal areas, and in northeast Mexico (Hester 1980, 1998; Rock 1999; Schuetz 1969, 1980a). Ethnic complexity at the San Antonio missions mirrors their placement on the regional landscape at an intersection, or ecotonal setting, of several distinctive and expansive ecological zones. Mission San Juan and the other missions lie within the southernmost part of the Blackland Prairie ecological zone, but there are three other zones within a few miles of the missions (Frye et al. 1984). To the west is the Edwards Plateau or Hill Country of central Texas; to the east is the more wooded Post Oak Savannah; to the south, just across the San Antonio River, is the brush country of the South Texas Plains. Ethnic diversity was also enhanced by proximity to the Caminos Reales, a major travel corridor that linked more settled territory of northeast Mexico with the outer edge of the Spanish frontier in east Texas. Undoubtedly Indian people traveling within and between these same areas had used this corridor for many millennia (McGraw et al. 1991; Thoms 1993). By the time Mission San Juan was established in 1731, Presidio San Antonio de Béxar was already a dozen years old and was being maintained by Spaniards, criollos (American-born Spaniards), ladinos (Christianized, Spanish-speaking Indians), mulattos, and mestizos (De la Teja 1995). Cultural and biological diversity increased with Spanish colonization, beginning with

the arrival in March 1731 of Spaniards from the Canary Islands. Initial secularization of the missions during the waning period of Spanish rule in the mid-1790s and final secularization in 1824 under Mexican rule were accompanied by new sets of landowners and inhabitants of the mission communities. From the 1820s through the 1870s, full-scale colonization and settlement, under the auspices of Mexican, Texan, and American governments, brought a variety of European and African-American immigrants to the mission area and the region as a whole (Rock 1999). The historical literature clearly indicates that the San Antonio area has been ethnically diverse for centuries, and that pattern continues to the present day. Assuming that biological and cultural mixing has been more or less continuous in this region, and probably at a more rapid pace than it was in coastal or inland regions, we might well expect considerable cultural change as well. In any case, a “snapshot” of the local culture at one period in time might not be all that similar to an earlier or later snapshot taken in the same area. Nonetheless, there must have been a substantial measure of continuity, embedded in cycles of acculturation and assimilation that linked contact-period native peoples of south Texas and northeast Mexico from the coast to the rugged interior country to their present-day descendants. In various ways and for varying reasons Spanish officials, linguists, anthropologists, historians, archaeologists, the public, the media, and the descendants themselves came to refer to these diverse native peoples as Coahuiltecans. From historical and cultural evolution perspectives, Coahuiltecans arguably epitomize the concept of cultural survival. As Old World immigrants came to control this vast area, the aboriginal Coahuiltecan


(hunter-gatherers in the relatively dry country of south-central Texas) suffered apocalyptic depopulation and sociocultural reorganization. But biological and cultural ties to the past were surely maintained, albeit with considerable metamorphoses. These processes of change resulted in the emergence of neo-organized Coahuiltecans during the post-contact era, most of who were “gathered” into the missions by soldiers and priests representing the Spanish crown. Once there, a new round of metamorphoses occurred as a result of missionization and miscegenation processes (Schuetz 1980a). Ladino Coahuiltecans emerged. They assimilated with and became increasingly known as Mexicans, Hispanics, or Tejanos (cf. De la Teja 1995). During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Ladino Coahuiltecans were incorporated into the greater San Antonio community to the point that their native heritage became almost invisible to much of the outside world. More accurately, they veiled their biological and cultural affiliations. They adapted in what, from a human ecological perspective, would

be a cryptic fashion in that they tended to conceal or camouflage their presence. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a segment of the San Juan community—veiled Coahuiltecans— retained elements of its Indian heritage. As historian Rock noted, “residents of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community are increasingly committed to a renewal of their links to their forebears and to the preservation of the historic fabric” (Rock 1999:16). Archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan in 1967 served to spark and revitalize the community’s veiled Coahuiltecans. These sparks caught fire with the ongoing civil rights movement, passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and especially the controversy that surrounded reburial issues in San Antonio during the late twentieth century. In the end, people with mission Indian heritage once again became readily visible as resurgent Coahuiltecans.

Chapter 3: Popular Literature – Page 45

CHAPTER 3:

POPULAR LITERATURE Jennifer L. Logan This chapter consists of an overview of non-anthropological literature on San Antonio to provide baseline information about the Native American peoples who have traditionally lived and worked in the Mission San Juan community. The information garnered from the literature review will be used by the SAAN for future consultation with Native American groups on issues pertaining to the cultural resources of the mission. Non-anthropological literature attests to the existence of active communities of mission Indian descendants at Missions San Juan and Espada from the 1850s (and, from one woman’s reminiscence, the 1830s) to the present day. Tourist brochures for the San Antonio mission system published in the 1990s (San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau 1998; SAAN 1996; Tezel 1997) point out that many San Juan parishioners trace their ancestry to Indians that lived on mission grounds during the nineteenth century. Gente de Razón: People of the Missions (1998), a video commemorating the park’s twentieth anniversary, attests that the San Antonio mission Indians became a part of San Antonio’s Hispanic population. San Antonio Missions NHP’s interest in working with today’s mission Indian communities is notable. It represents a recent manifestation of a long tradition in which city tourism was promoted in non-anthropological literature by emphasizing the living presence of indigenous communities around the missions. That Native American peoples live in the mission areas has been emphasized from the 1850s to the 1990s in nonanthropological literature promoting San

Antonio for tourism and industry. The park followed suit in its brochures. Significantly, the “Indianness” of the missions continues, in the opinion of one member of AIT-SCM, to be promoted because of its potential to increase tourism to San Antonio. Professional anthropologists do not generally valorize non-anthropological literature as a source of information. Thoms (1997) recognized that, while much of the anthropological literature asserts that the Coahuiltecan Indians are extinct (Chapter 7), non-anthropological literature is filled with references to mission Indian descendants still living near the San Antonio Missions. In particular, authors continually direct readers’ attention to Mission San Juan and Mission Espada as the last two places in Texas where one could observe Indian peoples and come away with a sense of what life at the missions was like during the Spanish Colonial period (Table 3). One of the earliest indications that the former mission Indians still lived throughout the once-San Antonio mission system comes from a survivor of the Battle of the Alamo. When asked why the besiegers of the Alamo did not simply end the siege by cutting off the mission’s water supply, the interviewee answered that “the Indians at the Missions would not have allowed this!” (Corner 1890:118). Toward the turn of the twentieth century, Corner noted: a number of Mexican families live here [at Mission San Juan], some of the members of which possess marked Indian features. In the neighborhood of San Juan there are more traces of the Indian in faces and characteristics than anywhere else in Texas (Corner 1890:20).

Page 46 – Chapter 3: Popular Literature

Table 3. Non-anthropological references to descendants of Indian neophytes at Mission San Juan Capistrano and other places in San Antonio.

Reference

Commentary

John Gilmary Shea 1855 History of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the United States, 1529-1854. Edward Dunigan & Brother, New York.

“a few scattered Indians alone remain of the thousands once gathered around the mission altars” (p. 87). —speaking of Texas (San Antonio) missions in general

L’Abbé E. Domenech 1857 Journal d’un Missionnaire au Texas et au Mexique. Librairie de Gaume Frères, Paris.

Of Mission San José: “Aujourd’hui leurs descendants se sont transportés à San-Antonio ou sur d’autres points de la rivière; il ne reste plus à San-José que quelques pauvres familles indo-Mexicaines” (p. 90).

Robin W. Doughty 1987 At Home In Texas: Early Views of the Land. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. [Citing Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railway Co. (1876) Immigrants Guide to Western Texas: Sunset Route. Lawrence, Boston.]

1890

1909

William Corner San Antonio de Béxar. Bainbridge and Corner, San Antonio.

Nora Franklin McCormick San Antonio: Historical and Modern. Passing Show Publishing Co., San Antonio.

Adina de Zavala 1917 History and Legends of the Alamo and Other Missions in and around San Antonio. Adina de Zavala, San Antonio. W. Frances Scarborough 1929 Old Spanish Missions in Texas: V. San Juan Capistrano. Southwest Review 14(2): 237-255.

“Today their [neophytes’] descendants have moved to San Antonio or on other points of the river; they no longer exist at San José except for some poor indoMexican families” (p. 90). “according to Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railway Company brochures . . . The idler could watch Indian women dress subtropical ‘leopard’ and ocelot skins with the animals’ brains to keep them supple” (p. 87).

“A number of Mexican families live here, some of the members of which possess marked Indian features. In the neighborhood of San Juan there are more traces of the Indian in faces and characteristics than anywhere else in Texas” (p. 20). Sra. Andrea Candelaria, interviewed by William Corner: “I naturally asked why the besiegers [of the Alamo] did not cut off the water or divert it and so distress those within? She said the Indians at the Missions would not have allowed this!” (p. 118). “It is claimed that in the neighborhood of this mission [San Juan] among the Mexicans are to be found more distinct traces of the Indian in faces and characteristics than anywhere else in Texas” (p. 21). “It is said that in the vicinity of San Juan Mission there are more traces of the Indian in features and characteristics than anywhere else in the interior of Texas” (p. 120). “Little San Juan still hovers over a straggling group of Indians” (p. 255).


Table 3. Continued.

1946

Reference Peyton Green San Antonio, City in the Sun. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

1947

Leah Carter Johnston San Antonio, St. Anthony’s Town. Librarians’ Council, San Antonio.

1959

Charles Ramsdell San Antonio, a Historical and Pictorial Guide. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Ben Procter San Juan Capistrano. In Six Missions of Texas, pp. 169-194. Texian Press, Waco. Mardith K. Schuetz 1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, Vol. 1. Report 10, State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. Mardith K. Schuetz 1980 The Indians of the San Antonio Missions 17181821. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Eddie Nickens 1992 Legacies of Faith. Historic Preservation 44(2):16-16-20. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 1996 San Antonio Missions Official Map and Guide. Brochure, GPO: 1996—404-952/40005. Reprint 1996. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio. Mark Tezel 1997 San Antonio Missions: Mission San Juan. Brochure. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio. 1965

San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau 1998 Guide to Historic San Antonio Mission Trails. Brochure. San Antonio: San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Commentary “Two of the missions are still inhabited by descendants of the Indians who built them” (p. 204). “Some of what this mission community was like can be glimpsed, though obscurely, at San Francisco de la Espada or at San Juan Capistrano. Both are isolated missions, surrounded by descendants of their Indian founders” (p. 208). “Perhaps a few of the farmers working the land in the neighborhood of the old missions today are descendants of those families among whom the lands were divided” (p. 15). “San Juan and Espada are in ruins. But people live here. And, what is more, with all the inevitable mutations and admixtures, they are descendants of the same people, Indians and Spaniards, who lived here more than two centuries ago” (p. 142). “It [Guadalupe Church] is the mainstay of the very Mexican (or very Indian) Catholic” (p. 166). “For more than one hundred years after secularization. . the descendants of the twelve neophytes continued to live in the area” (p. 193). “Today the old missions are surrounded by families who claim their descent from mission Indians” (p. 58).

“Around the three lower missions today there are still many residents who proudly proclaim their descent from mission Indians” (p. 321). “…many families in the vicinity [of Mission San Juan and Espada] trace their ancestors directly to the mission neophytes and Spanish workers” (p. 20). “The San Antonio missions today represent a virtually unbroken connection with the past. Bearing the distinctive stamp of generations of Indian and Spanish craftsmen, they live still as active parishes.” “Mission San Juan may seem quiet today, yet it still is the center of a vibrant community …Many of these parishioners trace their roots back to the original inhabitants of Mission San Juan. . . They still come to worship at the mission, just as their ancestors did centuries ago.” “Native American and Spanish descendants of the original inhabitants still live near the Mission grounds.”


Corner’s observation was echoed by other early authors (e.g., de Zavala 1917:120; McCormick 1909:21), who perceived Missions San Juan and Espada as the last remaining places in Texas where visitors could see Indian peoples. While McCormick’s and de Zavala’s almost wordfor-word repetition of Corner’s original statement suggests that local knowledge had passed into oral history, the observations of other authors imply that this oral history had some basis in reality. The Indians-still-atthe-missions concept is voiced with more diversity by later authors. For example, Scarborough’s (1929:255) historical overview of San Juan, part of a series on the Spanish missions in Texas, describes a “straggling group of Indians” still residing on mission grounds. Green (1946:208) characterized Missions San Juan and Espada as isolated communities of mission Indian descendants that were rooted in an aboriginal antiquity that overshadowed the Spanish Colonial period. And in San Antonio: A Historical and Pictorial Guide, published by the University of Texas through the San Antonio Conservation Society, Ramsdell celebrated the members of the San Juan and Espada communities who, “with all the inevitable mutations and admixtures…are descendants of the same people, Indians and Spaniards, who lived here more than two centuries ago” (Ramsdell 1959:142). As with most large cities, a great deal of tourist literature about the city of San Antonio has been published, including descriptive histories, scenic guidebooks, and combinations of these. As diverse as these writings are, virtually all authors agreed that the nature and character of San Antonio is multifaceted. More specifically, writers described the city as unique in its ethnic diversity and contrast between old and new, past and future.

One author summarized these features of San Antonio: San Antonio is like no other city in Texas. It is like no other city anywhere. Though it incorporates some of the essence of a dozen dissimilar places, it resembles none of them. . . San Antonio is indigenous to its own soil. It draws its character from all the diverse elements, which have helped to build it (Green 1946:7).

Another remarked: San Antonio…is, and has been always, a meeting place, on the verge, between France and Spain, between Spain and England, between the Indian and the white, between the South and the West, the old and the new. What fascinates the visitor—and the long-time resident as well—is the amazing variety of the place, its startling contrasts…Youth is everywhere…But this remains an old town...any way you turn there are vestiges of the past (Ramsdell 1959:3, 6-7).

These concepts were thought to be embodied in both the architecture and the people—especially those of Mexican identity—of San Antonio. ARCHITECTURE The potential for architectural features to attract tourists was recognized by early writers such as William Corner (1890:2). Corner, who published one of the first wellcirculated tourist guidebooks for San Antonio, noted: although the modern business blocks and fine residences...so largely predominate, yet the ancient looking house here and there...the relics of an older and altogether different dynasty—lend the city a venerable air that is pleasing to the visitor’s eye.

Corner (1890:2) directed visitors to the missions—“the venerable Missions, at once the pride, glory and regret of San Antonio”—


as the primary means by which visitors could understand the uniqueness of the city. His tour guide for San Antonio set a precedent for tourist guidebooks for at least the next 30 years, especially regarding the importance of the missions in general to the collective consciousness of San Antonians. He noted that, for visitors to San Antonio, “all four Missions have different points of interest and will repay a thousand times in pleasure any difficulty getting to them,” and concludes that “how can I get to see the Missions? is the anxious inquiry of almost every traveling sightseer that comes to San Antonio . . . There is nothing of the kind of equal interest on this continent” (Corner 1890:7,13). ETHNIC DIVERSITY The belief that “many different nations and races have helped to make the San Antonio of today” (Johnston 1947:42) is a sentiment voiced by many authors since Corner’s 1890 guide to San Antonio was published. In 1879, the first city directory was published for San Antonio. It revealed a population consisting of Americans, English, Irish, Germans, Alsatians, Mexicans, Spaniards, Italians, French, Swiss, Hungarians, Dutch, Belgians, Swedes, Poles, Chinese, and African-Americans (Johnston 1947:42). A brochure published by the Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railway Company informed visitors that, while in the city, they could witness Indian women tanning skins with animal brains (Doughty 1987:87). Early writers describing the ethnic diversity of San Antonio often equated the city’s multiculturalism with cosmopolitanism. Again, Corner set the precedent when he stated, “San Antonio is now probably the most cosmopolitan spot on the face of the globe. Representatives of every race of the earth have been counted here” (1890:2).

These statements were not without racial bias. At the same time that San Antonio’s ethnic diversity was celebrated, members of these ethnic groups were described in the most racist terms. For instance, one author commented: San Antonio…stands today the oldest, the most historic, the most beautiful, and most cosmopolitan city of the southwest. A stroll upon the plaza will demonstrate its cosmopolitan character. The Mexican peon walks along soberly and quietly; the jovial German beams; the Frenchman bows; the Italian gesticulates; the Negroes discuss of ‘possum and taters’ and the glory of ‘Juneteenth;’ the Chinaman and Jap patter along in sandaled feet with ‘washee muchee for Melican man,’ while the Turk nods his turbaned head. Truly, San Antonio welcomes all [King 1909:11].

Although no mention of Native Americans is made in the above passage, they are mentioned later in the volume by a different author (McCormick 1909:21). Indian contributions to the city’s non-Anglo ethnic population are discussed primarily in terms of adding local color. This marginalization of non-Anglo peoples in writing as well as in practice served to aggrandize Anglo-American affairs in the city. Ramsdell (1959:39) observed with disdain the ethnocentric attitudes of AngloAmericans in Texas from the mid-1800s on: The notion was widespread, a century ago, even among educated people, that the Anglo-Saxon race, so-called, was vastly superior to any other race. It was destined to carry its blessings to the dark corners of the earth. And if those blessings had to be rammed down the throats of the benighted natives, it was, after all, for their own good. This was the viewpoint of many AngloAmericans who came to Texas both before and after the war with Mexico (1846). They glowed with a sense of ‘manifest destiny.’ And they were inclined to belittle


the civilization which had them…[Ramsdell 1959:39].

preceded

Mexican culture was frequently described in lengthy anecdotes by early authors in the context of promoting the ethnic diversity of San Antonio. Anglo-American authors brought together the dichotomies of old/new and familiar/foreign as they depicted Mexican lifeways, as illustrated below: Among the many attractive features of San Antonio, there is none that appeals more to the lover of the picturesque, than the impress of the Mexican element. And not alone is this true of the more salient features, but of the little homely details…things which are so full of interest to tourists …It is the frequent occurrence of such pictures as this that gives to San Antonio her distinctive charm, and air of ‘difference’…It is all very picturesque and very foreign, and yet so familiar and intimate, so much our very own…despite the destroying hand of ‘progress’ and ‘improvement’…our Mexicans ‘are always with us’ [Chaney 1909:33-35].

While not explicitly stated, the missions and mission communities seem to have embodied the architectural and ethnic uniqueness of San Antonio. Early authors wrote about the San Antonio missions to promote the interests of the dominant society; namely, to increase tourism to the city. Mission San Juan and Mission Espada, especially, were rarely written about without mention of Mexican or Indian families that continued to live there (Table 3). In the 1960s, anthropologist Mardith Schuetz brought commentary about contemporary mission Indian descendants to another level. Her statements, both in 1967 and in 1980, are among the few cases wherein anthropologists report that the descendants of native peoples of south Texas were not extinct, but had merged into the predominantly Hispanic communities and continued to live around the missions. Continuation of this oral tradition is

illustrated in the tourist brochures circulated by the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park and the San Antonio Convention Center/Visitors Bureau that draw attention to the presence of community members tracing their ancestry to the original mission Indians of Mission San Juan. REEMERGENCE OF MISSION INDIAN IDENTITY From 1890 to 1980, the fact that descendants of the mission Indians continued to live around Mission San Juan was mentioned in tourist literature every decade except for the 1930s and the 1970s. Some of those descendants are now members of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, also known as Pueblo San Juan Capistrano Yanaguana, or simply Los Coahuiltecos. Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation is a private organization, representing descendants of the Coahuiltecan Indians in Mexico and Texas, organized as a membership group in the early 1990s. A statement of purpose formally transcribed in the Resolution of the Coahuiltecan Nation (1995:1) defines repatriation as one of their primary concerns. Among other goals expressed by Coahuiltecan Nation council members is the passing on of knowledge of their traditions and native medicines to their children and grandchildren (Martínez 1998:48). The San Antonio-based American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions (AITSCM) was formed by Raymond Hernández, Joel Silva, and Richard Garay in 1993 (England 1995:36) as a non-profit organization affiliated with the Coahuiltecan Nation. AIT-SCM acts as the business arm of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation. While membership in AIT-SCM is open to all, membership in the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation is predicated on demonstrable mission Indian ancestry


(Raymond Hernández, personal communication 1999). Nevertheless, the members of AITSCM, many of whom have a mixed tribal background, identify primarily with their Coahuiltecan heritage. AIT-SCM first drew public attention in 1994 when members requested the city close a street, in front of the Alamo, that covers Native American graves (Guerra 1994:A11). In 1996, AITSCM published a bilingual account of its history called Coahuiltecan Journal: A Voice of Indigenous Peoples. AIT-SCM is not alone as an organization promoting Indian heritage. Other San Antonio-based indigenous organizations pursue repatriation initiatives directed toward Mission San Juan as well. The Pamaque Clan of San Juan Mission Indians is a Native American group formed by Rick Mendoza (Chapter 4) to promote the cultural roots of individuals acknowledging the Pamaque band of Coahuiltecan Indians among their ancestors. Mendoza has compiled a brief family history demonstrating his lineal descent ties to families living at Mission San Juan as long ago as the late 1700s and early 1800s. Members of the Pamaque Clan of San Juan Mission Indians have played prominent activist roles in the community. Many of their activities bring them into direct opposition with AIT-SCM. For instance, Mendoza disagreed with the way in which members of AIT-SCM planned to reinter the human remains and brought an injunction against them that almost stopped the 1999 reburial (Barrios 1999a). The Lipan Apache Band of Texas, headed by Daniel Castro Romero, is geared toward recruiting the membership of individuals descended from the Lipan Apache (Romero 2000). Romero (personal communication 2000) maintains that one of his ancestors is buried at the mission. Like Mendoza, Romero has written a lengthy account of his family’s activities in Texas based on primary source documents containing firsthand accounts of interactions

between the Castro family and early settlers. The Castro Family History of the Lipan Apache Band of Texas (Romero 2000) documents a period spanning the early eighteenth century to the present. AIT-SCM was formed largely in response to reburial issues stemming from archaeological investigations sponsored by the Catholic Church at Mission San Juan during the late 1960s [San Antonio Light (SAL), 7 June 1967] (Chapter 9). Archaeologists responding to the Catholic Church’s need to restore areas of the San Juan Mission complex in the late 1960s excavated over 150 human burials from church floors, which were traditionally used as burial places. Schuetz (1968:205-206) reports that local community members displayed “hostility toward the excavators” but were reassured that scientific study of the human remains could reveal information about the “sex, age, disease, racial description and forgotten customs” of the deceased individuals. A museum later built on mission grounds included for display two bones taken from the burials, and in 1986, those bones were symbolically reburied at the foot of the sanctuary. Father Balthasar Janacek, who presided over the ceremony, stated that “This really is a symbolic burial . . It is a pledge to keep trying to see to the burial of the others” (Perdue 1986:F6). Once the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed in 1991, local community members’ efforts to regain possession of the human remains intensified. The Catholic Church and members of AITSCM worked together to achieve the return and reburial of these remains in 1999 (Barrios 1999b, Thoms 1999:20-21). As of August 2000, however, reburial issues focusing on these graves have not been settled because funerary objects accompanying the burials have yet to be returned from archaeological collections facilities at the University of Texas at San


Antonio to the Church (Raymond Hernández, personal communication 1999; Thoms 2000:4). CONCLUDING COMMENTS From the mid-1800s on, San Antonio’s non-anthropological literature demonstrates that tourism was an important feature of San Antonio’s economy from the time administration of the city fell into AngloAmerican hands. The San Antonio missions, through their architecture and their purpose, are brought together in non-anthropological literature to tie tourism to Indian peoples. The tourist potential of San Antonio’s Native American heritage has long been recognized. Early writers clearly focused their attention on promoting the Native American features of San Antonio’s ethnic diversity that was concentrated around the missions. Written by a generation raised on doctrines of Manifest Destiny during a time that saw the closing of the frontier and end of westward expansion, early tourist literature reveals San Antonio authors’ fascination with the Mexican and Indian features of the city, which were characterized as quaint, timeless, relict, and peripheral to the workings of Anglo society. Anecdotal descriptions of curious traditions rooted in foreign and ancient practices served as a means by which the latest newcomers could articulate their differences and construct their own distinct identity. The promotion of the San Antonio missions using references to the enduring existence of mission Indian descendants at Mission San Juan has persisted through the present day. Since its inception in 1978, SAAN promoted the concept that descendants of the mission’s Indian groups are still living. Earlier archaeologists surveying the proposed Mission Parkway noted an 1819 observation that the missions

no longer housed Indian residents. That the archaeologists were not entirely convinced of the supposed extinction of the mission Indians is implied in their statement that the extent of intermarriage between mission Indians and non-indigenous settlers would be “a most interesting potential field for future research” (Scurlock et al. 1976:41-42). In the early 1980s, Gilberto Cruz (1983:21), park historian, proposed “evaluating the contemporary populations and parishioners living around the four missions” with the objective to “recognize the values and customs of the mission area residents as a cultural resource of the Park.” A 1998 video commemorating the park’s twentieth anniversary points to the Hispanic population of San Antonio as descendants of the mission Indians. Most recently, Rock’s (2000) history of Mission San Juan and the present project address the issues raised by Cruz almost 20 years ago. Architectural interest also encouraged archaeological investigations that focused on Mission San Juan’s layout and the excavation of human remains interred therein (Chapters 9 and 10). Excavation and study of the burials recovered in 1967 and 1969 served as a rallying point for community members. The re-emergence of mission Indian identity and tradition in the San Juan community can be traced back to this time period, when protesters secretly vandalized the graves of two individuals and community members showed open hostility toward the excavations (Schuetz 1968:205-206). In her dissertation, written on the topic of the San Antonio mission Indians, Schuetz (1980:321) states emphatically that the descendants of those people still identified strongly with their Native American heritage. The ceremonial reburial of the two human bones formerly on display at San Juan in 1986 was performed in response to community members’ concerns. In the 1990s, the formation of several indigenous groups including AIT-SCM, the


Pamaque Clan of San Juan Mission Indians, and the Lipan Apache Band of Texas served as focal points for community activism on repatriation of the San Juan human remains (Coahuiltecan Nation 1995; Romero 1999). Finally, in 1999 the Catholic Church sponsored reburial of the remains of over 150 individuals removed from their graves in the late 1960s.

A community of mission Indian descendants has been acknowledged to persist at Mission San Juan by authors of non-anthropological literature, the Catholic Church, the National Park Service, and by anthropologist Mardith Schuetz in 1968 and 1980. These varied sources of information indicate that, contrary to what is documented in scientific literature, descendants of the indigenous peoples commonly referred to as Coahuiltecans are still in the San Antonio area.

Chapter 4: Interviews – Page 55

CHAPTER 4:

INTERVIEWS Jeffrey H. Cohen The cultural anthropology component of the project addressed lineal descent and cultural affiliation issues, as defined by NAGPRA. We conducted interviews with four individuals in order to assess cultural and genealogical links between members of the contemporary population living in the San Juan Mission/Berg’s Mill area of south San Antonio, Texas, and individuals buried at the mission whose remains were or had been included in archaeological collections. Our overall objective was to determine whether or not cultural affiliation could be demonstrated between the contemporary population and people who had inhabited the mission during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including geographically defined Coahuiltecans. In general, we wanted to determine the extent to which the contemporary population maintained and shared a sense of cultural identity and if any aspects of that identity were described and defined as Native American (Indian). The short response to our overall goal is: yes, there does appear to be continuity in the lineal descent of the contemporary population from ancestors who lived in the area in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Cultural affiliation is also apparent among the contemporary population and there is a limited sense of “Indianness” among that population. Because the identities of the individual remains are not known, we were unable to connect any of our interviewers with specific remains. In the absence of such evidence, the lineal descent component of NAGPRA does not seem to apply to our study (also see Chapters 1 and 11). Additionally, while there is a sense of Indianness shared by the individuals we talked to (and by the

community as well), it is rarely defined in a tribal sense. In other words, the population does not voice an affiliation with any recognized tribal groups in North America; therefore, NAGPRA does not appear to apply in this case. The remainder of this chapter is divided into six parts. In the first, our methodology is reviewed. Second, we define our interview group and describe why it was chosen. Third, the results of the lineal descent part of our project are presented. Fourth, results of cultural affiliation are presented. Fifth, we discuss aspects of tradition. In conclusion, we look at the sense of community in the study area. METHODOLOGY We chose to document lineal descent by collecting genealogies from local families. We were able to collect genealogies from four families representing three different contemporary social groups in the community. To collect the genealogies, we asked interviewees to recount the histories of their families, as each was able. We also asked interviewees to name relatives wherever possible. What was a surprise to this ethnographer was the ability of each individual to work back over four to six generations into the past. Three of the four individuals we interviewed are descended from various members of the same family. The second goal was to document the presence of cultural affiliation among the contemporary population living in and around Mission San Juan. To determine the presence and viability of a culture and community, we

Page 56 – Chapter 4: Interviews

collected oral histories from our four interviewees. We also attended meetings of the Berg’s Mill Men’s Club and the San Juan reunion. Oral histories and cultural performances are the currency through which individuals, as members of communities, transact business and define themselves both internally and externally. We therefore collected the oral histories to look for the presence of recurrent themes, historical events, and descriptions of people and places that might define group membership, local territory, and insider/outsider boundaries (see Appendix D for questionnaire). Trips were made to San Antonio to meet with the various individuals. Only one of the individuals contacted was unable to meet or answer questions. We recorded a total of four life history interviews on approximately six hours of recorded tape that was later transcribed for analysis. When our work on this project began, we thought that the identities of all interviewees would remain confidential throughout the study and in the final report as well. However, as the project progressed it became clear that interviewees did not want their identities to be kept confidential and that they preferred that their own names be used in the final report. Subsequently, each interviewee reviewed her/his own transcript. With approval of the interviewees and NPS, we included the interview transcripts as Appendix E of the present report. The original interview tapes are curated at the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters in San Antonio, Texas. DEFINING OUR GROUP To identify potential interviewees, Thoms and Cohen met with the Berg’s Mill Men’s Club on one occasion. Cohen also met with Janie Garza on two occasions. Ms. Garza is an amateur historian and is very active in the

Berg’s Mill community. She played a key role in the San Juan reunion and has organized an informal history of the area. While her family is not native to the area, she is an important resource. Our meeting with the Men’s Club was an opportunity to present the project and ourselves to area community members. At that meeting, we talked briefly about the two goals of the project. In consultation with the Men’s Club leaders we identified Mickey Killian and Rebecca Stuart as potentially important sources of information. Killian is a well-known leader in the community, is active in the Men’s Club, and has extensive knowledge of the history of the area. Stuart is also active in the area and told Thoms and Cohen of her family’s roots in the community. To make sure that our small sample of interviewees represented more than families involved with the Berg’s Mill Men’s Club, Cohen also contacted Rick Mendoza, a strong advocate for Indian identity but who is unaffiliated with the Men’s Club. Mendoza brought Rey Ríos to the interview. Ríos is a local resident who has strong cultural ties to the Mission San Juan community but who lacked lineal descent links to the community. Mendoza allowed Cohen to take and photocopy information he had in his possession including church records, land records, and tax records. Finally, we joined the San Juan community for its reunion on April 18, 1999. We spent the day with members of the San Juan community, visited the mission, and viewed a small photograph collection and slide show organized by Janie Garza. GENEALOGIES Family genealogies were collected for each interviewee. Mickey Killian (Figure 8),


Rebecca Stuart (Figure 9), and Rick Mendoza (Figure 10) provided genealogical materials that linked them to late eighteenth century families in the area. All three are descended from Santiago Díaz, who appears in the 1824 valuación of mission properties and was the alcalde of San Juan in 1819. Mickey Killian believes Santiago Díaz (1768-1828) was born in, or living in, Mission Espada in the 1780s. Santiago was married to Josefa Gutiérrez (listed on deed maps as daughter of Barbara Torres, identified as Indian, Mulatta, and Española on local records and born 1780). According to Mickey Killian, Santiago’s son, Canuto Díaz, was born in 1812. On the other hand, Rick Mendoza lists Canuto’s birth date as 1809. This serves as an example of conflicting data that genealogy researchers sometimes confront. Despite these questionable birth dates, all records concur that Canuto did have a daughter with his wife, Margarita Zamora (listed as Indian in the 1820 census of Béxar County). Their daughter, Refugia Díaz (buried in the Mission San Juan cemetery), married Juan Montes (a Canary Islander) and gave birth to five children—Adelina, Nicasio, Eloy, José, and Manuel (either José or Manuel died in childhood, and according to Stuart, the other did not marry). Adelina Montes (d. 1935) is Mickey Killian’s grandmother (Figure 8). Nicasio Montes is Rebecca Stuart’s grandfather (Figure 9). While the genealogies confirm lineal descent for our interviewees, we do not know the identity of the remains found during excavations at the mission. Thus, any claims to those remains (and the artifacts associated with them) must wait until additional work is complete. CULTURAL AFFILIATION NAGPRA defines cultural affiliation as a relationship of shared group identity that may be reasonably traced historically or

prehistorically between a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:214-215). Assessing cultural affiliation, and the related issues of ethnicity and community, is complicated for Mission San Juan and Berg’s Mill, as the area has lost its unity due to changes in local zoning, the decommissioning of local airbases, and the transfer of church-held properties to the National Park Service. Furthermore, there is a great deal of tension between the Berg’s Mill Men’s Club and the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. Fallout from the excavation work that the church supported in the 1960s continues to drive passions in the area. There are at least three different native groups competing for authority and the hearts and minds of locals. There is the mistrust that the local population feels toward any outsider and that mistrust made our work all the more difficult (see comments by Mendoza and Ríos in Appendix E for example). Nevertheless, our collected oral histories and additional archival work supported findings by Cohen that there is a living tradition and shared identity among those people with whom we talked in 1999. Furthermore, while the culture is not geographically cohesive, there is a shared sense of community among individuals who trace familial roots and kin relationships to San Juan/Berg’s Mill (as witnessed by our team when we attended the family reunion). A more specific concern with regard to this project is whether any of the interviewees can be clearly identified as having Native American ancestry. This is a difficult question to answer. There is a sense among many of the people we talked with (members of the community with roots to early settlers and mission Indians as well as newcomers to the area) that the community is Native American in origin and retains a sense of


Felix Gutiérrez Josefa Gutiérrez b. 1780 Barbara Torres

Canuto Díaz b. 1809 or 1812 d. 1877 Refugia Díaz

Santiago Díaz b. 1768 d. 1828 Margarita Zamora

Adelina Montes d. 1935 Juan Montes

Antonia Cantú Mother b. 1899

Lucio Cantú

Mickey Killian b. 1941

Father

Figure 8. Mickey Killian Genealogy. Felix Gutiérrez Santiago Díaz b. 1768 Barbara Torres d. 1828

Canuto Díaz b. 1809 or 1812 Refugia Díaz Josefa Gutiérrez d. 1877 b. 1780 Margarita Zamora Nicasio Montes Juan Montes Juan Cantú Jose Maria Hurón Odelia Cantú Mother

Amelia Hurón

Jean Hall

Rebecca Montes

Vicenta Vela Nicasio Montes Father

Arthur Stewart

Figure 9. Rebecca Stuart Genealogy. Santiago Díaz b. 1768 d. 1828

Canuto Díaz b. 1809 or 1812 Josefa Gutiérrez d. 1877 Maria Díaz b. 1780 b. 1851 Margarita Zamora d. 1930 Miguel Sánchez

Anita Sánchez b. 1879? Florinda Sánchez b. 1907 Joe M. Mendoza R. G. Mendoza d. 1989 Father Antonio Mendoza b. 1926 Rick Mendoza Augustina Fisher Mother b. 1930 Monica Mendoza

Figure 10. Rick Mendoza Genealogy.


“Indianness” today. However, because of policies of assimilation and acculturation conducted by the Spanish and U.S. Indian officials that sought to integrate Native Americans, finding a clear NAGPRA link to a specific and recognized North American tribe is unlikely. To best report on our findings, the following information is organized into two topics. We review materials recorded in interviews that have bearing on the question of whether or not we can determine cultural affiliation as defined by NAGPRA, as well as in a more general sense. Then we look specifically at the question of community. TRADITION What is cultural affiliation in a general sense? A dictionary definition typically argues “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and have a cultural and historical heritage” (Barnhart 1947). Anthropologists are more flexible and do not tie a group to a specific location. When talking about populations within a nation-state, the anthropologist also typically moves from a discussion of community to one of ethnicity. One definition of an ethnic group, and a useful one for our purposes, is offered by Manning Nash (1989:4-6). He tells us that, “The reality of ethnic identity [is] its content, and its boundary lines—being a historical product and thus subject to change, redefinition, and varied salience in the lives of members of the group.” He goes on to enumerate the foundation upon which ethnicity is constructed, “the body, a language, a shared history and origins, religion and nationality” (Nash 1989:4-6). Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983:1) add that ethnicity is not a primordial quality, but instead “a set of practices, normally governed by overt or tacitly accepted rules and of a

ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behavior by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past.” Finally, Barth (1969) points out the ways in which ethnicity, identity, and cultural affiliation organize or order social relationships by establishing boundaries between groups of people. 1 For the people with whom we talked, we can argue that we have a viable ethnic group and that they share cultural affiliation. They are bound by language, history and origins, religion, and nationality. 2 Most of the individuals with whom we talked share English as a common language, in addition to speaking Spanish. Importantly, geographical site names (often affiliated with families and special events), slang, and vernacular terms are also shared. For example, regardless of their ages, which range from mid-30s to mid60s, all interviewees with whom we talked recalled childhood events such as: •

1

swimming in the acequias (irrigation canals) and fishing in a small lake, or pie lago (literally, “foot lake,” in this case indicating a small reservoir off the acequia).

In, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, Barth argues that boundary maintenance is a motivating factor in evolution of ethnic/group identity. Ethnic identity is “precarious” according to Barth, meaning it is built or emerges not from nature, but from social relations between groups. Therefore, it is malleable, changes over time, and shifts in its usefulness. Ethnic identity in this sense is deployed by a group (consciously, unconsciously or a little of both) in the effort to make political points and claim. 2 There also appears to be a shared “body type” among the population with most fitting the category HispanicAmerican; however, biological and genetic research would be necessary to determine whether genotypic commonalities follow phenotypic assumptions.


•

playing in the area, hunting for small mammals and birds, and working in gardens.

•

attending local Catholic school.

•

drinking from a spring located behind the Tufa house (on mission grounds).

Mickey Killian, Rebecca Stuart, Guadalupe (Wally) Gaitán, and Enrique Flores talked about two older boys in the neighborhood, David and Alfred Martínez, who bullied the younger children by forcing them to dive from a tall pecan tree into the pie lago or else pay them a quarter. All of these moments were also recalled by Janie Garza in a separate interview. Wally sang “La Cucaracha” for tourists in San Antonio, recalling “We were a bunch of Huck Finns.” Additionally, all recalled stories about their grandparents and ancestors: •

•

Becky Stuart, speaking of her grandfather: “He would say, ‘Yeah, I’m an Indian you know’ but he never did go into detail as far as how he was raised. I don’t think that he was raised with an Indian culture because he never did pass that on to his kids. I guess he just knew he had Indian blood in him.” Rick Mendoza, describing a photo: “That’s Dolores Sánchez. She’s the one who came up to me after the meeting [a meeting concerning the repatriation of the human remains excavated from cemeteries at Mission San Juan in 1967 and 1969] and said ‘muy bueno mi hijo,’ (“very good, my son”) when we had that meeting at Slattery Hall. She’s so proud of her heritage. But she’s one of the people, the whole Sánchez family, they’re beautiful people.” All interviewees recalled special events:

•

Rebecca Stuart: “Sundays, yeah, Sundays. There was always a family get-together because everybody lived in the neighborhood. So Sundays was always a big get-together, you know, fried chicken and the watermelon and chili, and all that good stuff.”

•

Rey Ríos: “We’ve been going to church at San Juan on and off for about 30 years there. I have for 30 years or so.”

•

Rey Ríos, on marriages in the area: “They [Beatrice Gaitán and Eduardo Ríos] were married just down from the four corners in Berg’s Mill in an abandoned building that looks like a Pizza Hut there. It’s still there.”

Each individual interviewed also recalled special rituals: 3 •

Rick Mendoza: “My grandma, Florinda, my father’s mother, she used to smudge her house, smoke the evil spirits out…They slept with knives because of the banditos that were out there…”

•

Mickey Killian, when asked what holds the community together: “Well, I think the church is. The church. Not because of the religious aspects so much as the social aspects …It’s more of a social thing. Of course the religious aspect is what draws, but then the social aspect is what

3

To define ethnicity we can include all of the special attributes (and rituals are important here) that a group uses to set itself apart from the mainstream. Anya Peterson Royce makes this clear in a set of definitions from her 1982 work, Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity. She states, “An ‘ethnic group’ is a reference group invoked by people who share a common historical style (which may be only assumed), based on overt features and values, and who, through the process of interaction with others, identify themselves as sharing that style. ‘Ethnic identity’ is the sum total of feelings on the part of group members about those values, symbols, and common histories that identify them as a distinct group. ‘Ethnicity’ is simply ethnicbased action” (1982:18).


maintains. I think that’s always been the case.” •

The San Juan Family Reunion: People with familial and cultural roots in the area came from around Texas and the nation to celebrate their community. Food (Texas BBQ) and music (Conjunto/Tejano) figured in the event, as did family ties and local history. Janie Garza organized a slide show and photograph display to commemorate the event and place.

Most recalled feeling persecuted or oppressed as youngsters. But what each meant by persecution and oppression is open for much interpretation and is likely a reaction to our questions and the perception that our project would not “help” their cause. Rick Mendoza, Rey Ríos, and Mickey Killian each voiced a sense of resentment and anger at the government, the National Park Service, and the Catholic Church for injustices done to the local community. COMMUNITY Whether or not San Juan remains a community today is at some level an irrelevant question. The community existed in the past and, while dispersed, it remains a focus of personal effort and pride. The natives of the area still participate in social life as a community. However, there are problems. Most of the infrastructure (economic, political, and social) we would expect to find in a community is missing. What we have left are ritual and social activities. The Men’s Club represents the central social focus of the community today. In this regard, we might think about San Juan not as a community, but as a civic group that establishes a sense of belonging and pride for its members and associates. Thus, it is important to realize that the locals clearly define a community and they do so in largely ethnic terms. What that ethnic group is, is not

as important as what it does. The question of “Indianness” has become a rallying point for the community. We can find connections to that past, but we can just as easily find connections to the Canary Islands, Hispanic North America, and Canada. 4 San Juan does exist, and its population is descended from families living in the area in the late eighteenth century. It is in the records and continues to occupy the time of people living in and around the area today. It remains a community for members who choose to participate in its life. Some of these members can trace their descent to eighteenth century inhabitants of the area who are identified as Indian. As a group, these members also share a past that continues to link them in powerfully social ways. Can we define the community as Native American? Most locals we talked to would answer “yes.” However, there remain many issues to be settled. Many locals believe they are descended from the natives who were settled on Mission lands. Most of these people can also effectively trace their descent from Canary Islanders, Spanish settlers, and other Europeans that settled in the area during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In addition, the Indianness noted by most of the population is a general one (with the exception of Mendoza who has defined himself as Coahuiltecan) and is unaffiliated with any contemporary and recognized tribal group.

4

The concept of power in ethnic relations is an important and difficult topic. Typically one thing that does define “ethnic” groups as opposed to national groups is that the ethnic group is in a position of weakness (economic, political, and/or social) in relation to the national population. The factors the group identifies as “ethnic markers” become tools in countering power hierarchies (countering the hegemony of the state for example). See Richard Handlers’ Nationalism and Politics of Culture in Quebec. Indianness, for the folks of San Juan, has taken this role.

Chapter 5: Photographic Component – Page 63

CHAPTER 5:

PHOTOGRAPHIC COMPONENT D. Gentry Steele Two photographic objectives for the San Juan Mission Lineal Descent and Cultural Affiliation Study were envisioned: 1) provide photographic documentation of those individuals living in the proximity of the mission who trace their ancestry to the eighteenth and nineteenth century mission Indian population, and 2) document the relationship between Mission San Juan Capistrano park resources and the living descendants. THE IDENTIFIED DESCENDANTS Members of four families who identified some of their ancestors as members of the mission Indian population some time during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were available to be photographed. All photographs were taken on the grounds of Mission San Juan Capistrano. This location was chosen as the setting for the portraits because it was a familiar locality for the participants, and the grounds provided meaningful settings for the subjects. Individuals from two families preferred to have the existing San Juan Mission church in the background. One family group chose to be photographed with the post-Colonial, or Tufa, house in the background of their portraits. Individuals to be photographed were invited to bring a family memento that represents for them a personal link to their mission Indian ancestry. This suggestion was made so that any historical objects identifying their links to the past could be photographed with the permission of the owners and without them having to relinquish guardianship of their heirloom for even a short time. Three

participants responded to this suggestion and brought photographs of one or more of their ancestors. Rebecca Stuart and Nicasio Montes brought photographs of relatives who told them of their mission Indian ancestry. Mickey Killian brought a portrait of a woman of a much earlier generation who was identified by members of his family as one of their early mission Indian ancestors. These historical photographs were incorporated into the current portraits to enrich the information content of the portraits. The individuals being photographed were posed in a similar fashion to the individuals in the historical images to visually emphasize the link. It was also hoped that the subjects having something to occupy their attention would be more relaxed while being photographed. Portraits of the living members of three lineages who trace their ancestry to the mission Indians of San Juan Capistrano Mission (Figures 11 through 13). MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO AND THE SAN JUAN AND BERG’S MILL COMMUNITY During the period of this study, the Berg’s Mill community held a reunion on the grounds of the San Juan Mission. Figures 14 through 19 were taken the day of the reunion. Mission San Juan Capistrano serves as the spiritual center of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill Catholic community. Stations of the cross are set up outside of the extant chapel, against the walls enclosing the plaza. Figures 22 through 24 illustrate the crosses where they were placed on the mission grounds. The church and the surrounding grounds also serve as the community’s primary locale for all large and

Page 64 – Chapter 5: Photographic Component

many of the smaller social activities of the community. On the grounds of the mission near the structural remains of the early church is a small, single room building called the Tufa house. In the past, this house has served as a family residence. At the time of Berg’s Mill

community reunion, it was used to house the collection of family photographs and historical mementos on display and as a place for slide shows and stories told by the local residents of the history of the community. Figures 19 through 21 were taken in the Tufa house.

Figure 11. Mickey Killian, a local community member who has engaged in personal genealogical research for over 20 years and actively works with community members to establish their Native American heritage. Killian preferred the presence of the extant church for the background of his photograph. Remnants of the original San Juan Mission walls are in the foreground. He holds a portrait of his great-grandmother, Refugia Díaz. She was the granddaughter of Santiago Díaz, Alcalde of San Juan Pueblo in 1819, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).


Figure 12. Siblings Rebecca Stuart and Nicasio Montes. Nicasio holds a picture of his father and his father’s brother, while Rebecca holds a portrait of her grandparents. Like Killian, they chose to be photographed against the extant church for their portraits, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).

Figure 13. Members of the extended family of Rick Mendoza, who unanimously selected the Tufa house as the background of their portraits. Present in the photograph from left to right are: Rick Mendoza’s father, Joe Mendoza (seated); Rick Mendoza; Rick’s wife, Monica, and their daughter, Quetzali; Lola Carreón’s daughter-in-law, Maria Carreón; Rick’s grandmother, Lola Carreón; Rick’s aunt (paternal), Anita Rodríguez (née Sánchez-Mendoza); and Anita’s friend, Porfirio Tejeda, June 2000 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).


Figure 14. Members of the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community socializing around the ticket table at the Berg’s Mill Family Reunion, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).

Figure 15. Many of the younger children at the Berg’s Mill Reunion were entertained by swinging at a piñata, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).


Figure 16. A late-afternoon impromptu street dance at the Berg’s Mill Reunion, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).

Figure 17. Inside the Tufa house, an audience attends presentations given by local residents on the community’s history, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).


Figure 18. An image of a Station of the Cross, marked by a large cross placed against one of the mission’s walls, embodies the strong religious ties binding the San Juan/Berg’s Mill community together, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).


Figure 19. A Station of the Cross is marked by a cross placed against the wall surrounding the mission, April 18, 1999 (photograph by D. Gentry Steele).

Chapter 6: Genealogy – Page 71

CHAPTER 6:

GENEALOGY Adán Benavides, Jr. A principal tenet of NAGPRA is that demonstrable lineal descent of living individuals must be tied to individually identified human remains in the NAGPRA inventory. However, the choice to examine such a descent for skeletal remains from Mission San Juan is not possible since the remains are not identified to known persons. Another avenue was therefore elected; namely, to test the viability of extant historical records in determining the genealogical relationships between contemporary individuals and individuals associated with Mission San Juan during its Spanish missionary phase. The focus of this chapter is an examination of the maternal genealogy of Mickey Killian (Figures 20a-b) who provided useful information regarding his ancestors, inhabitants of Mission San Juan and Mission Espada circa 1800. He and two others, interviewed by the cultural anthropologist in this investigation, claim common descent from Santiago Díaz, a onetime resident at Mission San Juan. The inquiry is restricted, therefore, to the following question: Can it be demonstrated through documentary records that Santiago Díaz is descended from an Indian family that was part of Mission San Juan during the Spanish era? MATERNAL LINEAL DESCENT OF MICKEY KILLIAN Killian’s maternal grandmother, Adelina Montes, is descended on the paternal side from a long line of Canary Islander ancestors, one of them being the Delgado family. Juan Joseph Montes de Oca established himself in the Villa de San Fernando in 1741, coming

probably from Cuba (Killian 1982; Chabot 1937:191). The Montes de Oca family as well as other Canary Islander families, however, had by the end of the eighteenth century married into local families—some of whom had, no doubt by 1800, descendants of mixed Indian or Black heritage. The association of Killian’s ancestors to Mission San Juan, however, is closely identified to Adelina’s maternal Díaz family roots. It is this family that becomes the special focus of this inquiry. As one would expect, the records establishing Mickey Killian’s genealogy are more easily acquired for present generations than for those prior to about 1850. Going up the maternal line, then, we find that Killian’s mother, Antonia Cantú, was the daughter of Adelina Montes. The latter’s parents, Juan Montes and Refugia [María del Refugio] Díaz, were married on June 25, 1858 (El Carmen Church-MR 1855-1950, no. 25; SAACA-SFPC, MR 1856-1883, no. 137). Refugia appears in the 1850 Census of Bexar County (p. 111) as “Refugio”—this is, in fact, the more correct form of the name María del Refugio; but she and her family used “Refugia” instead. Her father Canuto Díaz’s first name is translated as “Newton.” While most of the five children listed in the household in 1850 can be verified by the baptismal records of the San Fernando Parish Church, neither the baptismal record of Refugia nor the marriage record of Canuto and Margarita Zamora were located. However, the couple had their seven children born prior to 1856 baptized at San Fernando Church, while two of the last three children were baptized at the Capilla del Carmen (Cadena family sheets; SAACA-SFPC, BAP

Page 72 – Chapter 6: Geneaolgy

|J. C. Killian | Mickey Killian | | | Nepomuceno Cantú | | | |Lucio Cantú | | | | | | Gregoria Gutiérrez | | |Antonia Cantú | | |Juan Montes | | |Adelina Montes | |Refugia [María del Refugio] Díaz

Figure 20a. Maternal Ancestry Chart for Mickey Killian (based on Killian interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Cadena interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Kil\lian 1982).

1826-1843, nos. 572, 680; 1844-1850, nos. 881, 1091, 1382; 1851-1858, no. 1892, 3061; El Carmen Church, BAP 1855-1891, nos. 109, 239) The family of Santiago Díaz and Josefa Gutiérrez, parents of Canuto, was traced through two principal sources: census records and sacramental registers of birth, marriage, confirmation, and death. Census records and sacramental records provide the vital statistics for an individual in the era before public registry systems. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Catholic Church demanded the exact recording of personal information in sacramental records. During the Spanish era in Texas, these records and censuses recorded the ethnic or racial category of individuals in the New World as Spaniards, Indians, and Blacks had children. The records, however, demonstrate the inability of the recorders of information to apply these racial distinctions “clinically.” After Mexican independence from the

Spanish crown in 1821, the notation of racial distinction was lost as the Enlightenment’s ideals of democratic principles and social equality were upheld by constitutional reforms in Mexico. Moreover, many lost sacramental registers hamper tracing the roots of the Santiago Díaz family. The family of Santiago Díaz may be partially reconstructed from several sources. The children born to Díaz and María Josefa Gutiérrez are verified in the baptismal and death mission records and the San Fernando Parish Church records that are now part of the San Antonio Archdiocesan Catholic Archives (SAACA). Censuses required by civil authorities provide additional, useful information. Censuses provide a “snapshot” of a family’s structure during a given year. However, censuses tend to be inexact for ages, especially those of adults. As will be noted below, both census records and sacramental registers are also inconsistent in describing an individual’s racial mixture.


|Juan Joseph Montes de Oca | |Francisco Montes de Oca | |José Francisco Montes | | | |Josefa Zambrano | |José María Montes | | | | | |

| | |

|Clemente Delgado |

|Encarnación Delgado | |María Sauceda

|Juan Montes | | | |Carmel ________ (?) | Adelina Montes | | |Santiago Díaz | | | |Canuto Díaz | | | | | | |Félix Gutiérrez | | | | | | |Josefa Gutiérrez | | | | | |Bárbara Torres | | |Refugia [María del Refugio] Díaz | |Margarita Zamora

Figure 20b. (based on Killian interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Cadena interview, Feb. 24, 2000; Killian 1982; Chabot 1937:191-192).


Figure 21. Antonio Cantú’s certificate of baptism, November 26, 1899, naming her parents Lucio Cantú and Adelina Montes. Courtesy of Mickey Killian.


Díaz-Gutiérrez Household Extant sacramental registers provide us with the following list of eight children born to the Díaz-Gutiérrez household. 1. Rafael. Baptized October 29, 1812, 6 days old (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1101). The parents are noted as residents of Mission San Francisco de la Espada. 2. Juan José. Baptized February 20, 1816, 2 days old. (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1142). He was buried on February 29, 1816, 9 days old (SAACA-SJ, BUR, no. 1241). The parents are noted as residents of Mission San Juan Capistrano in both records. 3. María Paula. Baptized March 2, 1817, 4 days old (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1159). The parents are noted as residents of Mission San Juan Capistrano (no. 1177. May 12, 1819). 4. José María. Buried February 3, 1818, 2 days old (SAACA-SJ, BUR, no. 1252). The mother is erroneously noted as María Josefa Jiménez. 5. Guadalupe Dominga. Baptized May 12, 1819, 2 days old (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1177). 6. Juana. Buried May 13, 1819 (SAACA-SJ, BUR, no. 1271). Age not noted. 7. Margarita Jacoba, an Indian. Baptized July 23, 1820, 6 days old (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1191). The godparents, Juan Gómez and Trinidad Falcón, are noted as Indians from Mission San Juan.

8. José Luis, a Mestizo. Baptized August 28, 1822, 4 days old (SJ, BAP, no. 1197). He marries Candelaria Martínez on December 27, 1845 at San Fernando Church (SFPC, MR 1798-1856, no. 435). Both of his parents were deceased by then. The Díaz-Gutiérrez household, based on extant census records, is given in Table 4. Comparing the above list of baptized and buried children with that of the household based on census records provides a startling observation: five or perhaps six children born between 1812 and 1819 died shortly after birth. The total number of known children between Santiago and María Josefa was 15. Analyzing the ages provided in the census reports indicates that they are not exact from year to year. Most troubling is the divergence in ages both of the parents and of the children in the two censuses of 1819. The first, a compilation made towards the end of the year, is signed by Santiago Díaz himself since he was the Spanish alcalde (that is, mayor or chief magistrate; C-SJC 12/2/1819). The second census of 1819 is a draft of two censuses of the families living at Missions Espada and San Juan (C-SJC 1819). It is likely that lists made in previous years were used to compile the censuses, thus errors could be made in duplicating ages or failing to add the correct number from year to year. Equally interesting is the divergence in racial or ethnic identification. From the time of the first census record of the DíazGutiérrez household, Santiago was identified as a Spaniard. In the census of February 1815, he is identified as a “natural de la misión de San Antonio” (a native of Mission San Antonio de Valero). The translation does not mean that he was a “native Indian”; rather, that he was a “native of” or “from” the mission—that is, that he had been born there. It is from Mission San Antonio that he


came—in this document one finds the sole concrete statement of his provenance (C-SJC 2/27/1815). His absence from Mission San Juan in June 1815, however, provides the racial background of his wife Josefa. She, as head of the household, is listed under the Mulattos and Mestizos (persons of mixed Indian and Spanish parentage)—and so are all of her children (C-SJC 6/13/1815). When Santiago is again at home for the count of 1817, he is listed as a Spaniard. The censuses of 1819 then diverge. In the unsigned manuscript draft he is identified as a Mestizo and the alcalde; while in the other one— which he signed—he and his family appear as Spaniards (C-SJC 1819 and 12/2/1819). The date of birth of Santiago Díaz is at variance since the only sources for his age are census records and his presumed age of 60 at the time of his burial on August 30, 1828. It was then noted that he was married to María Josefa Gutiérrez, that he had left no will, and that he died of a fever (SAACA-SFPC, BUR, no. 1371). The possible birth years for Santiago range from 1765 to 1784 based on the information presented in Table 4 and by his burial record. It seems most likely, however, that he was born about 1775. The first three census reports in Table 4 indicate that year; three other years range from 1773 to 1777; the year 1784 is derived from one of the suspect censuses of 1819 discussed earlier; and, finally, because his age in the burial record was probably an approximation. Therefore, we may posit that Santiago Díaz was about 53 years old at the time of his death. If Santiago was born at Mission San Antonio about 1775, who are his most likely parents? It is significant that in the most complete inventory and census for Mission San Juan, that of 1772, only one Díaz family is noted. That is the widow Rosalía Díaz (56 years old) and her son Josef Díaz (12 years old)—they were of the Pamaque and Pihuique

tribes (C-SJC 1772). No further information about her and her son, however, was obtained during the research project. There are other Díaz families within Missions San Juan and Espada—but none could be linked to Santiago Díaz. One must therefore look elsewhere. The Cabello census of 1779 for the troops and citizenry of San Antonio de Béxar provides us with only two possible choices for a Díaz family for Santiago: José Salvador Díaz and Manuel Díaz. The former had two sons, and the latter had none. Thus, it seems appropriate to pursue the family of José Salvador Díaz (C-AGI/ITC 7/1-6/1779; Meacham, personal communication 2000). What follows is a preliminary sketch that might be pursued in greater detail as part of a future project. •

According to the 1779 census, José Salvador Díaz was a field worker (campista), Spaniard, from Monterrey, 33 years of age, married, with one son and three daughters all under the age of 14. In all of the censuses noted below, he and his wife Brígida Rodríguez are described as Spaniards.

•

By 1793 he is noted as coming from Linares, 46 years old, a farmer married to Brígida, aged 38, with five children: a bachelor son of 17, another son 15, and three daughters aged 23, 20, and 11. The eldest son would have been born about 1776, and the younger about 1778 (C-SFB 12/31/1793, no.23).

•

In 1795, he is described as native of Linares, farmer, 53 years old, married to Brígida Rodríguez, native of San Fernando de Austria [i.e., Béxar], 48 years old, with two sons 20 and 16, and

Table 4. The Santiago Díaz-María Josefa Gutiérrez household based on extant census records. Age of Family Members/Racial or Ethnic Distinction Year

Residence

Santiago

José Rosalino a 4?/Esp

María Leonor 3?/Esp

Romana

28/Esp

María Josefa 20/Esp

1803

Espada

1804

María Jesusa b

Julián

María Escolástica

Canuto

Margarita

Luis

Total

Espada

29/Esp

20/Esp

4?/Esp

2?/Esp

1?/Esp

1815

San Juan

40/Esp e

30/Esp

15/Esp

12/Esp

10/Esp

9/Esp

7/Esp

4/Esp

3/Esp

9

1815

San Juan 40/Esp

13/Mul y Mes 15/Esp

9/Mul y Mes f 11/Esp

8/Mul y Mes 10/Esp

7/Mul y Mes 9/Esp

4/Mul y Mes 8/Esp

8

San Juan

14/Mul y Mes 17/Esp

10/Mul y Mes

1817

35/Mul y Mes 37/Esp

1819 g

San Juan

46/Mes

38/Mes

19/Mes

17/Mes

9/Mes

7/Mes

5/Mes

4/Mes

8

1819

San Juan

35/Esp

34/Esp

20/Esp

18/Esp

14/Esp

12/Esp

10/Esp

8/Esp

9

1823

San Juan

1826

San Juan

4c

16/Esp

5d

8

9h 50

40 i

20

16

14

7

3

7

Abbreviations: Esp (Español, Spaniard), Mul y Mez (Mulatto and Mestizo), Mes (Mestizo). Sources: C-SFE 12/31/1803, C-SFE 1804, C-SJC 2/27/1815, C-SJC 6/13/1815, C-SJC 7/6/1817, C-SJC 1819, C-SJC 12/21/1819, C-SJC 4/27/1823, C-SJC 3/19/1826. Rosalío appears in some listings, but Rosalino in 1815 twice, 1817, and 1819. Appears as María de Jesusa in 1819. c Census only gives the children’s ages, but it is inferred that the ages apply to the two oldest children. d Census only gives the children’s ages, but it is inferred that the ages apply to the three oldest children. e Identified as a natural (native) of Mission San Antonio [de Valero]. f Name given as María Jesús, but as a soltera (single woman). Thus changed here to feminine form. g All of the children are listed with mother’s surname Gutiérrez in this census. h Statistical census noting Santiago Díaz and a total of nine in the household. i Surname appears as Butiérrez, a name that appears in some of the sacramental registers later in the nineteenth century. b


a


three daughters 23, 14, and 11. The oldest son would have been born about 1775, and the younger about 1779 (CSFB 12/31/1795, no. 38). It should be noted that both Monterrey and Linares are in the province of Nuevo León. •

But by 1796, José Salvador is described as native of Béxar, a farmer (labrador), 55 years of age married to Brígida Rodríguez of the same place, 53 years of age, with one 14-year-old son, and three daughters aged 13, 12, and 2. The remaining son would have been born about 1782 (C-SFB 12/31/1796, no. 161).

•

According to the following year’s census he is listed as 46 years old, married to Brígida, aged 47, and having three sons aged 22, 20, and 17, and four daughters aged 16, 8, 6, and 5. The oldest son would have been born about 1775, and the second about 1777 (C-SFB 12/31/1797, no. 109).

•

By 1803, he is described as a farmer, 60 years of age and his wife Brígida, 55 years of age. Three children remained at home: one son aged 26, and two daughters aged 20 and 18. The remaining son would have been born about 1777 (C-SFB [12/31]/1803, no. 91).

One could well argue that the oldest son, born about 1775, was married by 1803 and had his own family. That would fit the argument that Santiago Díaz was the oldest son of José Salvador Díaz. A preliminary review of the baptismal registers of San Fernando Parish Church, however, failed to uncover documentary evidence of a relationship between Santiago and José Salvador Díaz. It is doubtless that more intensive historical research in the records regarding Mission San Antonio will uncover other Díaz family relationships, perhaps even a link between these two men.

There are other Díaz families and individuals at Missions San Juan and Espada about 1800. These individuals could be traced in greater detail to determine the likelihood of a relationship with Santiago Díaz than was possible during the course of this project. No corroborating documentary records, however, established a familial relationship between Santiago and the other Díaz families located so close to him at these missions. Individuals Related to Household The variable description of individuals along racial or ethnic lines (as well as age) is shown by the family of María Josefa Gutiérrez, wife of Santiago Díaz. In 1792, her father José Félix Gutiérrez is described as a farmer, Mulatto, native of Pesquería Chica (in Nuevo León), 31 years old, married to a Mulatto, Bárbara Torres, from the Presidio of Béxar, 25 years old, with one 8-year-old daughter and with a young 12-year-old sisterin-law in the household. They were then working at Mission Espada (as sirvientes) (CSFE 12/31/1792, no. 35). The following year the family is somewhat differently composed. Félix is described as a Spaniard, a farmer, and a native of Presidio de Río Grande, 45 years old, married to Bárbara whose age is 30, with two daughters aged 13 and 9, and with a sister-in-law aged 13 (C-SFE 12/31/1793a,b, no. 31). The family is listed as Spanish in 1795. Félix is aged 30, Bárbara is 25, and two daughters are aged 17 (12?) and 7 (1?) (C-SFE 12/31/1795). Still other discrepancies appear in the 1797 census. Félix is aged 40, Bárbara is 29, and two daughters are 13 and 2 (C-SFE 12/31/1797). Several years later, with their older children out of the household, Félix Gutiérrez, 50 years old, is listed among the Spanish families at Mission Espada. He is married to Bárbara Torres, 40 years old, living with their two children [sons?] aged 10 and 7 (C-SFE 1804).


Félix Gutiérrez (b. ca. 1759) died on November 3, 1823, at age 64, and was buried at Mission San Juan (SAACA-SJ BUR, no. 1829). His wife Bárbara Torres was identified as a Spaniard at that time. They had two daughters born in 1797 (whether twins or not is unknown), and both married at Mission Espada. These were much younger sisters of Josefa, for whom a baptismal register has not been located (Cadena family sheets). In 1826, their mother Bárbara Torres was listed as a widow, aged 50, at the former Mission San Juan (C-SJC 3/19/1826). The range of Félix’s year of birth varies considerably, from 1748 to 1767. Three fall within the period 1761 to 1767, making 1765 the more likely birth year. Bárbara’s year of birth also varies, from 1763 to 1776. Four years are concentrated between 1763 and 1768. Perhaps her age in 1826 was underestimated by 10 years. If so, she would have been born about 1767. Their daughter María Josefa is not named in the censuses. If she is the daughter listed as 8 years old in 1792, then she would have been born about 1784. By 1799, María Josefa was married to Santiago Díaz and able to have their first child. It was a physical strain to have had at least 15 children in the space of 23 years. Neither she nor her husband lived to see their youngest child Luis marry on December 27, 1845 (SAACA-SFPC, MR 1798-1856, no. 435). There is at least one other Josefa Gutiérrez at Mission San Juan during this period. That Josefa had an illegitimate child, Juan José Gutiérrez, baptized on March 21, 1813, 8 days old (SAACA-SJ, BAP, no. 1109). That same Josefa, or another, is married to José María Hernández, a resident of Mission Espada, whose son José Gorgonio was buried on September 11, 1816, 8 days old. The latter Josefa is identified as an Indian hija (daughter) of Mission “Alinon” (?) (SAACASJ, BAP, no. 1244). One of these women,

originaria y con residencia en la extiguida misión de San Juan (that is, a [woman] native of and with residence at mission San Juan), widowed by 1829, petitioned for a half sitio (approximately half a league) of land at Los Arroyos (bordering the land given to Juan Montes) so that she could support her numerous family (GLO petition, Oct. 19, 1829) members. She and other Gutiérrez families should be given detailed examination through family reconstitution based on sacramental registers and extant censuses. STATE OF MISSION RECORDS The former mission compounds of San Francisco de la Espada and San Juan Capistrano and the nearby area experienced substantial demographic change after 1772. The dwindling populations, as well as the pressure to secularize the former mission areas in the 1790s, led to a vacuum that was being filled by settlers from all parts of New Spain as well as San Fernando de Béxar. The sacramental records and the census records that survive are replete with references to Mestizos, Mulattos, and Españoles coming from places in Nuevo León and Coahuila, as one would expect, but also with references to the occasional “foreigner” coming from as far away as New Mexico and Chihuahua in the north, from Oaxaca in the south, and from Mexico City and San Luis Potosí in the center. These mixed-blooded people were no different than the Mestizos and Mulattos that were part of New Spain’s northern frontier in Texas. Finding historical records to determine the ancestral strains of Blacks and Indians in the mixed-blooded people of northern New Spain is difficult for several reasons. Miscegenation that occurred in the lowest social and economic classes was not always recorded in traditional church and civil records. Additionally, when an event (for example, a


marriage) was recorded, the ethnic classification may have been omitted, overlooked, or inaccurately noted. Moreover, baptism of Indians in the Texas Franciscan missions was recommended at the time of death—this because it was feared that baptized Indians would fall into apostasy as they grew older. Consequently, baptismal records for mission Indians may record only a Christian given name, have no surname, and record an individual at the end of the life cycle. Thus, it may become nearly impossible to reconstruct family genealogies based solely on mission sacramental records. Historical information, subjected as it is to the vagaries of time and circumstance, is at great risk of loss. One may argue that the loss of Spanish colonial records is greater in poorer and more isolated areas like Texas. Another factor that makes it difficult to trace Indian genealogies is that populations of northern New Spain were subject to drastic change as a result of disease. The decline in native populations as well as the influx of migration in the eighteenth century, via Spanish-led expeditions that settled and resettled mixed-blooded peoples from core areas to the periphery of Texas, created situations that allowed further mixing of various ethnic and racial groups. FINDINGS This study has failed to link descendants of Santiago Díaz and Josefa Gutiérrez to

Indian neophytes of Mission San Juan Capistrano. Nonetheless, it is within the realm of reasonable thought that their children had Black as well as Indian ancestry that was akin to that of the Coahuiltecan-speaking groups of south-central Texas. What this study does demonstrate is that, while the records are incomplete and spotty, they are useful in establishing lineal descent from former mission Indians. Missions San Juan and Espada were the smallest of the four southern Béxar missions. Missions Concepción and San José had larger populations and apparently have more complete records than either San Juan or Espada. This suggests that those mission populations would be profitable areas of inquiry. It also appears to this researcher that what is needed is the establishment of a dynamic database of known mission Indian families; that is, that it would be useful to create family record sheets from the available records on mission Indians and their descendants. Making genealogical information in that form available to the public would allow modern descendants to trace their families back to mission Indian families that survived into the first half of the nineteenth century. The ability to have reliable genealogical information in electronic form would facilitate demonstrable lineal descent of living individuals to any identified individual human remains in the NAGPRA inventory that may occur.

Chapter 7: Ethnohistory – Page 81

CHAPTER 7:

ETHNOHISTORY Jennifer L. Logan A review of the ethnohistoric data used by many researchers to construct a body of knowledge about the Coahuiltecan Indians is provided here for use by the National Park Service in addressing NAGPRA related issues. The Indians brought into the Spanish colonial missions in Texas were drawn from a diverse indigenous population representing many different tribal groups. The majority of the Indians brought into the San Antonio missions, including Mission San Juan, were primarily those living in what has been identified as the Coahuiltecan culture area— encompassing south Texas, along the Gulf Coast, and northeast Mexico—during the eighteenth century. Because modern-day descendants of the mission Indians from San Juan are asserting a right to control their cultural patrimony, foundational knowledge on the lifeways of the Coahuiltecan Indians is critical. REGIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOHISTORY Cabeza de Vaca is credited as the first European to observe and report upon the peoples who came to be called Coahuiltecan, who resided mostly in the interior coastal plain but also along the lower coast, and the Karankawas, who lived mainly along the coast as far north as Galveston. Two of the three ships in the expedition were shipwrecked in 1527 on Galveston Island after their captain, Governor Panfilo de Narváez, became separated from the expedition. After landing on Galveston Island, named Malhado (Island of Doom or Misfortune) by the shipwreck survivors, de Vaca and his crew experienced cold, hunger,

and illness. The men were taken in by local Indians and eventually separated to live among different groups. Cabeza de Vaca resided with the Capoques and the Han, both presumably Karankawa tribes, until 1532 (Covey 1993). His writings indicate that during the initial part of his stay with these peoples he was made a healer, but his writings indicate that sometime thereafter he was subject to hard work and harsh treatment. De Vaca became a trader as a means to escape to another group. From 1530 to 1532, de Vaca served as a merchant and made extensive journeys to engage in trading activities with tribes located further inland. This contact with inland peoples facilitated his eventual departure from the Texas Gulf Coast area. Upon his reunion with his countrymen, de Vaca learned that only four others had survived: Andrés Dorantes, Alonso del Castillo, an African man named Estebanico, and Lope de Oviedo. Oviedo chose to remain with the indigenous peoples with whom he had lived the past several years (Covey 1993:67-69; Favata and Fernández 1993:6566). De Vaca, Dorantes, Castillo, and Estebanico spent three years traveling across Texas and northern Mexico, eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean and finally Mexico City. From Galveston Island, Cabeza de Vaca’s exact route through Texas is poorly known and much debated (Campbell and Campbell 1981:8). Describing a region densely inhabited by a number of diverse tribes believed to be Coahuiltecan (Fox 1983:21; Hester 1980:40), de Vaca relates traveling in a southwest direction along the coastal plain, later veering west through southern Texas to the El Paso region or to western Mexico, and

Page 82 – Chapter 7: Ethnohistory

from there south to Mexico City (Figure 22). Besides the Capoque and the Han mentioned above, the other Texas Indian groups identified by de Vaca are [in alphabetical order with Campbell’s (1983) spelling in parentheses]: Anagados/Lanegados (Anegados), Arbadaos (Acubadaos?), Atayos, Avavares/Chavavares (Avavares), Camolas/-Camones (Camoles; coastal), Charruco, Coayos, Comos, Cultalchulches, Deaguanes/Deguenes/Aguenes/Doguenes, Decubadaos, the Fig People (coastal), Guaycones (coastal), Malicones/Maliacones (Maliacones), Mariames, Mendica, Quevenes, Quitoles (coastal), Susolas, Yguaces/Yeguaces (Yquazes). Of these groups, the Acubadaos, Anegados, Atayos, Avavares, Camoles, Coayos, Comos, Cultalchuches, Fig People, Guaycones, Maliacones, Mariames, Quitoles, Susolas, and Yquazes are situated in the Coahuiltecan culture area (Campbell 1983:356) (see Figure 23). The hunter-gatherers of south Texas and northeastern Mexico were once thought to speak the same language (Coahuilteco) and share similar cultural attributes. Linked on the basis of this widely spoken, common language, anthropologists have classified this diversity of cultural groups as Coahuiltecan (Table 5). The Coahuiltecan peoples were mobile hunter-gatherers organized into small, kin-based groups that came together periodically, often when seasonally available food resources were abundant (Campbell 1983:343; Hester 1989a:195). The dietary intake of the Coahuiltecans in general was centered on plant foods, small game, and marine resources. Those living in the interior coastal plain relied on prickly pear, mesquite beans, and deer, while coastal groups subsisted on a diet rich in fish, freshwater mussels, land snails, root foods, and berries (Schuetz 1980b:64-66). Karankawa peoples lived in small, nomadic groups and engaged in a hunting and gathering lifestyle particular to the coastal and island environments. Like the Coahuiltecans, the Karankawa incorporated plant foods, small game animals,

and deer into their diets, but with an emphasis on shellfish, waterfowl, and marine reptiles (Hester 1989a:196). Roots and tubers, berries, and nuts were important seasonally available food resources (Newcomb 1983:363). The Indians from which San Juan recruits were drawn throughout most of the mission’s history were centered along the coast (Figure 24), in close geographic proximity to the Karankawa homelands. No individuals identified as Karankawa are known to have resided at Mission San Juan, however. The relationship of the Coahuiltecans to the Karankawa is a topic that has been explored regularly in anthropological literature, particularly linguistic and bioarchaeological literature (Chapters 8 and 10). It is known that the Coahuiltecans and the Karankawa shared similar lifestyles and interacted with one another regularly, but spoke unrelated languages. Karankawa and Coahuiltecan are only two of many languages spoken in south Texas and northeast Mexico. Other languages, many of which remain unknown, were represented as well, along with various cultural groups whose pre-contact homelands lay to the north and west. Although much research on the Coahuiltecan Indians has been published, no true ethnographies (i.e., based on participant observation) detailing Coahuiltecan culture, either as hunter-gatherers or sedentary agriculturalists in mission contexts, exist. The prevailing assumption that the Texas Indians, and Coahuiltecans in particular, have been extinct for over a hundred years has dominated research on Texas Indians throughout this century (Table 6). For example, Newcomb (1961:25, 335) states that, since the advent of European settlement in Texas, many Native American groups “disappeared—the Karankawas, Coahuiltecans, Atakapans, Jumanos—irrevocably, finally extinguished” and that “the Coahuiltecans just


seem to have faded away.” In their introduction to the mission Indian groups of San Antonio, Campbell and Campbell (1996:1) assert that the hunting and gathering groups from which these peoples came “have been extinct for at least a century.” And Skeels (1972:viii) writes that, by the end of the nineteenth century, “there were no survivors of the indigenous Indians, and today in Texas we are left with a few small bands of displaced persons who put on shows for tourists, but who have little claim to the rich traditions of the sixteenth century.” Schuetz, however, challenges this perspective by pointing out that extinction of a lifeway is not tantamount to the extinction of a people. She notes: Anthropologists generally take the view that when a simple indigenous culture is assimilated by a more sophisticated one, the former somehow ‘fails’. In fact, the phrase commonly used is ‘to become extinct’…But is this a valid assessment?…Contemporary man also tends to assume that an indigenous people whose ethnic identity has survived have come through the trial with their culture intact, or unchanged (Schuetz 1980b:2-3).

Schuetz (1980b:126) asserted that the scarcity of written historic information on the Coahuiltecan Indians indicates that their original population was small, and that by 1800 “virtually all” of them had been missionized. MISSION SAN JUAN None of the bands encountered by Cabeza de Vaca and his companions have been recorded at Mission San Juan Capistrano, at least under the same names. The mission that was to become San Juan was originally established in 1716 as Mission San José de los Nazonis by Fray Isidro Félix de Espinosa (Rock 1999:2). Located near the present-day city of Nacogdoches in east Texas, this

mission served the local Nazoni and Nadaco peoples, Caddoan speakers who later came to be grouped with what is today known as the Caddo tribe. This and other east Texas missions were relocated in 1719 as the result of French hostilities (Johnston 1947:181-182), but San José de los Nazonis reopened in 1721. Spain’s primary reason for relocating missions in east Texas in the late 1600s and early 1700s was to hold the frontier against potential French invasions. Also, problems caused by difficulties in obtaining goods and services so far away from other Spanish centers were central to the reason for the relocation of San José de los Nazonis in 1729 (Scarborough 1929:243; Schuetz 1968:1213). Another major cause for the relocation of the mission and two of its neighbors was the vulnerability to attack by traditional enemies of the natives in the mission communities caused by the closing of the nearby presidio, in light of the onset of peace with France (Rock, personal communication 2001). San José was reestablished as Mission San Juan de Capistrano on the San Antonio River in 1731, originally for the Venados and Tilijae (Rock 1999:8). Although several of the San Antonio missions housed members of the Tonkawa, Apache, and Karankawa bands as well, it is generally assumed that the majority of Indian groups affiliated with Mission San Juan spoke the Coahuilteco language. The number of indigenous groups associated with San Juan increased over time. Within a few years of its founding, the Olojas (Pitalac), Pacaos, and Pajalat (Rock 1999:10) and the Orejón, Chayopin, Pamaque, and Piguique (Schuetz 1968:214) also became dominant in the mission. It has been suggested that group fragmentation, displacement, and disease-induced population decline led to an ever greater number of native bands and groups being represented at


Tuscon El Paso San Antonio

Monterrey Durango

Most probable route Alternate routes

0

310mi

0

500km

Vera Cruz Mexico

Figure 22. Routes of Cabeza de Vaca across Texas and Mexico, 1534-1536 (after Krieger 1955:Figure 1).

Figure 23. Approximate location of tribal entities observed by Cabeza de Vaca within the south Texas study area (group locations estimated using descriptions from Campbell and Campbell 1981).

Table 5. Named Indian groups at four Spanish Colonial missions in San Antonio (after Campbell and Campbell 1996, Table 1). Mission Concepción Group Language Apache

Mission San José Group Language Aguastaya Unknown

Borrado

Unknown

Camasuqua

Unknown

Lipan Apache

Unknown Karankawa Comanche Karankawa Karankawa

Apachean (Athapaskan) Unknown Unknown

Borrado

Unknown

Camama

Unknown

Cana

Unknown

Chayopin

Unknown

Cujan Eyeish

Karankawa Caddo (Caddoan)

Lipan Apache

Mayapem Mesquite Orejón Pacao Pachalaque Pajalat Pamaque

Aranama

Unknown

Camasuqua

Unknown

Camasuqua

Unknown

Carrizo Cayan

Unknown Unknown

Gegueriguan

Unknown

Huaraque

Unknown

Malaguita

Unknown

Mesquite

Unknown

Pacao

Coahuilteco

Pamaque

Unknown

Chayopin

Unknown

GuanbrautaAiaquia

Unknown

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Apachean (Athapaskan) Malaguita

Unknown

Orejón

Unknown

Cotoname Unknown

Unknown Coahuilteco Coahuilteco Coahuilteco Unknown Pampopa

Borrado

Arcahomo Assaca Borrado Cacalote Caguaumama

Pajalat Pamaque

Coahuilteco Unknown

Pana Pasnacan

Unknown Unknown

Coahuilteco


Malaguita Manos de Perro

Mission Espada Group Language

Apachean (Athapaskan) Aranama

Chayopin Coapite Comanche Copan Cujan

Mission San Juan Group Language

Table 5. Continued.

Patalca Patumaco Payaya

Unknown Coahuilteco Coahuilteco

Piguique

Unknown

Mission San José Group Language Pastia Coahuilteco

Pinto

Queniacapem Sanipao Sarapjon

Tacame Taguaguan Tilijae Tilpacopal Tinapihuaya

Coahuilteco Unknown Coahuilteco Coahuilteco Unknown

Pitalac

Unknown Pootajpo

Unknown

Saguiem

Unknown

Sarapjon

Unknown

Siguipan

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Cotoname

Sulujam Tacame

Coahuilteco Coahuilteco

Tejas

Caddo (Caddoan) Cotoname

Tenicapem Toaraque

Unknown Unknown

Sarapjon Saulapaguem

Coahuilteco

Peana Piguique


Unknown

Unknown Unknown

Siquipil


Tacame Taguaguan Tilijae

Coahuilteco Unknown Coahuilteco

Tacame Taguaguan

Coahuilteco Unknown

Tinapihuaya

Unknown

Tinapihuaya

Unknown

Tuarique Uncrauya

Unknown Unknown

Unknown

Venado Viayan Xarame

Unknown Unknown Coahuilteco

Yojuane

Tonkawa?

Total: 32

Total: 5

Xauna

Unknown

Total: 21

Total: 6

Venado Viayan

Unknown Unknown

Viayan

Unknown

Total: 20

Total: 1

Zacuestacán Total: 25

Unknown Total: 1


Mission Concepción Group Language


Figure 24. Approximate pre-mission locations for groups admitted to Mission San Juan Capistrano, 17311772 (after Francis 1999:40, Figure 2-1).

the mission (Campbell and Campbell 1996:12). Rock (1999:53) raises the possibility that intermarriage between bands, as evidenced in census records for San Juan, was prevalent in the pre-mission era and contributed to the cultural diversity of the mission. A review of the ethnographic information given by Schuetz (1980b), Campbell and Campbell (1996), and Francis (1999) reveals 11 tribes or groups that are consistently associated with Mission San Juan. Beyond these, however, the authors’ lists vary; Schuetz lists 12 tribes associated with the mission, as does Francis, while Campbell and Campbell identified 20 (Table 7). Rock (1999) has identified a number of other groups representing San Juan’s indigenous population not previously discussed in the literature, including the Olojas, Pacabos, Pilatos, and Tlascalans. A close examination of Schuetz’s (1980b) text uncovers two more groups, the Salcedo and

the Vallejo, who were also associated with Mission San Juan. Mission San Juan also became home to many former residents of Los Adaes in Louisiana after it was closed in 1772. The Adaesanos represented an ethnically diverse population (Poyo and Hinojosa 1991:96) composed of mestizo soldiers and Native Americans from a number of different tribal groups, including the Adaes, Bidai, Lipan Apache, and Tawakoni (Gregory 1983:54). The San Antonio missions suffered from abandonment of their native inhabitants on a large scale at this time period as well, and that recruitment was the only means by which the missions could maintain a viable population (Poyo and Hinojosa 1991:72, 75; Rock 1999:58-60). In fact, as early as 1690, Juan Bautista Chapa recorded the names of 250


Table 6. Examples of comments from ethnographic literature about Coahuiltecan extinction.

Publication Kroeber, Alfred L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Los Angeles. Frederick Ruecking, Jr. 1954 Ceremonies of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 7:330-339. 1961

W.W. Newcomb The Indians of Texas, from Prehistoric to Modern Times. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Comment “Every tribe in it [South Texas] has long been culturally extinct; some are absolutely so” (p. 20).

“Of the eighty thousand or more Coahuiltecans who occupied this area, none remains” (p. 330). “the Karankawas, Coahuiltecans, Atakapans, Jumanos— [are] irrevocably, finally extinguished” (p. 25). “The Coahuiltecans just seem to have faded away” (p. 335).

Mardith K. Schuetz 1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, Vol. 1. Report 10, State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin.

“Today the old missions are surrounded by families who claim their descent from mission Indians” (p. 58).

L.L.M. Skeels 1972 An Ethnohistorical Survey of Texas Indians. Texas Historical Survey Committee, Office of the State Archaeologist Report No. 22.

“There were no survivors of the indigenous Indians, and today in Texas we are left with a few small bands of displaced persons who put on shows for tourists, but who have little claim to the rich traditions of the sixteenth century” (p. viii).

Mardith K. Schuetz 1980b The Indians of the San Antonio Missions 17181821. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

“Around the three lower missions today there are still many residents who proudly proclaim their descent from mission Indians” (p. 321).

T.N. Campbell 1983 Coahuiltecans and Their Neighbors. In Southwest, edited by Alfonso Ortiz, pp. 343-358. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. W.W. Newcomb, Jr. 1988 Foreword. The Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico: Selected Writings of Thomas Nolan Campbell, by T. N. Campbell, pp. ix-x. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin. Bernard L. Fontana 1986 Indians and Missionaries of the Southwest During the Spanish Years: Cross Cultural Perceptions and Misperceptions. Proceedings of the 1984 and 1985 San Antonio Missions Research Conferences, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. T.N. Campbell and T.J. Campbell 1996 Indian Groups Associated with Spanish Missions of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Special Report No. 16, 2nd edition (originally published 1985). Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Comments that pronunciation of ethnic group names of southern Texas bands is difficult because “all Indian groups are extinct” (p. 347). “In 1981 descendants of some aboriginal groups still lived in various communities of Mexico and Texas” (p. 347). “the Indians of the region vanished before anthropologists arrived on the scene in the last decades of the nineteenth century. No direct observation and description of their cultures were possible” (p. ix). “the cultures of these natives were gone long before ethnographers and oral historians arrived on the scene. . .there are in San Antonio no longer viable populations of descendants of aborigines of the area who recognize themselves as such” (p. 58).

the hunting and gathering groups from which the mission Indians of San Antonio descended “have been extinct for at least a century” (p. 1).


Table 7. Native American group affiliation of individuals in residence at Mission San Juan. Schuetz (1980b, c) Borrado Chayopin [Sayopine, Chaiopin] Guanbrauta-Aiaguia Malaguita [Maraguitas, Malahuites]

Campbell and Campbell (1996) Borrado Chayopin [Sayopine, Chaiopin] Camasuqua (Pamaquea) Guanbrauta-Aiaquia Malaguita

Francis (1999) Borrado Chayopin [Sayopine]

Rock (1999) Borrado Chayopin [Sayopine, Chaiopin]

Malaguita

Orejón

Orejón [Orejones]

Pajalat Pamaquea Pana Pasnacan Peana Piguiquea [Pihuique]

Pajalat Pamaquea

Guanbrauta-Aiaguia Malaguita [“Maraguitas, Malahuites”] Manos de Perro Orejón [Orejones] Olojas (aPitalac [Pitalaque, Alobaja, Pacitalac]) Pacabos Pacaos Paguacans [Pasnacan, Pane] Pajalat Pamaquea

Orejón [Orejones]

Pacaos Pajalat [Pajalate] Pamaquea Pana Pasnacan [Paxnacan]

Pasnacan [Panascan] Piguiquea [Pihuique]

a

Piguique [Pihuique] Pitalac [Pitalaque, Alobaja, Pacitalac] Salcedo

Tilijae [Alijae, Filixaye, Tilijayas, Tiloja, Titijay, Tolujaa, Teloja, Teloxa]

Pitalac [Pitalaque, Alobaja, Pacitalac]

Piguiquea [Pihuique] Sarapjon (Pamaquea) Tacame Taguaguan (Pamaquea) Tilijae [Alijae, Filixaye, Tilijayas, Tiloja, Titijay, Tolujaa, Teloja, Teloxa] Tinapihuaya (Pamaquea) Venado [Benado]

Venado [Benado] Vallejo

Pitalac [Pitalaque, Alobaja, Pacitalac]

Viayan (Pamaquea)

Pilatos Tacame Tilijae [Alijae, Filixaye, Tilijayas, Tiloja, Titijay, Tolujaa, Teloja, Teloxa]

Venado [Benado]

Sanipaos [Sanipas]

Tilijae [Alijae, Filixaye, Tilijayas, Tiloja, Titijay, Tolujaa, Teloja, Teloxa] Tlascalan Venado [Benado]

Viayan [ ] indicates name variants a indicates collective name Note: Handbook of North American Indians was used for standardized spelling of group names.


Table 8. Names and tribal affiliations of mission Indian land grantees from San Juan. Name *Bustamante, Luis *Bustillos, Antonio *Castañeda, Marcelino *de la Cruz Texada, Mariano *del Prado, Mathias *Díaz, José

Tribal Affiliation Orejón Pamaque-Piguique Pamaque-Piguique

Date 1793 1793 1793

Document Census Census Census

Source Schuetz (1980b:10) Schuetz (1980b:10) Schuetz (1980b:10)

Tribal affiliation unknown Chayopin Pamaque-Piguique

1793

Census

Schuetz (1980b:10)

1793 1793, 1797

Census Census

*Flores, Salvador

Malaguita

1793, 1824

*Quiñonez, José Ventura *Rivera, Conrado *Rivera, José María *Valle, José Cayetano *Ximenez, Mathias

Malaguita

1793

Secularization Record Census

Schuetz (1980b:10) Schuetz (1980b:264, 1980c:10) Schuetz (1968:58-59, 1980c:10), Schuetz (1980c:10)

Pamaque-Piguique Pamaque-Piguique Guanbrauta?

1793 1793 1794, 1795, 1798, 1815, 1817 1793, 1794, 1824

Venado

Census Census Censuses Secularization Record

Schuetz (1980c:10) Schuetz (1980c:10) Schuetz (1980b:264, 1980c:10) Schuetz (1968:58-59, 1980c:10)

Table 9. Ethnic make-up of San Antonio and its missions from available statistical reports, 1790 and 1792. Ethnic Categories

Villa of San Fernando 1790a 1792 -13 780 666 269 289

Mission Valero

Mission Mission San Concepción José 1790 1792 1790 1792 1790 1792 0 0 0 0 0 0 Europeans 15 15 4 14 26 27 Spaniards 82 36 48 24 93 80 Indians [63b] 30 -------Mestizos -213 4 19 3 9 21 17 Mulattos 324 -------Of Broken Color 17 -------Slaves -121 6 0 8 11 14 0 Other Castes 1420 1302 107 70 63 58 154 124 Total: a Includes population of Presidio of San Antonio de Béxar. [b] Count from 1792 “Indians Only” statistical report for Mission Concepción. -- Category not used in statistical report.

Mission San Juan 1790 1792 0 0 8 4 43 25 -6 --12 69

-22 --0 51

Mission Espada 1790 1792 0 0 14 32 66 38 -8 --6 94

-7 --0 77


Indian nations of Nuevo León, of which he noted, “almost none now remain. The tribes soon will be extinguished completely” [Chapa 1997(1690):98-100]. Chapa [1997(1690):99] continues to report the necessity of recruiting Indians “from encampments forty and fifty leagues away” because of their scarcity in the immediate area. Rock (1999:33) reports an incident in which five indigenous families from Mission San Juan fled to Mission Vizarrón in Coahuila, whereupon many eventually reunited with their kin. Evidently, the indigenous peoples at Mission San Juan were drawn from south of the Rio Grande in addition to central Texas and the coast. The formation of confederacies from numerous diverse nations also contributed significantly to the diversity found in the San Antonio missions, including San Juan, as members joined the missions. Schuetz (1980b:46-60) writes at length about the sociopolitical organization of the various Coahuiltecan nations, which frequently banded together in confederations. Some confederacies ranged over huge territories and regularly counted over 1,000 members. One such confederacy, the Ranchería Grande, was located between the Little River and the Brazos River in the mid-eighteenth century and was composed of gentile Indians, apostates, and refugees drawn from a wide geographic area (McGraw and Clark 1991:285; Rock 1999:31). To summarize, people of tremendously diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds made up the population of Mission San Juan at any given time. Coahuiltecan researcher Frederick Ruecking, Jr. (1954a, 1954b, 1955a, 1955b) advanced the concept of the Coahuiltecan culture during the 1950s, and his publications are still widely consulted. However, Ruecking’s work on pre-mission Coahuiltecan culture also underscores the problems involved with research on Texas Indians before the 1800s—having engaged in no archival research

and emphasizing the importance of similarities rather than differences in the cultural features of the Indians of south Texas and northern Mexico, Ruecking’s work gives readers the misleading impression that this vast area was the site of remarkable cultural homogeneity (Campbell and Campbell 1996:19-20). Recent studies, however, reveal that while it is likely that Coahuilteco was a lingua franca throughout the San Antonio mission system, and spoken as both a first and second language by indigenous neophytes, invariably, it was not spoken throughout the Coahuiltecan culture area (Campbell and Campbell 1996:17-18). In fact, in Campbell and Campbell’s (1996:68) assessment of the 20 groups of indigenous peoples linked with Mission San Juan Capistrano, only the Pajalat, Tacame, and Tilijae, and possibly the Peana, are believed to have spoken Coahuilteco. The diversity in Coahuiltecan lifeways is reflected in other cultural differences that add to the complexity in identifying cultural affiliation from archaeological information. Regarding earlier ethnohistoric research on Coahuiltecan peoples, Johnson asserts: At this point in ethnohistorical research, it is crystal clear that the term Coahuiltecan ought to be tossed into the trash heap of misleading ethnic labels, while retaining Coahuilteco for a particular ethnolinguistic series of human groups just below the Edwards Plateau who hunted buffalo and did general food collecting (1994:279).

Enrollment of converts at Mission San Juan fluctuated throughout the mission’s history. The 1730s in particular were marked by periods of large-scale abandonment of the mission’s indigenous residents in response to disputes between church authorities and civilians, Apache aggression, and disease epidemics (Schuetz 1968: 32-33). Population growth occurred at Mission San Juan through the 1750s and peaked in 1756, with 265 Indian neophytes in residence (Schuetz 1968: 34). After the middle of the eighteenth century,


recruitment at the missions began to decline. Johnson (1994:191) notes that in 1762, 203 indigenous neophytes contributed to the population at Mission San Juan, but less than a decade later that number had dropped to 35 (McCaleb 1961:108). Rapid depopulation after the 1760s characterizes the history of each of the San Antonio missions and was a significant factor leading to initial secularization of the missions in 1793 (Rock 1999:63). By this point in time, the ethnic and cultural diversity of the San Juan mission community was considerable (see Chapter 1). With partial secularization of the missions in 1793, land grants were given to 12 of the remaining indigenous residents of Mission San Juan (Table 8). Because census reports clearly indicate that the mission was home to more than 12 Native American individuals, it is likely that the recipients of the land grants were descended from those for whom the mission was created. From 1793 until the final secularization of the San Antonio missions in 1824, records indicate that the number of individuals listed as Indian or part Indian in San Antonio rapidly declined (Table 9). This phenomenon can probably be attributed more to issues of changing social standing (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:106) than to dwindling numbers of individuals with Native ancestry. Historical records, including church archives, seldom refer to Coahuiltecan Indians. Instead, they refer to groups by their specific names, as demonstrated in the 1772 inventory of Mission San Juan (Rock 1999:47), in which Indian residents were listed by band. With time, religious authorities dropped the practice of identifying the indigenous recruits by band and linguistic affiliation. Schuetz (1980b:198, 205) noted that, by 1819, decades of intermarriage had culminated in a shift in social identity so that “former mestizos had become ‘Spaniards,’ most of the Indians had become mestizos, and mestizaje had changed the complexion of the community.” While there

was widespread acceptance of Indian culture in San Antonio during this time period, lack of a power base resulted in the marginalization of the indigenous community even as the assimilation process was effectively realized (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:106). In spite of a pervasive anthropological construct that Coahuiltecan lifeways and the peoples themselves became extinct after the late Colonial period, the continuing presence of Indians at the San Antonio missions long after secularization is widely acknowledged in popular literature throughout the last 100 years (Chapter 3). The physical appearance of residents at Mission San Juan was consistently pointed out as the most striking evidence of a mission Indian heritage (Corner 1890, McCormick 1909, de Zavala 1917) among the San Antonio mission communities. Anthropological acknowledgement of the continued existence of Coahuiltecan Indians, not just at the San Antonio missions, but in southern Texas and northern Mexico as well, came slowly. Swanton (1952:312) concedes that “in 1886 Dr. A. S. Gatschet found remnants of two or three tribes on the south side of the Rio Grande and some of their descendants survive, but they are no longer able to speak their ancient language.” In the late 1960s, Schuetz (1968:58) called attention to the need for a genealogical study of the families living in the vicinity of Mission San Juan who traced their ancestry to the mission Indians. Subsequently, Campbell (1983:347) observed, “descendants of some aboriginal groups still lived in various communities of Mexico and Texas, but few attempts have been made to discover individuals who can demonstrate this descent.” Interviews conducted for the present project with San Juan community members who trace their ancestry to mission Indians (see Chapter 4), as well as the project’s genealogical research (see Chapter 6), illustrate that productive lines of ethnographically oriented research may still be


pursued to learn more about mission Indian lifeways. CONCLUDING COMMENTS Anthropologists first used the term “Coahuiltecan” as an axiom for huntergatherers who lived in south Texas and northeast Mexico during the early historic period and who were encountered by Cabeza de Vaca and other Spanish explorers. Subsequent research, particularly by Campbell (1983) and Campbell and Campbell (1981, 1996) argued that the population at contact, much of which became concentrated at the missions, were from very linguistically and culturally diverse groups. Since the late 1970s, these peoples have not been considered representatives of a single culture. European contact and the ensuing depopulation and displacement of the native peoples resulted in further diversification in indigenous ethnic affiliations. Chapa (1997:98) expressed a concern in the late seventeenth century that the Indians of Spain’s northern frontier would soon be extinct. Many different groups were allied, however, in confederacies with fluid membership during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries

(Schuetz 1980b:48-60). It was from among these newly configured groups that many of the first mission Indians were recruited (cf. Rock 1999:31-33; Schuetz 1980b:337-341). Schuetz (1980b:126) believed that virtually all of the Coahuiltecan peoples had become missionized by 1800. Hester (1989c:215) and Johnson (1994:279) suggest that “Coahuiltecan” be used in reference to groups who shared the Coahuilteco language and a number of cultural traits, or in a very general sense to refer to the huntergatherers of the region (Hester 1989a:194), not as a tribal or band designation. Diverse groups of local Indian peoples, from the coast to the interior of Texas, were recruited to the missions. Ethnic diversity is also found among non-local Indians. A number of Indian and non-Indian residents at San Juan in the late 1700s were Tlascaltecans from Mexican settlements and mestizos or mulattos from Los Adaes in Louisiana. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the skeletal population recovered from as many as four burial places used from the 1730s to the 1860s does not represent an ethnically homogenous population (see Chapter 10).

Chapter 8: Linguistics – Page 95

CHAPTER 8:

LINGUISTICS Jennifer L. Logan The linguistic overview provides information necessary for determining cultural affiliation according to NAGPRA regulations. A review of the linguistic literature pertaining to south Texas contributes to the establishment of a comprehensive foundation of basic information on what is currently known about the Coahuiltecan Indians. This information will be used by the National Park Service and the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in evaluating cultural affiliation issues pertaining to NAGPRA. COAHUILTECAN LANGUAGE The languages spoken by the Coahuiltecan Indians are poorly known. The only known dictionary of a possible Coahuiltecan language was compiled in 1732 by Gabriel Vergara for the language spoken of the Pajalates of the Rio Grande and Mission Concepción in San Antonio. No dictionaries were created for the Indians of south Texas before their native languages fell out of use. Neither were linguistic studies conducted with native speakers before their languages were lost. Consequently, all contemporary linguistic studies on the languages of the south Texas Indians are based on a sparse written record. Identifying the languages spoken by the hunter-gatherer groups who lived in southern Texas and northern Mexico is a task that has intrigued researchers since the middle of the nineteenth century. The most extensive written evidence for the linguistic affiliation of these peoples was compiled in 1760 by Fray Bartolomé García as a church manual designed to aid

communication between Spanish missionaries and their indigenous converts (Campbell and Campbell 1996:16). García’s manual documented the language spoken by the Alasapas, Borrados, Chayopines, Manos de Perro, Mescales, Orejónes, Pacaos, Pacoas, Pacuaches, Pajalates, Pamaques, Pampopas, Pausanes, Piguiques, Sanipaos, Tilijaes, Tacames, Venados, “and many other different ones that are in the missions of the Rio de San Antonio and Rio Grande” (Goddard 1979:364). Notes on the language of the Pajalates of Mission Concepción, by Gabriel Vergara and dated 1732, were found in a manuscript that had been used as part of the binding of an early version of García’s manual (Schuetz 1980b:44). Vergara’s notes are an important additional source of information of the Coahuiltecan languages, and indicate that the dialect of the Pajalates of Mission Concepción was different from that spoken by those recorded on the Rio Grande by García (Goddard 1979:365). The Rio Grande missions referred to by García have been identified as San Juan Bautista and San Bernardo (Goddard 1979:364, citing T.N. Campbell, personal communication, 1979). This language, and the peoples who spoke it, or were thought to speak it, was first given the name “Coahuilteco” in the middle 1800s by Mexican linguist Manuel Orozco y Berra (1864). Dialects of the Coahuiltecan language were once thought to have been spoken widely, if not exclusively, throughout the region under study. For decades, this presumed linguistic homogeneity was assumed to reflect an overall cultural homogeneity as well, a view promoted by

Page 96 – Chapter 8: Linguistics

Ruecking in the 1950s. In the early 1960s, Newcomb (1961:29-30) stated all the peoples of this tremendous region in Texas and Mexico apparently spoke dialects or languages of a common linguistic stock, Coahuiltecan…there were numerous minor cultural differences distinguishing various Coahuiltecan subgroups from one another.

That south Texas was rich in a diversity of languages became increasingly evident by the late 1970s. Only a modified version of the former view is now accepted, which concedes that Coahuilteco may have been widely spoken, but largely as a secondary language. Campbell and Campbell (1996:69) note that when Bartolomé García’s manual was published in the middle of the eighteenth century, “some of the Indian groups who originally spoke other languages could have become Coahuilteco speakers because Coahuilteco had become the dominant native language spoken in the missions.” It is generally assumed that the majority of Indian groups affiliated with Mission San Juan spoke a Coahuiltecan language, but recent studies reveal the possibility that Coahuilteco was a lingua franca throughout the San Antonio mission system. Of the 20 groups of indigenous peoples linked with Mission San Juan Capistrano, only the Pajalat, Tacame, and Tilijae, and possibly the Peana are likely to have been Coahuilteco speakers (Table 10) (Campbell and Campbell 1996:68). AFFILIATED LANGUAGES A number of languages spoken by the Indians of south Texas and northeast Mexico have now been identified, including Comecrudo, Cotoname, Coahuilteco, Aranama, Solano, Mamulique, and Garza (Goddard 1979). According to Goddard (1979:363, 371-372), those languages spoken in Texas at the time that they were recorded include Coahuilteco, Garza (Mier), and

Solano (Eagle Pass). Comecrudo (Tamaulipas), Mamulique (Nuevo León), and Aranama (Matamoros) were spoken in Mexico (Goddard 1979:369-373). Swanton (1940:118) places Cotoname in Tamaulipas. Since the late 1800s, linguistic research has focused on attempting to identify the genetic relationships of these languages to one another (Table 11). The major trends dominating linguistic research on the indigenous peoples of south Texas since Orozco y Berra’s work involve identifying the languages spoken by the south Texas Indians and determining the geographical extent of the Coahuiltecan language family. Following Orozco y Berra (1864), Powell (1891) assigned Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname under the Coahuiltecan language family. Gatschet (1891), however, placed the same three languages within the Pakawan family. Atakapa (southwest Louisiana and northeast Texas) (Newcomb 1961:315-316) and Maratino (Mexico?) were included with Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname under the Coahuiltecan family by Swanton in 1915. Building on Swanton’s research, Sapir (1920) agreed with his classification of the Coahuiltecan languages, added Solano and Aranama to the family, and hypothesized a link between Coahuiltecan and Hokan. By 1929, Sapir suggested that Tonkawa and Karankawa be added to the languages composing the Coahuiltecan family. In 1964, a linguistic conference was held in Indiana and a consensus was reached on the Coahuiltecan language classification that removed Comecrudo, Cotoname, Karankawa, and Tonkawa from the Coahuiltecan family. Comecrudo and Cotoname were placed in the Comecrudan family, while Coahuilteco was declared a linguistic isolate (Manaster Ramer 1996:13). Both Coahuiltecan and Comecrudan were thought to be related only in that they both belonged to the Hokan Phylum (Goddard 1979:377). In his

Mission Concepción Group Language Apache

Mission San José Group Language Aguastaya unknown

Borrado

unknown

Camasuqua

unknown

Lipan Apache Malaguita Manos de Perro

unknown Karankawa Comanche Karankawa Karankawa

Apachean (Athapaskan) unknown unknown

unknown Coahuilteco Coahuilteco Coahuilteco unknown

Aranama

Borrado

unknown

Camama

unknown

Cana

unknown

Chayopin

unknown

Cujan Eyeish

Karankawa Caddo (Caddoan)

Lipan Apache

Mayapem Mesquite Orejón Pacao Pachalaque Pajalat Pamaque


Apachean (Athapaskan) Aranama

Chayopin Coapite Comanche Copan Cujan


Borrado

unknown

Arcahomo Assaca Borrado Cacalote Caguaumama

Camasuqua

unknown

Camasuqua

unknown

Carrizo Cayan

unknown unknown

Gegueriguan

unknown

Huaraque

unknown

Malaguita

unknown

Mesquite

unknown

Pacao

Coahuilteco

Pamaque

unknown

Chayopin

unknown

GuanbrautaAiaquia

unknown

unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown

Apachean (Athapaskan) Malaguita

unknown

Orejón

unknown

Cotoname unknown

Pajalat Pamaque

Coahuilteco unknown


Table 10. Probable linguistic affiliation of Indian groups at Mission San Juan (after Campbell and Campbell 1996, Table 3).

Table 10. Continued. Mission Concepción Group Language

Mission San José Group Language Pampopa Coahuilteco Pastia

Patalca Patumaco Payaya

unknown Coahuilteco Coahuilteco

Piguique

unknown Pinto Queniacapem

Sanipao Sarapjon

Tacame Taguaguan

Coahuilteco unknown

unknown unknown Coahuilteco

Yojuane

Tonkawa?

Total: 32

Total: 5

unknown unknown

Pitalac

unknown

unknown Pootajpo

unknown

Saguiem

unknown

Sarapjon

unknown

Siguipan

unknown

Tacame Taguaguan

Coahuilteco unknown

Tinapihuaya

unknown

Tuarique Uncrauya

unknown unknown

unknown unknown

Cotoname

Sulujam Tacame

Coahuilteco Coahuilteco

Tejas Tenicapem

Caddo Cotoname

Coahuilteco Coahuilteco unknown unknown

Venado Viayan Xarame

Peana Piguique

Xauna

unknown

Total: 21

Total: 6

Tacame Taguaguan

Coahuilteco unknown

Tilijae

Coahuilteco

Tinapihuaya

unknown

Venado Viayan

unknown unknown

Viayan

unknown

Total: 20

Total: 1

Zacuestacán Total: 25

unknown Total: 1

Chapter 8 :Linguistics – Page 98

Tilijae Tilpacopal Tinapihuaya Toaraque

unknown unknown

Sarapjon Saulapaguem

Coahuilteco

Pana Pasnacan


Coahuilteco

unknown unknown

Siquipil


Chapter 8: Linguistics – Page 99

reanalysis of the data used to classify the Coahuiltecan languages, Goddard (1979:379) departs from the “consensus classification” by asserting that “the three components of…Coahuiltecan— Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname— must all be considered independent isolated languages whose genetic relationships are at present unknown.” Solano and Aranama were also judged to be inadequately documented to be classified. Goddard (1979:380) also introduced Mamulique and Garza, languages recorded by Jean Louis Berlandier in 1828-1829 (1969 [1830]), and conceded that, pending further research, those languages may provide justification for the Comecrudan family, based on similarities between them and Comecrudo. The most current studies support of Goddard’s conclusions. Manaster Ramer (1996:14) concurs with the grouping of Manulique, Garza, and Comecrudo under the Comecrudan family, as suggested by Goddard, and sees evidence for including Coahuilteco and Cotoname in the Comecrudan language family as well. Manaster Ramer also evaluates the evidence for the inclusion of Karankawa, Tonkawa, and Atakapa under the Coahuiltecan family. He concludes that Karankawa is distantly related to Coahuiltecan, the position of Atakapa is uncertain, and there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that Tonkawa is a Coahuiltecan language (Manaster Ramer 1996:27, 32). Campbell (1996:632), on the other hand, believes that Manaster Ramer’s conclusions are based on insufficient documentation. Consequently,

while some of the proposed groupings may seem plausible, none of the recorded languages of south Texas can be classified with any degree of confidence and “the languages should be viewed as unrelated.” CONCLUDING COMMENTS Little written documentation for the languages spoken by the Coahuiltecan Indians has been found. Most written evidence for the linguistic affiliation of the indigenous peoples of south Texas and northeast Mexico was obtained from tribes located close to the Rio Grande. A Pajalat dictionary was compiled by Gabriel Vergara in the 1730s for several indigenous groups then living near the Rio Grande, and in 1760, Fray Bartolomé García compiled a bilingual church manual in a language spoken by many groups in the region as well (Campbell and Campbell 1996:16; Goddard 1979:364). From the late nineteenth century until the 1970s, the geographic Coahuiltecans were thought to have been linguistically homogeneous. This view has been largely rejected, save for the concession that Coahuilteco may have been widely spoken, but largely as a secondary language. At least seven languages spoken by the Indians of south Texas and northeast Mexico have now been identified (Goddard 1979). Researchers intent upon classifying these languages in relation to one another have concluded that, because of the inadequacy of existing documentation, the languages should be considered independent isolates.


Table 11. Summary information on the classification of Coahuilteco and the Coahuiltecan language family. Publication Fray Bartolomé García 1760 Manual para administrar los santos sacramentos de penitencia, eucharistia, extrema-uncion, y matrimonio… Mexico. de Vergara, Gabriel 1965 [1732] El Cuadernillo de la lengua de los indios pajalates (1732) y El confesonario de indios en lengua coahuilteca, edited by Eugenio del Hoyo. Publicaciones del Instituto Technológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Serie Historia 3. Monterrey, Mexico. Manuel Orozco y Berra 1864 Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. Impr. de J.M. Andrade y F. Escalante, Mexico. Gatschet, Albert S. 1891 The Karankawa Indians, The Coast People of Texas. Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum Vol. 1, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge. Powell, John W. 1891 Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Swanton, John R. 1915 Linguistic Position of the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist 17:17-40. Sapir, Edward 1920 The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4):280-290. Sapir, Edward 1925 The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 27(3):402-435, (4):491-527. Voegelin, C.F. and F.M. Voegelin 1964 Languages of the World: Native America Fascicle Two. Anthropological Linguistics 7(7):1-150. Goddard, Ives 1979 The Languages of South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, edited by Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, pp. 355-389. University of Texas Press, Austin. Manaster Ramer, Alexis 1996 Sapir’s Classifications: Coahuiltecan. Anthropological Linguistics, 38(1): 1-38. Campbell, Lyle 1996 Coahuiltecan: A Closer Look. Anthropological Linguistics, 38(4): 620-634.

Summary Church manual in Spanish with native language equivalents (in the language spoken by the Alasapas, Borrados, Chayopines, Manos de Perro, Mescales, Orejones, Pacaos, Pacoas, Pacuaches, Pajalates, Pamaques, Pampopas, Pausanes, Piguiques, Sanipaos, Tilijaes, Tacames, and Venados). Notebook compiled by Gabriel de Vergara in 1732, recording the language of the Pajalate Indians and an Indian confessional in the Coahuiltecan language. Geographic distribution of languages of Mexico, coined term Coahuilteco to describe languages and cultural groups of northern Mexico and southern Texas. Coins term Pakawan to refer to Coahuiltecan languages.

Grouped Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname under Coahuiltecan. Grouped Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname, plus Atakapa and Maratino, under Coahuiltecan. Agreed with Swanton’s conclusions, and suggested that Solano and Aranama be included. Also tried to link Coahuiltecan with Hokan. Established Coahuiltecan family, including Tonkawa, Karankawa, and Coahuilteco (Coahuilteco = Coahuilteco “proper,” Comecrudo, Cotoname, Solano and Aranama). Coahuilteco viewed as a linguistic isolate, Comecrudo and Cotoname now grouped under Comecrudan. Comecrudan and Coahuilteco in Hokan Phylum. Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname are “independent isolated languages.” Also introduces Mamulique and Garza as languages related to each other under the family Comecrudan. Pakawan = Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Cotoname, Mamulique, and Garza; Coahuiltecan = Pakawan plus Karankawa and Atakapa. The languages should be viewed as unrelated because the documentary evidence is too poor to be able to demonstrate genetic relationships.

Chapter 9: Archaeology – Page 101

CHAPTER 9:

ARCHAEOLOGY Jennifer L. Logan The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on south Texas and mission Indian archaeology in an effort to provide baseline information to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park for addressing cultural affiliation issues pertaining to NAGPRA. Many San Juan community members claim descent from Native American peoples brought into the mission. These peoples are commonly referred to as Coahuiltecans, a cultural designation that is increasingly questioned by the anthropological community (Hester 1998:5-6, 2000:5-6). Archaeological data, when combined with ethnographic and ethnohistoric information, has the potential to enable researchers to identify the pre-contact (e.g., “Prehistoric”) ancestry of historically known cultural groups. In some parts of the United States, including south Texas, native culture changed so drastically after the time of initial European contact as to become unrecognizable as such by the late 1800s, when the discipline of anthropology was born. In such cases, archaeologists frequently rely on ethnohistoric descriptions of indigenous material culture when trying to link precontact sites with historically known peoples (Trigger 1982:2-3). Ethnohistoric information on the indigenous groups of south Texas and northeast Mexico—commonly referred to as Coahuiltecan—extends as far back as the late 1520s through the mid-1530s with Cabeza de Vaca (Covey 1961). Subsequent to his return to Spain, de Vaca documented his experiences living with native peoples of the Texas Gulf Coast and of his travels across south Texas.

After 1535, Spanish attention is not focused on Texas again until 1689, when a party accompanying Captain Alonso de León crossed the Rio Grande in search of a rumored French settlement (Casis 1916; West 1905). Missions were set up within the next three decades in east Texas and along the San Antonio River. In 1731, three of the east Texas missions were relocated to the San Antonio River and became known as Missions Concepción, San Juan, and Espada. Studies of south Texas archaeology are limited by the sparse information available from the temporal spectrum as a whole. However, the late pre-contact period (ca. AD 800-A.D. 1600) is considered “the best known prehistoric time interval in the region [of south Texas]; remains are distinctive, numerous, and better preserved than earlier Archaic materials” (Black 1989:51). This time period also encompasses the earliest contacts between Europeans and indigenous peoples in Texas. The interval between the late pre-contact and the early post-contact (“Historic”) period is crucial to establishing cultural affiliation ties to contemporary Native American groups descended from Texas Indians. For studies of this nature, collaboration between archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and native peoples becomes necessary. According to NAGPRA regulations: Cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity which can reasonably be traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group. Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence—based on geographical, kinship,

Page 102 – Chapter 9: Archaeology

biological, archaeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion— reasonably leads to such a conclusion [United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 1999].

and Historic periods in Texas are most critical in efforts to determine cultural affiliation of pre-contact material remains, the material culture of these periods are briefly characterized below.

The Coahuiltecan Indians were actually numerous diverse bands of hunter-gatherers living throughout south Texas and northeast Mexico. From the time of initial European contact, considerable population decline affected the indigenous population, resulting in the fragmentation and amalgamation of remnant bands (Schuetz 1980b:12-15). The San Antonio missions, established for the survivors in the early eighteenth century, preserve a valuable record of the material culture of the south Texas Indians (Fox 1983). Church reports during the 1700s frequently note the regular practice of hunting and gathering activities by Indian recruits, while archaeological data reveals the continuation of pre-contact stone tool and pottery making industries throughout the Colonial period (ca. A.D. 1716-A.D. 1821) (Fox 1989:85). The question that immediately comes to mind is whether archaeological materials from the Late Prehistoric period of south Texas and northeast Mexico can be tied to any of the Indian groups that populated the Texas missions during the Spanish colonial era.

Late Prehistoric (ca. A.D. 800-A.D. 1600)

MATERIAL CULTURE Hester (1980:38) notes that the indigenous peoples of south Texas—Coahuiltecan and Karankawa—“represent the culmination of more than 11,000 years [emphasis in original] of a way of life that had successfully adapted to the climate and the resources of south Texas.” Like most other researchers, however, Hester is hesitant to make definitive conclusions linking historically known and pre-contact cultural groups based on the archaeological record. Since archaeological data from the Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric,

The technological changes that characterize the Late Prehistoric period in general are found spread “over a vast region stretching from north-central and west-central Texas to deep south Texas,” from a point of origin in the south Plains (Black 1989:57). Two phases, the Austin Phase (A.D. 8001300) and the Toyah Phase (A.D. 1300-1600) are recognized within the Late Prehistoric period throughout south Texas. The Austin Phase is marked by the introduction of the bow-and-arrow and expanding stemmed Scallorn points, while the Toyah Phase is marked by contracting stemmed Perdiz points, the appearance of pottery making among inland groups, and the reintroduction of blade technology. Because Toyah material culture appears in Texas suddenly and fully developed, Johnson (1994:272) dismisses hypotheses that the complex developed in Texas, and suggests that it was brought in already fully developed by immigrant bison hunters. By matching the geographic placement of ethnohistorically described ethnic groups with the Classic Toyah culture area, Johnson offers the eastern Sanan speakers, the Aranama, and Coahuilteco speakers as possible “latter day Toyah Folk.” Along the Texas gulf coast, the Late Prehistoric period began around A.D. 1200, marked by the Rockport complex, while in the Rio Grande delta it is marked by the emergence of the Brownsville complex after A.D. 1200. Unlike sites in the south Texas interior and gulf coast, ceramics are not typical of Brownsville Complex sites, nor are stemmed arrow points. Brownsville Complex peoples possessed a well-developed shell tool


working technology. Some of the Brownsville Complex groups apparently survived “well into the historic era” (Black 1989:52), as evidenced by archaeological and ethnohistoric information. Regional distinctions during the Late Prehistoric era are particularly evident in ceramics. Two main ceramics traditions, bone-tempered and sandy-paste, have been recognized within south Texas. Bonetempered pottery, called Leon Plain, is primarily recovered from inland south Texas sites and is associated with the Toyah cultural complex (Hester 1989c:215). Vessels of this type are simply shaped, usually undecorated, and made with a crushed animal bone temper (Hester 1980:124). Johnson cautions that the subtleties of variation among ceramics in precontact sites are inadequately dealt with to justify Leon Plain as a typological category. The similarities and differences need to be evaluated “in a much more detailed manner than is involved in assigning type names and composing type descriptions” (Johnson 1994:210). A sandy-paste ceramics tradition is associated with the Karankawa Indians (Hester 1980:128) along the Texas Gulf Coast. Such pottery, referred to as Rockport ware, tends to be thin-walled, sandy-textured, and typically decorated and waterproofed with asphaltum (Black 1989:52). Black (1989:52) cautions, however, that as the sample of coastal ceramics grows larger, it becomes clear that “the inland and coastal pottery traditions appear to be interrelated and less distinct than once thought.” Protohistoric Interval Black (1989:52) notes the existence of “a short lived protohistoric interval in the brief span between the initial Spanish contact in AD 1528 (Cabeza de Vaca) and total domination of the region by the mid eighteenth century.” During the protohistoric period, the introduction of horses by the

Spanish, epidemics resulting from newly introduced European diseases, and trade for European goods caused rapid changes in indigenous cultural groups (Johnson 1994:287). The year 1528 marks the Spanish entrada into Texas and the first written descriptions of the appearance and lifestyle of the native cultural groups. Historic Period Indigenous ceramics production and bone, lithic, and shell working technologies were carried over into the Historic period. Other artifacts characterizing post-contact Indian sites include projectile points fashioned out of glass or metal, glass trade beads, gunflints, and gun parts (Hester 1980:161). Priests at the Spanish missions supplied native recruits with religious ornaments such as crucifixes and rosaries and with utilitarian utensils including scissors, knives, pots, and pans (Hester 1989c:218). During the Historic period, the hunting and gathering lifestyle practiced by most Texas native cultural groups eventually ceased to be a viable way of life. With the advancement of the Apache from the west, most of the south Texas hunter-gatherer groups repeatedly experienced geographic displacement during the Historic period of the late seventeenth century. The San Antonio missions, established during the early to mid-eighteenth century, recruited most of their indigenous converts from among south Texas cultural groups. Many native Texan cultural groups had already experienced decimation of population due to introduced diseases and warfare with the Spanish and competing tribes. By the late nineteenth century, these groups were no longer cohesive units, the remaining members of which became socioeconomically integrated into the population of the dominant society or were relocated to reservations outside the state. The Historic period also


encompasses the “extinction” of the Coahuiltecan Indians brought into the Spanish missions. Indian pottery traditions continued with few stylistic changes. While Spanish missionaries often note the absence of pottery making among the diverse Indian groups entering the San Antonio missions (Hester 1980:124-125; Schuetz 1969:63), archaeological research has demonstrated that pottery is found in great quantities throughout pre-contact sites in the region. In any case, mission Indian pottery, called Goliad ware, closely resembles Leon Plain ceramics. Hester (1989c:215-217) emphasizes that, “it is specifically the bone-tempered pottery tradition of Late Prehistoric times [i.e. Leon Plain] that becomes the dominant utility ware of the missions and that persists in south Texas into the early nineteenth century.” Goliad ware ceramics frequently display incised linear or wavy lines, small dots painted with asphaltum or red paint, and notched rims. Goliad ware appears to be a synthesis of Leon Plain and Rockport ware (Hester 1980:125-126). In short, Leon Plain pottery is called Goliad ware when found in mission contexts. Hester (1989c:223-224) notes that “its [Goliad ware’s] basic attributes are no different from those of Leon Plain.” It remains unclear as to why missionaries noted the absence of a pottery making tradition among the south Texas Indians. Lithic technologies employed by the region’s aboriginal hunter-gatherers continued to be utilized at the missions. Hester (1989c:220) notes that in 1767, Fray Gaspar de Solís observed that “old men made arrows for the warriors” at Mission San Juan Capistrano, although translations of the Solís diary place this observation at San José (Forrestal 1931:21; Kress 1931:52). Manufacture and use of stone tools was ubiquitous in all the south Texas missions. Blade technology in particular continued to be

practiced at Missions San Juan Capistrano, Espíritu Santo, and San Bernardo (Hester 1989c:217, 223). Projectile point inventories from excavations at the Spanish missions are dominated by Zavala and Guerrero points. Guerrero points, having both lanceolate and triangular forms, represent a completely new type of arrow point that is found at all the Texas missions from the early 1700s, including Mission San Juan. Hester (1989c:220-221) reports that at the Shanklin site, a non-mission site in Wharton County (southeast Texas), Guerrero points were recovered in association with a Spanish coin dating to 1738. Zavala points may be reworked from Archaic dart points, but have also been found in sites in the Rio Grande Valley dating from the sixteenth through the eighteenth century (Hester 1989c:220). Mission Excavations Eleven archaeological investigations have been conducted at Mission San Juan since the 1930s (Table 12), when reconstruction of the mission’s walls and limited excavations were undertaken by workers employed with the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The bulk of archaeological work at San Juan has taken place since the late 1960s. In 1967, Mardith Schuetz, as representative of San Antonio’s Witte Museum, directed mitigation activities at Mission San Juan in response to a request by the Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio. A number of excavations covering different portions of the mission grounds took place under Schuetz’s supervision for the next four years (Schuetz 1968, 1969, 1974, 1980a). In 1983, excavations related to foundation stabilization took place in the floor of the post-Colonial, or Tufa, house situated on the east wall. Representatives from the University of Texas at San Antonio’s Center for Archaeological Research (CAR-UTSA) carried out additional excavations at Mission San Juan in 1986, 1992, 1997, 1998, and 1999 (Figure 30).


Table 12. Chronology of archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan Capistrano (see Figure 30 for location of rooms and excavation areas).

Reference Referenced in: Schuetz, M. K. 1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume I (of II): Historical Documentation and Description of the Structures. Report No. 10. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin. Schuetz, M. K. 1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume I (of II): Historical Documentation and Description of the Structures. Report No. 10. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin. Schuetz, M. K. 1969 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume II: Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin.

Schuetz, M. K. 1980a The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume IV: Excavation of the Convento. Manuscript on file, Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin.

Schuetz, M. K. 1974 The Dating of the Chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Special Reports, No. 12. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin. Schuetz, M. K. 1980A The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume IV: Excavation of the Convento. Manuscript on file, Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin. Escobedo, J. T. 1985 The Post-Colonial House: An Excavation Report. Manuscript on file, headquarters, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park.

Date Institution and Work Undertaken Late 1930s Works Progress Administration (WPA) excavation of grounds in various places around mission walls, exposure of buried foundations, reconstruction of mission walls.

1967 Witte Museum, excavation of Rooms 4 through 13 and 19-22, partial excavation of the ruined church located in the east wall of the quadrangle (Room 26), testing of areas in the north wall and around structures 17, 18, 22, 27, 29 and Area A, partial excavation of Area B (the midden).

1968 Witte Museum, the excavation of level 3 of Area B (the midden), excavation of the colonial floor in Room 19, re-excavation of Room 21 and portions of Room 20, testing around south walls to obtain additional building data for the restoration, screening of midden material thrown up by the restoration and reinforcement of the walls of Room 18, testing in front of the pilasters of the chapel (Room 17). 1969 Witte Museum, excavation of the Chapel (Room 17). 1971 Witte Museum, excavation of Rooms 22, 23, 31(earliest church), 32 and 34 (convento), portion convento plaza (units 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 42, and 43). 1983 National Park Service, excavation of foundations of post-Colonial (Tufa) house on east wall of mission compound.


Table 12. Continued. Reference Turner, D. D. 1988 Excavations at San Juan Capistrano, 41BX5, Bexar County, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report No. 171. Fox, A. A. 1993 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring in Connection with a Drainage Project at Mission San Juan Capistrano San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 217. Gross, K. J. 1998 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring for a Proposed Drainage Channel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 283. Durst, J. J. 1999 Recent Excavations at Mission San Juan de Capistrano. Cultural Resources Management News and Views, 11(1):31-33. Cargill, D. A. and R. C. Robinson 2000 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296. Francis, J. R. 2000 Isolated Burial Analysis. In Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, by D. A. Cargill and R. C. Robinson, Appendix IV. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296.

Schuetz’s excavations of the mission compound were undertaken with the goal of recovering an artifact assemblage representative of Coahuiltecan lifeways. The material culture of mission Indians was seen as particularly important in its potential to shed light on unreliable ethnographic data on the Indians of south Texas and northeast Mexico and the demise of pre-contact hunter-

Date Institution and Work Undertaken 1986 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), test excavations outside north wall.

1992 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), excavation of portions of east wall, southeast corner of mission, interior of church ruin near north wall doorway, and south of south wall of Tufa House. 1998 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), test excavations along proposed drainage channel outside south wall.

1998 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), excavation outside of western wall of chapel. 1997 and 1999 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), 14 shovel tests, three test excavation units, and one backhoe trench outside the north and northwest area of the mission compound. 1999 Center for Archaeological Research at University of Texas at San Antonio (CAR-UTSA), monitoring construction and discovering, removing, analyzing, and reinterring Native American human remains along drainage channel south of compound.

gatherer cultures by the end of the eighteenth century. The fallacy of equating cultural extinction or the demise of pre-contact lifeways with human biological extinction is pointed out by Schuetz (1980b:4), who notes that “the traditional assessment of the failure of the Spanish mission institution has, of course, been linked to the ‘disappearance’ of their Indian charges from history” (Table 13).


She points out that, even if an indigenous peoples’ ethnic identity has remained strong through the centuries since European contact, it is unrealistic to assume that their culture has consequently remained unchanged (Schuetz 1980b:2-3). During the 1967 excavations at Mission San Juan, Schuetz (1969:71-72) found a number of projectile points representing a variety of types, including points she identifies as Montell, Tortugas, Abasolo, and Matamoros. These points were identified later by another author as Guerrero points (Turner 1988:21). Schuetz’s (1980a) 1971 excavations produced six arrowheads, four of which were made from metal. Turner (1988:21) reports finding two Guerrero points. No Guerrero points were recovered from Fox’s excavations (Fox 1993:20-21). It is unknown why a new type of projectile point began to be made as the Texas Indians entered the Spanish missions. Guerrero points were used by a variety of Historic period Indians living in the Texas missions, including the Coahuiltecans and other south Texas native peoples at Mission San Juan. Evidence for abundant pottery making at Mission San Juan Capistrano is revealed in artifact inventories from excavations over the past 30 years. In the first major excavations at Mission San Juan, Schuetz (1969:68) recovered over 3,000 sherds of what she refers to as “Mission Indian” ceramics from mission Indian, Colonial, and post-Colonial contexts. During the 1969 excavation season at the mission, Schuetz (1974:37) recovered a total of 169 “Indian-made sherds.” In 1971, she carried out additional excavations at San Juan and recovered over 5,457 “Indian” sherds (Schuetz 1980a). Escobedo (1985:22) recovered a number of Colonial period ceramics during excavations of the post-

Colonial (Tufa) house, some of which were found in association with Oliva shells, but he did not specify if any of these were Native American. Turner (1988:13) recovered over 100 sherds of Goliad ware from excavations in the northeast corner of the mission compound, and Fox (1993:13) counted well over 200 “unglazed” sherds (equated with Goliad ware) in excavations of portions of the east wall and southeast corner of the mission compound. Hinojosa and Fox (1991:113, 117) note that locally produced Indian ceramics, which they refer to as “Coahuiltecan ceramics,” have been found in large numbers in excavations of eighteenth century and early nineteenth century home sites within the city of San Antonio. Fox (1993:15) maintains that the continuous distribution of unglazed ceramic sherds across archaeological deposits in some areas at Mission San Juan “bears out previous observations…that the manufacture of Goliad ware continued past secularization of the missions and into the early nineteenth century in San Antonio.” Goliad ware is closely affiliated with mission Indians, including Coahuiltecans, at San Juan. Its wide-spread distribution in the San Antonio area, however, demonstrates that Goliad ware (also known as Coahuiltecan ceramics) was used by Indians and non-Indians of various ethnic affiliations. Indigenous lithic and ceramic technologies, as well as labor, clearly contributed to the health of mission economic systems. Hinojosa and Fox (1991) adopt a historical perspective in their study of the role played by Native Americans in early San Antonio’s (i.e., San Fernando) economy, using census records, tax rolls, and other historical records, to explain the considerable amount of Indian-made goods present in San Fernando home sites.


Figure 25. Map showing locations of archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan from 1968-1998 (after Durst 1999:32 and Schuetz 1968:Figure 1).

Table 13. Archaeological commentary on Coahuiltecan extinction. Reference

Commentary

Daniel E. Fox 1983 Traces of Texas History: Archaeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years. Corona Publishing Co., San Antonio.

“most Texas Indians were well on the way to extinction by the beginning of the nineteenth century. Today not one of the original Indian cultures survives within the borders of the state” (p. 29).

T.R. Hester 1989a Texas and Northeastern Mexico: An Overview. Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 191-212. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. T.R. Hester 1989b Historic Native American Populations. From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, by T.R. Hester, S.L. Black, D.G. Steele, B.W. Olive, A.A. Fox, K.J. Reinhard, and L.C. Bement, pp. 77-84. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series No 33. Fayetteville. LeRoy Johnson 1994 The Life and Times of Toyah-Culture Folk: The Buckhollow Encampment Site 41KM16 Kimble County, Texas. Office of the State Archaeologist Report No. 38. Texas Department of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

“none of these hunters and gatherers survived culturally or biologically to be interviewed by early anthropologists” (p. 195).

“By the early nineteenth century, the native peoples of the area were either culturally or biologically extinct . . . and a few had been displaced into what is now northern Mexico. They did not survive long enough to be studied by anthropologists” (p. 77). “Unfortunately, it is not known how much of the original Classic Toyah population survived till mission days . . . Coahuilteco speakers . . . may have been latter-day Classic Toyah folk” (p. 281). “the Gringos came, bringing with them their Southern American behavioral patterns. That really did herald the end of everything aboriginal” (p. 287).


Native American-made lithic and ceramic objects utilized by the townspeople reflect essentially the same technologies and uses of such artifacts in pre-contact archaeological sites (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:113, 117). Hinojosa and Fox (1991:116) suggest that the cultural disruption Native American mission recruits experienced during the missionization process (with the goal of socioeconomic integration) was mitigated by the fact that most recruits were already familiar with the fundamentals of many of the new subsistence and craft skills being taught to them by the missionaries. For instance, the production of stone tools, grinding stones, and pottery, as well as weaving (now cotton and wool instead of coarse plant fibers) and woodworking (now metal instead of stone tools) were widely practiced in pre-contact times (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:116). Hinojosa and Fox (1991:106,117) repeatedly associate mission Indians and mission Indian goods with the Coahuiltecans and Karankawas, and consistently compare mission Indian artifacts with artifacts recovered from pre-contact period sites in south Texas. Even though San Antonio’s indigenous population was “at once excluded and integrated” by the dominant society, the authors believe that the presence of numerous remains of “Coahuiltecan artifacts” (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:106) in the villa indicates widespread acceptance of Indian culture by the non-indigenous population. The popularity of Native American stone tools and pottery among nonindigenous townspeople waned towards the close of the eighteenth century, “possibly because the Coahuiltecan and Karankawa population both inside and outside the mission declined” (Hinojosa and Fox 1991:117). Another reason was the growing availability of trade goods from elsewhere: by legal trade, through Mexico, and illegal trade, largely through Louisiana (Rosalind Rock, personal communication 2001.)

Funerary objects (grave goods) may also offer clues to ethnicity or cultural affiliation. However, not all artifacts recovered from burial places are likely to be grave goods. Much mixing of sediments occurred in the graveyards at San Juan. Grave pits were dug through midden areas as well, so that living debris was incorporated in many of the graves. The list of artifacts recovered from burial places at the mission frequently reflects the range of activities—hunting, cooking, eating, craft activities—central to mission Indian life (see Table 14). CULTURAL AFFILIATION Researchers’ interest in San Antonio mission Indian material culture, and especially that from San Juan, derives in part from a desire to recover archaeological assemblages attributable to the Coahuiltecan Indians (Fox 1983:107; Schuetz 1968:1). Such a sample, if its cultural affiliation were known, could be used in the interpretation of late pre-contact artifact assemblages in south Texas sites. Samples for which the cultural affiliation is known would also be valuable in tracing culture change and assimilation among mission Indians (Fox 1989:260-262). In spite of links between the material remains of mission Indians and sites dating to the Late Prehistoric period, most researchers hesitate to identify the cultural affiliation of precontact era native peoples who lived in south Texas (Black 1989:57; Hester 1989a:197). According to Black (1989:57). The roots of this dilemma are to be found in the cultural diversity of the region; while the same precontact technologies are also manifested in mission contexts, it is unlikely that they can be tied to specific groups. As Table 14 and the following discussions show, however, archaeologists have often linked selected artifacts to mission Indians in general, and “Coahuiltecans” in particular.


Table 14. List of artifacts, including probable funerary objects (grave goods) recovered from burials at Mission San Juan (Schuetz 1968, 1974, 1980a; coffin nails and fragments of coffin wood excluded). Burial 1 Burial 2 Burial 8B Burial 8C 5 Burial 10 Burial 11B Burial 11C Burial 11E Burial 11H 6 Burial 12B Burial 16A Burial 18B Burial A Burial 1 Burial 2A Burial 2B Burial 2C Burial 3A Burial 3B Burial 4B Burial 6A Burial 6A´ Burial 6B Burial 6C Burial 7 Burial 8A Burial 8B Burial 10A Burial 10B Burial 11 Burial 12B Burial 13 Burial 14B Burial 15A Burial 15B Burial 16B Burial 17 Burial 18 Burial 19A

1967 2 majolica sherds several glass beads bone stained with red ocher bone stained with red ocher, 2 Spanish coins (on left pelvis) worked deer metapodial (on left pelvis) brass medallion w/ cloth adhering to it brass crucifix w/ cloth adhering to it, handmade shell beads brass crucifix bone pin copper chain with wooden rosary beads crucifix with glass sets rosary of square cut lignite and glass beads 1969 metal arrow point (cause of death) Indian-made potsherd 4 brass buttons, bits of wool fabric, 3 Indian potsherds 1 bone button, 1 copper button, 1 flint knife or scraper, 1 Indian potsherd Painted plaster remnants, fragments of oxidized copper, pin-shaped wooden object covered with gesso, fragments of painted wood. 2 sherds blue and white majolica, 1 Indian potsherd, 4 fragments mussel shell, animal bones bits of corroded small-gauge wire, 1 bone button 1 brass hook and eye dress fastener, 9 brass straight pins, bits of cotton fabric, 1 dart point (base) 5 Indian potsherds, 1 majolica sherd, 1 flint chip, 1 flint knife, fragments wall plaster, animal bones 2 Indian potsherds, 1 flint flake, 1 brick fragment, 1 fragment wall plaster 4 buttons, 3 porcelain buttons, 1 Indian potsherd 1 fragment green glass 1 Indian potsherd, fragments animal bone 3 fragments wall plaster 1 heavy iron spike 2 majolica sherds, 7 Indian potsherds, 2 flint chips, 1 bone button (fragment) 1 Indian potsherd, 1 animal horn 1 Indian potsherd, 1 majolica sherd, 1 fragment wall plaster, animal bones, 2 fragments flint, 1 fragment colorless glass, 1 piece wire 1969 2 fragments majolica, 1 Indian potsherd, 1 wheel-thrown sherd, 1 fragment brick, 1 flint flake, animal bones 6 white glass buttons, 1 iron buckle 1 English feather-edged sherd, 1 Indian potsherd, 1 fragment brick, rodent bones 1 mother-of-pearl button, 1 green porcelain button 2 porcelain and mother-of-pearl buttons strips of gesso and paint, 3 bone buttons 2 flint flakes, 1 hematite pigment stone, 2 Mexican lead-glazed sherds, 1 Indian potsherd, 3 majolica sherds, animal bone 3 sets hook-and-eye dress fasteners, brass straight pins, bits of fabric, 1 Indian potsherd fragments red ocher, fragments painted gesso, bits of oxidized copper and cloth

1971 7 8

Burial 19B Room 31, Units 31 and 41

1 copper spear point (proximal end), fragments red paint stone, 2 majolica sherds, 3 Indian potsherds 4 brass religious medals, 101 glass trade beads, fragment charred fabric, 1 bone pin

Room 31, WPA pit Room 31

fragments woven black fabric 3 bone beads

5

Coins with Burial 8C: Carolus III, 1772 and 1777, Mexico City minted, two real pieces (Schuetz 1968:208). Dog skull underneath Burials 11A-H (Schuetz 1968:210). 7 Burial goods not mentioned in text discussions of burials; only in artifact inventories and inventory analyses. The page number referring to an inventoried item has been noted above. 8 Burial 19B “of particular interest because of the mandible which is stained from a chin tattoo” (Schuetz 1974:31). 6


Hester (1989c:217-225) identifies the majority of mission Indians as Coahuiltecan, associating mission Indian technology with the pre-contact hunter-gatherers of south Texas and northeast Mexico. In particular, he links Goliad ware with both the Karankawa and Coahuiltecan Indians (Hester 1980:126). In a recent article, Hester (1999) evaluates Cabeza de Vaca’s Texas route from archaeological materials that match de Vaca’s descriptions of items of material culture for groups that lived in the territory of the “Coahuiltecans and their neighbors” (Campbell 1983:39-40). He finds a number of parallels, including stone and wooden mortars and pestles, extensive prickly pear fields in deep south Texas, faunal remains of highly diverse taxa, digging sticks, earth ovens, gourd rattles, and possible bloodletting tools, most of which were recovered from dry caves in the Lower Pecos (Hester 1999). In her overview of mission Indian material culture and Coahuiltecan ethnohistory, Schuetz (1969:99-100) perceives a number of traits suggesting an ancient geographic origin in northern Mexico and the Lower Pecos of Texas. She also links triangular arrow points with Coahuiltecan use in Texas and northern Mexico (Schuetz 1969:72, 81; 1980a:367). Hester (1981:10), however, does not perceive any clear technological patterns to support this hypothesis. While not addressing the nature of mission Indian artifacts per se, Johnson (1994) presents an intriguing interpretation of Toyah cultural remains that bears directly upon current assumptions placing Coahuiltecan and Karankawa Indians behind mission Indian material culture in south Texas. Hunter-gatherers of the Toyah archaeological culture relied heavily upon bison and larger game animals (such as deer) and possessed a distinctive tool-kit that included end scrapers, perforators and drills,

barbed arrow points, shaft abraders, manos and metates, and a simple, bone-tempered pottery called Leon Plain by most typologists (Johnson 1994:259-261). The Toyah culture area of the late pre-contact period included much of Texas (Figure 26), with the exception of the Panhandle, the El Paso area, deep south Texas, and the Texas gulf coast. Classic Toyah sites are concentrated on the Edwards Plateau, Blackland Prairie, and inland coastal plain (Johnson 1994:263, 279). Upon its adaptation by some local peoples, Toyah material culture developed into Classic Toyah culture (Johnson 1994:263). Based on comparisons with sites from surrounding regions, Johnson (1994:273) assigns a Plains Village area origin for most components of Classic Toyah artifact assemblages, with a possible southwestern U.S. or northeast Mexico origin for compound arrows and barbed points, and a possible Mogollon ancestry for pottery. From ethnohistoric descriptions of groups located within the Toyah culture area, Johnson identifies the eastern Sanan speakers, the Aranama, and Coahuilteco speakers as possible “latter day Toyah Folk.” He takes particular care to explain that, “it is unlikely that the Coahuiltecos were much like the rude digger Indians of archaeological and ethnographic folklore called ‘Coahuiltecans’” (Johnson 1994:278). Instead, Those unfortunate Spaniards did not describe the Coahuiltecos but instead sojourned with Indians living near and on the Gulf coast, south of our people of interest. Their picture even of life among south peoples is biased, however, for Cabeza de Vaca and his compatriots [in addition to being Christian zealots and racists of the first water (sic)] were virtual slaves while among certain aboriginal groups and were forced to do demeaning women’s chores—possibly because they could not be taught more complex native skills. They consequently reported a selfserving, pitiful version of native life depicting superstitious, half-starved,


Approximate boundary, Toyah Culture Approximate area, Classic Toyah Culture

1

Coahuilteco speakers

2

Eastern Sanan speakers

3

The Aranama

2

1

3

Figure 26. Map of approximate locations (1690-1750) in the state of Texas for ethnolinguistic groups thought to have possessed Toyah material culture (after Johnson 1994:279, Figure 106).


grubbing people of the most primitive sort. At this point in ethnohistorical research it is crystal clear that the term Coahuiltecan ought to be tossed into the trash heap of misleading ethnic labels, while retaining Coahuilteco for a particular ethnolinguistic series of human groups just below the Edwards Plateau who hunted buffalo and did general food collecting [Johnson 1994:279]

CONCLUDING COMMENTS Cultural affiliation is a multifaceted issue in North American archaeology. Campbell (1971:2) feels that for cultural affiliation studies to be fruitful, ethnohistoric research must be systematically scrutinized with archaeological problems in mind. In south Texas, however, even with historical written documentation available, the lack of precise dates for Late Prehistoric archaeological sites and the absence of distinctive material remains from known cultural groups makes it difficult, at the very least, to correlate archaeological sites with identifiable cultural groups (Black 1989:57). Even so, archaeologists and ethnohistorians should have a symbiotic relationship. As Johnson (1994) points out that, in order to more accurately pinpoint cultural distinctions in the archaeological record, assemblages from archaeological sites need to be analyzed more holistically and in more detail. He maintains that, in order to remain contemporarily relevant, “ (pre)history, as a discipline, must either break bread with the dead and acknowledge humanity as its principal subject…or else become ever more trivial in its results and restricted in its appeal” (Johnson 1994:282). A promising arena for advancing cultural affiliation research in south Texas is in the archaeology and ethnohistory of the Spanish missions. Colonial and early post-Colonial period indigenous artifacts in San Antonio— of the missions or the villa—are

unambiguously linked with the Coahuiltecans and Karankawa by a number of authors (Table 15). Research clearly indicates that a number of technologies utilized during the Late Prehistoric period in Texas, most notably stone tool and pottery making, continued to be practiced throughout the Colonial period by the indigenous population of the Spanish missions in the San Antonio area. In fact, those technologies persisted well into the nineteenth century. This trend is of great interest, and perhaps indicates, as Hester believes, that among the south Texas Indians who entered the missions, only a small percentage (in my opinion)— and this is difficult to quantify—were ever partly or fully acculturated. The last lived on in identifiable Indian households in the San Antonio and Goliad areas for two or three decades into the nineteenth century…It would seem from the meager evidence…that certain precontact technologies had continued (1989c:225).

The indigenous peoples that lived in south Texas during the Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Historic/Mission eras are often referred to as “Coahuiltecan” or “Coahuilteco.” The Coahuiltecans, along with the Karankawa, are believed to represent the culmination of 11,000 years of prehistory (Hester 1980:38). Johnson suggests that some of the Late Prehistoric Toyah peoples of south Texas may have been Coahuilteco speakers. Specific artifacts, including Guerrero points and Goliad ware, are linked to mission Indians, including Coahuiltecans and other south Texas natives who lived at Mission San Juan. That aboriginal technologies persisted throughout the mission period and thereafter is attested to by the presence of Goliad ware at non-mission sites of Spanish colonial San Antonio (San Fernando). Archaeological data from south Texas and Mission San Juan in particular are consistent with historic records that native peoples of south Texas, generally termed Coahuiltecan, inhabited Mission San Juan and were buried there as well.


Table 15. Assumptions of cultural affiliation of Mission Indian material culture. Reference Schuetz, M.K. 1969 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. II. Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archaeological Program, Austin.

Commentary “The recovery of a large sample of Indian pottery from San Juan has allowed us to reconstruct several vessels to a point where some shapes and sizes can be determined . . . [Numerous sherds] add more data to this category of Coahuiltecan-made pottery” (p. 62). “Ceramic pipes were made by the Coahuiltecans. Figure 36F shows the cross section of one” (p. 67). “The clay with bone tempering used by local Coahuiltecan potters is certainly similar to that found at Espíritu Santo, Mission Rosario, and Presidio La Bahia in what has lately been called Goliad ware” (p. 67). “Other Indian groups may have produced them [‘block cores’] also, but they can be definitely associated with Coahuiltecan tribes through a long time span. (I have also excavated them from a workshop site in Bexar County which can be identified as early or proto-Coahuiltecan upon the association of Tortugas points.)” (p. 70). “All of the flint projectile points were found in the Colonial period Indian midden . . . The forty specimens recovered reveal the normal range of what I would consider as a single type of arrowhead produced by Coahuiltecan Indians” (p. 72).

1980

1980

Mitchell, J.L Brief Notes on the Archaeology of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4):18-26.

Hester, T.R. Digging into South Texas Prehistory. Corona Publishing Co., San Antonio.

Hinojosa, G.M. and A.A. Fox 1991 Indians and Their Culture in San Fernando de Béxar. In Tejano Origins in Eighteenth-Century San Antonio, edited by G.E. Poyo and G.M. Hinojosa, pp. 105120. University of Texas Press, Austin.

“Triangular flint points are equated with Coahuiltecan use in Texas and northern Mexico” (p. 81). “Hester has variously termed such points [as have been found at San Juan] as Mission Triangular, Mission, or Guerrero points . . . The arrowpoints recovered from San Juan represent an outstanding sample of Mission lithic technology and clearly demonstrate that San Juan Coahuiltecan Indians continued to produce and use flint arrowpoints during the Mission period” (p. 23). “The mixing of Karankawa and Coahuiltecan Indians at the Goliad missions may have led to the use of asphaltum decoration” (p. 126). “the presence of numerous fragments of Coahuiltecan artifacts in the town proper indicates a widespread acceptance of Indian culture” (p. 106). “There [in the villa of San Fernando] these natives found other Coahuiltecans and Indians from the interior” (p. 111). “Towards the end of the eighteenth century, however, Indian containers were phased out, possibly because the Coahuiltecan and Karankawa population both inside and outside the mission declined” (p. 117).

Chapter 10: Bioarchaeology – Page 115

CHAPTER 10:

BIOARCHAEOLOGY Jennifer L. Logan A detailed review of bioarchaeological literature on the south Texas Indians was undertaken to provide the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (SAAN) with basic knowledge for evaluating issues pertaining to NAGPRA. Currently, the lineal descent of present-day community members who claim descent from San Juan’s mission Indians is being investigated. Knowledge of research findings on the relationships of various indigenous groups of south Texas to one another will be of use in understanding the cultural affiliation of mission Indians originally housed at Mission San Juan. The skeletal biology of Texas Indians is a subject in which researchers have shown an increasing interest over the past several decades. Steele and Olive (1989:99) note that over 60 percent of bioarchaeological research pertaining to central and southern Texas has been published within the last 30 years. Although several topics have been of interest to bioarchaeologists and physical anthropologists in Texas, review of the available literature revealed two topics in particular that stand out as primary research interests: (1) developing an understanding of the biological relationships between various subgroups of indigenous peoples residing in Texas during the pre-contact period; and (2) assessing the health status of Late Prehistoric and post-contact (i.e., Historic) era populations. For a comprehensive listing of bioarchaeological studies conducted on south Texas historic and prehistoric skeletal remains, see Steele and Olive (1989 and 1990).

REGIONAL SKELETAL POPULATIONS Efforts directed towards understanding skeletal characteristics within and between native groups underlie interpretations of the genetic relationships of indigenous populations in Texas. In an analysis of skeletal material from the western portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain, including the San Antonio area and south Texas, Steele and Olive (1990:428) assigns the bulk of the human remains to the “Forager/GathererHunter” adaptation type. This lifestyle lasted thousands of years and included seasonal exploitation of plant foods by many groups living in southern and central Texas (Story et al. 1990:426). While analyses of historic populations in the area are few, most scholars have seen the Foragers/Gatherer-Hunters as representing numerous biological populations with similar land-use strategies (Steele and Olive 1990:428). Questions concerning the relationships between skeletal remains tend to follow a pattern of characterizing pre-contact populations according to geographical location. Comparisons of pre-contact coastal and inland groups have been given a great deal of attention. Steele and Olive’s (1989) summary of previous bioarchaeological research in the central, southern, and lower Pecos areas of Texas indicates that researchers have perceived skeletal features that distinguish coastal from inland populations. However, analysis of long bones from sites with varying temporal and geographic distributions in Texas led Doran (1975:62) to the conclusion that there existed no significant differences among regional

Page 116 – Chapter 10: Bioarchaeology

populations, even between prehistoric agricultural and hunter-gatherer groups. Doran suggests that the nutritional status of these populations, rather than genetic homogeneity, is the most likely explanation for the high overall consistency he observed in stature and long bone length among Texas Indians. The contrast between the results of Doran’s study and the conclusions drawn in most previous bioarchaeological studies of Texas Indians highlights one of the complications researchers encounter when trying to infer biological relationships from the archeological record. Perhaps Steele and Olive best sum up the situation: the biological relationship of the coastal strip populations to other populations within Region 3 [central, southern and Lower Pecos Texas] has been a recurring theme, and one which future researchers will still need to assess(1989:114).

GENERAL HEALTH STATUS OF SKELETAL POPULATIONS Steele and Olive (1989) provide a comprehensive synthesis of the research history on human skeletal remains from central, southern, and lower Pecos Texas. They note that, while skeletal remains tend to be fragmentary and poorly preserved, many pathological observations can still be made (Steele and Olive 1989:114). Medical disorders can be classified into five categories—metabolic disease (e.g., anemia), degenerative diseases (e.g., osteoarthritis), infectious disease (e.g., bacterial infections), dental disorders (e.g., cavities, abscesses, tooth loss), and trauma (e.g., bone fractures and injuries). Reinhard et al. (1989) carried out a study on prehistoric skeletal remains excavated in the western portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas and central, southern, and lower

Pecos Texas that pertains directly to the ancestors of San Antonio’s mission Indian population. Their findings reveal increases in dental wear, tooth loss, and caries (cavities) with increasing distance inland from the coast. The numbers of burials indicating trauma associated with interpersonal violence also increased with distance from the coast, particularly in the south Texas coastal plain (Reinhard et al. 1989:139). In fact, the only medical disorder not displaying obvious regional patterns is degenerative disease (arthritis, osteophytosis), which was very common throughout the region under study (Table 16). Paleopathological analysis of pre-contact and post-contact indigenous skeletal remains from the coastal plain in Texas provided evidence that the pre-contact population was more heavily impacted by pathological conditions, including porotic hyperostosis, osteomyelitis, treponemal infection, vertebral osteoarthritis, caries, and abscess, than the post-contact population (Reinhard et al. 1990:139). A significant increase in the occurrence of arthritis, dental wear, and dental disease resulting in tooth loss distinguished the post-contact population from the pre-contact population (Table 17). SKELETAL REMAINS FROM MISSION SAN JUAN Comparison of pre-contact skeletal remains from south Texas with post-contact skeletal remains of known or presumed cultural affinity was made possible in the late 1960s with excavations commissioned by the Catholic Archdiocese at Mission San Juan Capistrano (Figure 27) (Schuetz 1968, 1969, 1974, 1980b). These excavations revealed that at least three churches were built on the site. The first stone church (Room 31), built between 1756 and 1762, is located in the southeast corner of the mission compound


Table 16. Summary of pathological data by region (after Reinhard et al. 1989:138, Table 22). Category

Coastal Strip

Periostitis Specific Insult (aTreponemal Infection)

16% 4%a

Interior Coastal Plain Infectious Disease 42% 0%

Caries Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Moderate/Severe Tooth Loss

9% 6% 6% 58%

Accidental Fracture Parry Fracture Cranial Fracture Projectile Wound

0%

Enamel Hypoplasia Harris Lines Porotic Hyperostosis Cribra Orbitalia

6% 7% 5%

Central Texas

Lower Pecos

3% 0%

6% 0%

Dental Disease 21% 16% 44%

14% 36% 22%

50% 55% 86%

63%

60%

64%

Accidental and Aggressive Trauma 3% 0%

14%

13% 5% 19%

0% 5% 0%

19%

3% 3% 14% Metabolic Disease 37%

NA

86%

NA 0%

NA 16%

NA 12%

50% 4%

5%

3%

0%

0%

Table 17. Comparison of historic and prehistoric pathological frequencies in coastal populations (after Reinhard et al. 1989:139, Table 26). Specific Pathologies Enamel Hypoplasia Harris Lines Porotic Hyperostosis Vertebral Osteoarthritis Osteophytosis Appendicular Arthritis Periostitis Osteomyelitis Specific Insults (Treponemal) Caries Abscess Antemortem Tooth Loss Dental Wear Accidental Fracture Parry Fracture Cranial Fracture Projectile Wound

Prehistoric NA NA 30% 34% 0% 38% 6% 8% 8% 65% 35% 25% 20% 6% 0% 0% 15%

Historic 15% NA 0% 0% 6% 64% 46% 0% 0% 21% 21% 45% 52% 8% 0% 5% 20%


(Schuetz 1980b). The second, “unfinished” church (Room 26) was built around 1762 and used until approximately 1777, or shortly thereafter (Schuetz 1968:215-217), and is located on the eastern wall of the compound. The modern chapel (Room 17) on the west wall of the compound was constructed and was in use by 1785 (Schuetz 1974:1, 48). Mission San Juan was established for several Coahuiltecan bands, among them the Orejónes, Sayopines, Pamaques, Piquiques, Thelojas, and Venados (Schuetz 1968:13). Excavations in 1967 resulted in the recovery of human remains representing at least 53 individuals from the floor of the unfinished church (Room 26). Schuetz (1968:214) dated these burials from 1764 to the 1780s, asserting that they represent a pure sample of historic Coahuiltecan peoples. As a result of a second round of excavations in 1969, the remains of at least 92 other individuals were removed from the floor of the extant church, known archaeologically as Room 17 (Figure 27). In her report on the results of those excavations, Schuetz (1974:31-32) noted that the remains recovered from beneath the church floor (Room 17) were probably buried some time between the years 1793 and 1862 and appear to represent a racially mixed population. Excavations in 1971 exposed additional burials in the floor of the first stone church (Room 31) and in the convento complex located in what came to be the southwest portion of the enlarged mission compound (Figure 32). A number of empty graves and scattered grave goods including rosaries and glass beads were also exposed during the 1971 excavations. Schuetz (1980b) maintains her belief that, once construction of the “unfinished” church (Room 26) was underway, the first stone church was desanctified and the associated burials exhumed and reburied underneath the floor of the new church. The results of the 1971 investigations

are documented in Schuetz’s (1980b) unpublished manuscript on file at the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park headquarters. She reported exposing the remains of at least 12 individuals in Rooms 19, 23, 31, 34, and in test pits along the south wall (Figure 32). These remains consisted of at least four complete or nearly complete skeletons, three crania, and miscellaneous post-cranial elements (Table 18). Insofar as is known, human remains were not removed from the first stone church (Room 31) and convento (Rooms 19, 22, and 23) during the 1971 field season, with the exception of a few isolated bones included in the inventories. No studies were undertaken on skeletal material located during the 1971 excavations. Schuetz’s inventory of recovered material lists only fragments of human bone and one adult skeleton, but there is no mention in the text of collecting any of the human remains uncovered. To complicate matters, the manuscript does not include a description of excavations in Rooms 32 and 33, but it does include inventories of numerous artifacts recovered from those rooms. Descriptions of excavations in Rooms 19, 20, and 21 are included in the text, but the inventory lists do not include artifacts from those rooms. In any case, Schuetz (1980b) noted in her conclusions that it seemed likely that the entire plaza and convento rooms for the first church were built over the earliest mission period graves. Following excavation, the remains from the extant chapel (Room 17) were permanently curated at the Center for Archeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Skeletal material from the unfinished church (Room 26) was sent at different times to Southern Methodist University, Texas A&M University, and CAR-UTSA for analytical purposes. Additionally, bone samples from the skeletal remains recovered from the unfinished church


Figure 27. Map with locations of burial places revealed after subsequent excavations shown. Adapted from Schuetz (1968:Figure 1, 1974, and 1980b).

(Room 26) were utilized in mitochondrial DNA research at the University of California at Davis (Hard, personal communication 1999) and stable isotope analysis at Geochron Laboratories based in Massachusetts (Table 19). Studies of skeletal remains from the unfinished and extant churches resulted in a number of professional studies, including the DNA research at the University of California (Table 19) and recent research by individuals representing the Smithsonian Institution (Francis 1999:124). Five theses (Comuzzie 1987; Cargill 1996; Francis 1999; Humphreys 1971; Miller 1989) have also been written using the remains from Mission San Juan as a data set (Table 20). Only one study (Francis 1999) included human remains from both the unfinished church (Room 26) and the extant chapel (Room 17); all other research utilizing the San Juan burials has included only the skeletal remains from the unfinished church (Room 26). The availability of a comparative sample of historic Texas Indians with known

cultural affiliations (e.g., the Coahuiltecans) promoted an increase in bioarchaeological studies addressing the biological affinities of historic indigenous populations in Texas. Most researchers (cf. Schuetz 1974:31; D. Gentry Steele, personal communication 1999) believe that the burials recovered from the chapel (Room 17) represent a population already experiencing considerable gene flow between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. However, Schuetz’s (1968:214-215) characterization of the unfinished church (Room 26) burials as purely Coahuiltecan, dating to 17631785, has been questioned. The first use of the San Juan skeletal material in a master’s thesis was by Humphreys (1971). Her study was undertaken to provide “a thorough description of the skeletal biology of the Coahuiltecan Indians as a single Indian group” (Humphreys 1971:151). She described the 26 burials in terms of their epigenetic variation, finding a great deal of variation in the expression of skeletal traits in her analysis of the burials from the unfinished church (Room 26) at San

Table 18. Human bone reported by Schuetz’s excavations at Mission San Juan 1967, 1969, and 1971. 1969 Extant Chapel (Room 17)

1971 First Stone Church (Room 31) And Convento (Rooms 19, 23, 34)

Burial #

MNI

Burial #

MNI

Burial #

MNI

Burial #

MNI

1

1 (femur and pelvis)

A

2

8C

2

Room 19 (armory)

2

B

1

9

1

3

“several” (infants) 3 (3 feet, 1 fibula)

C/6C

1

10A

4

4

“5 or 6”

D

1

10B

1

5

1

E

1

10C

2

Test Pit 2 along South Wall Test Pit 5 along South Wall Room 23 (western half) Room 31

3 (3 crania, 2 tibia, distal end of a femur, portions of arm bones); not inventoried 2; not inventoried

6

1

F

1

11

1

7

4 (7A-7D)

G

1

12A

2

8

4 (8A-8D)

1

2

12B

1

9

1

2A

2

12C

3

10

1

2B

1 (lost)

13

1

11

8 (11A-11H)

2C

1

14A

1

12

3 (12A-12C)

3A

5

14B

1

13

1

3B

1

15A

1

14

1

4A

4

15B

2

15 16

1 6 (16A-16F)

4B 5

1 1 (unexcavated)

16A 16B

1 1

17

3 (17A-17C)

6A

2

17

4

18

4 (18A-18D)

6B

1

18

2

6C

(same as C/6C)

19A

2 (infant, extra ulna)

7

4

19B

1

8A

3

20

1

8B

2

TOTAL 48 Note: 53 analyzed; 10 infants, 3 maxilla not analyzed; total 66 per Humphreys (1969:116)

21 1 TOTAL 73 Note: 92 represented as per Schuetz (1974:31)

Room 34 (sacristy)

TOTAL

1; not inventoried 4 (2?); inventoried fragments of human infant bone, human adult skeleton 1 (11 oz. human bone); inventoried 1 (scattered bone); not inventoried

12 Note: MNIs not provided by author; grand total = researcher’s count from text descriptions


1967 Unfinished Church (Room 26)


Juan. Humphreys’ was the first bioarchaeological study on the San Juan human remains to assert: The Coahuiltecans were, at this time, a highly variable group of people—evidently not representing a homogeneous gene pool . . . Data from the present study show a large enough biological variability present in the Coahuiltecan population to warrant reconsideration of the term ‘Coahuiltecan,’ in investigations of the archaeology and ethnohistory of these peoples (1971:162163).

Francis’ (1999) thesis was the only one that provided provenience (i.e., locational data) for all the remains included in a given study. Francis argued that he alone examined remains from the extant chapel (Room 17), from which it was originally reported that 92 individuals were recovered, in addition to the remains from the unfinished church (Room 26). Francis (1999: 29-30) noted the diversity in the skeletal characteristics of the San Juan

burials, pointing out that such heterogeneity suggests that biological amalgamation had occurred among the Indians who entered San Juan during the protohistoric or the Colonial period. Further research indicated that the remains of 41 out of 49 individuals from the unfinished church (Room 26) displayed Native American skeletal characteristics, one individual possessed admix characteristics, and seven individuals had unidentifiable morphological traits. Of those recovered from the floor of the extant church (Room 17), only 27 of the 54 individuals studied had identifiable morphological characteristics. Fourteen of those individuals appeared to represent Native Americans, while 13 of the 27 had “admix and/or Caucasoid traits” (Francis 1999:55). To answer the issue of the remains’ representativeness of the Coahuiltecans, Francis points to a number of ways in which

Table 19. Institutions housing skeletal material from Mission San Juan Capistrano. Institution Witte Museum Southern Methodist University University of Texas at San Antonio Mission San Juan Capistrano, Museum Texas A&M University Geochron Laboratories University of Texas at San Antonio University of California at Davis

Location San Antonio, Texas

Date 1968 -?

Purpose

Provenience of Remains

Storage

Unfinished church (Room 26)

Dallas, Texas

1969? -1979

On loan for student research


San Antonio, Texas

1979

Permanent curation

Unfinished church (Room 26), extant chapel (Room 17), first stone church (Room 31)

San Antonio, Texas

1986

Reburial of skeletal remains on exhibit


College Station, Texas Cambridge, Massachusetts

1986 1993

Temporary transfer for student research Stable isotope analysis for student research

Unfinished church (Room 26) Unfinished church (Room 26)

San Antonio, Texas

1993

Curation and student research

Unfinished church (Room 26), extant chapel (Room 17), first stone church (Room 31)

Davis, California

after 1993

Mitochondrial DNA analysis


Page 122 – Chapter 10: Bioarchaeology Table 20. Master’s theses concerning skeletal populations from Mission San Juan Capistrano. Thesis citation Humphreys, S.B. 1971 The Skeletal Biology of Eighteenth Century Coahuiltecan Indians from San Juan Capistrano Mission, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University Comuzzie, A.G. 1987 The Bioarchaeology of Blue Bayou: A Late Prehistoric Mortuary Site from Victoria County, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University. Miller, E.A. 1989 The Effect of European Contact on the Health of Indigenous Populations in Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University. Cargill, D.A. 1996 Stable Isotope Analysis at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology University of Texas at San Antonio. Francis, J.R. 1999 Temporal Trends in Mission Populations: A Comparison of Pathological Frequencies and Long Bone Length at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio.

culturally induced bias can influence burial patterns. The depopulation of the missions by escape or disease and the continual recruitment of replacements in large part determined the demographics of the missions during the Colonial period. After secularization, intermarriage was the dominant factor influencing the demographic shift of the mission population, with Native American exogamous marriages outnumbering endogamous marriages almost three to one (Francis 1999:50-51). During the Colonial period, Francis (1999:47) notes that children of converted Native Americans not in good standing with the mission’s religious authorities may have been buried outside of the church, in the camposanto. Furthermore, the most pious of Catholics preferred burial inside the church. The most expensive sites were those closest to the altars, with the least expensive being situated near the door. After

Skeletal population studied Remains from the unfinished church (Room 26).

One pre-contact Karankawa population (Palm Harbor, site 41AS80), one pre-contact coastal population (Blue Bayou, site 41VT94), remains from unfinished church (Room 26) at Mission San Juan. One pre-contact Karankawa population (Palm Harbor, site 41AS80), one pre-contact coastal population (Blue Bayou, site 41VT94), remains from Mission San Xavier (Milam County), remains from unfinished church (Room 26) at Mission San Juan. Remains from unfinished church (Room 26) at Mission San Juan.

Remains from unfinished church (Room 26) and extant chapel (Room 17) at Mission San Juan.

the rental period expired, the grave became available for new burials and the remains of the previous burial were either “unceremoniously tossed” or reinterred in the same grave (Francis 1999:55-56). Francis (1999:128) determined that “based on the nature of Catholic mortuary practices, it is those Native Americans that adopted Spanish culture which are represented by this study.” The effects of European contact on native groups in Texas were considerable, and included population decimation, dispersal, fragmentation, and recombination of native groups on a grand scale. Those factors, combined with the extensive acculturation of indigenous Texans located at the missions, led Francis (1999:124) to the ultimate conclusion that “when consideration is made of the archaeological and cultural circumstances of the mission, it is more likely that the individuals in Room 26 are not representative


of native populations in general” (it is assumed that Francis was referring to precontact native populations). Many studies (e.g., Cargill 1996; Comuzzie 1987) also engage in the comparison of Karankawan skeletal remains with Coahuiltecans as representatives of coastal and inland populations. Comparative studies tend to support the observations already arrived at by other researchers (e.g., Wilkinson 1977) who observed significant homogeneity in the skeletal morphology of coastal peoples, while inland populations appeared more heterogeneous in nature. Comuzzie (1987:40-42) compared two precontact coastal skeletal populations—one identified as Karankawa—with the skeletal remains from the unfinished church (Room 26) at Mission San Juan. He concluded as well that the coastal groups are more similar to one another than either is to San Juan and that the San Juan population was most likely not a biologically homogenous sample. It should also be noted that stable isotope analysis conducted on burials excavated from the unfinished church (Room 26) at Mission San Juan (Cargill 1996) indicates that freshwater or marine resources were a major component of the mission Indians’ diet. Although it is possible that the data indicate a coastal origin for the indigenous population at Mission San Juan, ubiquitous mussel shell debris in the archaeological record from south Texas (Black 1989:44, 47) supports Cargill’s findings. It is evident, however, that the relationship between coastal and inland groups remains poorly understood. Although the heterogeneity of the human remains from Mission San Juan prevents the remains from possessing equal degrees of representativeness of the mission population, the burials were probably dominated by Native Americans, including Coahuiltecans. The accessibility of the human remains also facilitated efforts to address more specifically

the health status of indigenous populations in a contact period framework. Paleopathological studies were conducted to assess the effects of European contact in terms of the spread of disease and the level of stress expressed by the indigenous population in response to enforced culture change and change in subsistence and diet. Humphreys conducted an initial analysis of the skeletal remains recovered from the unfinished church (Room 26) for Schuetz (1969). In the text of this preliminary study, Humphreys (1971:116) states that the total number of individuals analyzed equals 53, not counting the remains of 10 infants and three maxilla. Counts of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) taken from textual descriptions of each burial analyzed come to a total of 48. Her analysis consists of a discussion of the pathological markers observed in the skeletal population, with a brief general description of the physical characteristics of the population. Humphreys (1971:123) noted that the skeletal population was dominated by young and middle-aged adults who had “an unusually high percentage of pathological conditions.” Miller (1989) compared two mission Indian skeletal populations. One skeletal population was from Mission San Xavier, a short-lived (eight years) mission established in 1748 on the San Gabriel river in central Texas for the Mayeye, Yerbipiame, and Yojuane (Miller 1989:43-44). The other population consisted of the burials from the unfinished church (Room 26) from Mission San Juan. While not giving a provenience for the skeletal population she analyzed, Miller states that her research involved analysis of 92 individuals from Mission San Juan. Ninety-two individuals is the number originally arrived at for the burials from the extant chapel (Room 17), while a far lower number of individuals has consistently been estimated in previous inventories for human


remains recovered from the unfinished church (Room 26). Miller’s data and conclusions, however, are incompatible with assessments of the health status and age of the remains from the extant church. Miller (1994) states in a later version of her analysis that the burials she examined date from 1760-1785, the time period assigned to the unfinished church (Room 26). If Miller did indeed analyze the remains from the unfinished church rather than the extant chapel, there is no information on how she estimated the number of individuals in her study. Francis (1999:124) suggests that the discrepancy is due to the commingled and fragmented nature of the human remains analyzed, but the question remains unanswered (Robert Hard, personal communication 1999). Miller compared the two mission Indian populations against two prehistoric coastal samples. She found that “with the exception of dental disorders, the pathological conditions used to indicate stress in the [mission] populations rarely occurred in the two prehistoric samples” (Miller 1989:89). Conditions such as cribra orbitalia and periostal infection, features indicative of anemia and infectious disease respectively, were higher in the Mission San Juan sample than in the sample from San Xavier Mission, a phenomenon she attributes to earlier acculturation of San Juan’s indigenous recruits (Miller 1989:98). The symptoms of chronic stress expressed in the Mission San Juan sample—parasitism, infectious disease, nutritional deficiencies—are welldocumented occurrences in populations shifting from a hunting and gathering subsistence base to agriculture. Miller (1989:103-104) also places importance on the negative health costs that can result from psychological stress due to rapid cultural change, observing that the effects of European contact cannot be separated from the effects of a change in subsistence from hunting and gathering to agriculture. The results of

Reinhard et al.’s (1990) analysis are opposed to Miller’s findings. Specifically, Miller (1989:89) observed very little evidence of stress-induced pathological conditions in the two pre-contact coastal populations she examined. The increase in the occurrence of pathological conditions from pre-contact to post-contact indigenous populations was not observed by Francis (1999), who utilized both the Room 26 and Room 17 samples in his examination of temporal trends in health status among mission Indian populations in Texas. While native peoples entering Mission San Juan had suffered from disease epidemics and depopulation, Francis (1999:128) hypothesizes that the low rates of pathologies related to chronic stress indicate that the populations from which San Juan recruits were drawn may have developed immunities prior to entering the mission. SKELETAL REMAINS FROM OUTSIDE THE MISSION SAN JUAN COMPOUND Only one gravesite has been identified outside the mission compound. It was discovered inadvertently in 1999 during construction of a drainage channel along the boundary line between Church- and NPSowned properties, several hundred feet southwest of the compound (Francis 2000). Archaeological testing carried out on behalf of SAAN by UTSA personnel in advance of this construction project did not result in the discovery of any intact Colonial-period deposits, but the final report recommended archaeological monitoring during the construction phase (Gross 1998). During mechanical excavation of the drainage channel, the monitor discovered and collected the exposed remains. As a result, the drainage channel was rerouted to avoid additional disturbance to the immediate area. The remains were subsequently analyzed and


identified as a young adult female of Native American origin who was estimated to have been about 158 cm (ca. 5 ft., 2 in) tall, with no apparent skeletal pathologies (Francis 2000:34). In his final report entitled “Isolated Burial Analysis,” Francis noted that the remains were returned to SAAN and reinterred with approval of the Texas Historical Commission, the agency that issued an Antiquities Permit (# 1748) for the 1996 archaeological testing project. CONCLUDING COMMENTS The majority of the bioarchaeological studies of the human remains from Mission San Juan Capistrano have been undertaken as thesis projects by graduate students and have focused on health issues that could be assessed by pathological markers found on the skeletal elements. There is general agreement among researchers that increases in the incidence of infectious disease and dental disorders correspond with increasing distance from the coastal area (Reinhard et al. 1990:139). In other words, the skeletal record for south Texas in general indicates that populations further inland show higher rates of these health problems. Research results also indicate a decline in the health status of indigenous peoples in Texas as a result of European contact. Studies on biological affinity have been largely neglected in the past thirty years, in part because of the rigorous training needed for analyzing genetic relationships among biological populations, and because of the time-consuming nature of such research. Studies have also addressed the nature of biological relationships among populations in Texas, as determined from differences in skeletal morphology (Comuzzie 1987, Doran 1975). Groups most widely separated geographically tend to exhibit the most extreme differences; for instance, those

residing in the lower Pecos area are seen to be smaller and less robust than coastal peoples in Texas (Steele and Olive 1989:100). On the basis of skeletal robusticity, a high degree of sexual dimorphism and the presence of numerous rare dental anomalies, the coastal populations are viewed as being more biologically homogenous group than inland populations (Steele and Olive 1989:100). The cultural affiliation of the San Juan remains has long been assumed to be “Coahuiltecan.” The problem lies in the sparse knowledge regarding the extent of ethnic diversity among the indigenous peoples of south Texas and northeast Mexico. The human remains from Mission San Juan were the focus of research in which Indians were distinguished from non-Indians (Schuetz 1974:31). These remains have been used as a comparative population in studies that were designed to distinguish coastal from inland populations (e.g., Karankawa from Coahuiltecan) (Comuzzie 1987:40-42; Steele and Olive 1989:100). The San Juan mission Indians were also distinguished from eighteenth-century Indian populations at Mission San Xavier on the basis of observed skeletal characteristics; Miller observed more homogeneity among the San Juan skeletal remains than among the remains from San Xavier (Miller 1989:46, 56). However, because cultural affiliation studies comparing the human remains from San Juan with other historically known indigenous south Texans (e.g., Pamaque with Payaya) or with modern descendants of mission Indian peoples have not been undertaken, the extent of gene flow between indigenous and non-indigenous individuals at Mission San Juan can only be inferred, not assessed. In spite of the overall consensus among researchers on the points discussed above, a number of inconsistencies exist among researchers’ evaluations of the extent to which pathological disease affected the San


Juan Indian population. It is clear that the same phenomena have not been consistently observed. For instance, Francis does not feel that examination of the skeletal evidence justifies Humphreys’ and Miller’s conclusions that indigenous populations of Texas were plagued with high rates of disease related to chronic stress after the period of European contact. Inconsistencies in the analytical results and interpretations presented in several theses stem from analyses of different sets of skeletal remains from different burial places, the use of varying analytical techniques, and different research focuses. Briefly, the remains recovered from the unfinished church (Room 26) have been assumed to represent a less culturally and ethnically mixed population than the remains recovered from the extant chapel (Room 17) (Schuetz 1968:214-215, 1974:31-32). Additionally, some believe that the skeletal population recovered from the floor of the unfinished .

church exhibits more evidence of pathological health conditions related to chronic stress than the individuals buried in the extant chapel (Miller 1989:89). The assumptions concerning the provenience of the samples studied have been particularly troublesome. Schuetz (1974) states that she recovered the remains of 92 individuals from Room 17, but a count taken from text descriptions of each burial equals 73 (Table 18). Comparisons between the number of individuals described in Humphreys’ and Miller’s theses with the number of individuals stated are also inconsistent (Table 21). These discrepancies may be attributable to differences in methods used to calculate the MNI for each study. A variety of different methods for calculating MNIs exist and can result in different totals for the same sample. In any event, those discrepancies may not be resolvable

Table 21. Preliminary comparison of MNIs for skeletal remains from unfinished church (Room 26), Mission San Juan. Burial # 11D 11E 11F 11G 11H

1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult) 1 (old male)

16A1 16A2 16B 16C1 16C2 16C3 16C4 16D 16E 16F 17A 17B1 17C, 17A-D 18A 18B 18C 18D1 18D2 26, Northwest Corner

1 (old female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (old female) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult male) 2 (1 teen female, 1 infant) 2 (subadults, 1 male and 1 female) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult female) 1 (child) 13 (12 infants, 1 adolescent) 63+, no total given for 1971a

Miller (1989) Burial # 26B11D 26B11E 26B11F 26B11G 26B11H 26B(unident., possibly 11) 26B12A 26B12B 26B12AB 26B13A 26B13, B13B 26B13C 26B16A

MNI 2 (1 adult female, 1 adult indet.) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult indet.) 1 (adult male) 2 (1 adult male, 1 adult indet.) 1 (adult female) 2 (1 adult, 1 subadult) 1 (adult male) 2 (1 old male, 1 indet.) 1 (old male) 2 (1 old male, 1 indet.)

26B16B 26B16C 26B16misc.

1 (old male) 1 (adult male) 3 (1 adult male, 2 adult indet.)

26B17A 26B17B 26B17A-D 26B18A 26B18B 26B18C 26B18D

3 (1 adult male, 2 subadult indet.) 1 (adult female) 1 (subadult indet.) 1 (adult male) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult male) 2 (1 adult indet., 1 subadult indet.)

26BNWCorner 26BSWCorner TOTAL

18 (15 infants, 3 adults) 3 (adult indet.) 92b

Francis (1999) Burial # MNI

N/A

TOTAL

49c

Humphreys (1969) states that 53 individuals were examined, not counting 10 infants, a box of fragmentary skeletal remains, and three unassigned mandibles. Humphreys (1971) does not list the number of individuals examined, however, 88 individuals were counted from her descriptions of the burials. b Miller (1989) states that 92 individuals were examined from Room 26 in her study. There is a discrepancy between this statement and the total MNI counted from her description of each burial in her appendix. c Francis (1999) does not provide descriptions of the individual burials but counts an MNI of 49 for Room 26 burials .


12A 12B 12C 13A 13B, C

TOTAL a

Humphreys (1969, 1971) MNI 1 (old male) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 1 (adult female) 2 (1 old male, 1 infant)

Chapter 11: Synthesis and Conclusions – Page 129

CHAPTER 11:

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS: NATIVE AMERICAN LINEAL DESCENT AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION ISSUES AT MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, TEXAS Alston V. Thoms Native American cultural affiliation and lineal descent issues at Mission San Juan Capistrano are linked inextricably, but probably not exclusively, to geographically defined Coahuiltecans, the native inhabitants of much of south Texas and northeast Mexico. NAGPRA-related, cultural affiliation links are straightforward enough, insofar as all of the Native Americans reportedly missionized at San Juan can be grouped readily under the rubric of “Coahuiltecans.” Historical records attest that other Native Americans, including Apache, Caddo, Comanche, Karankawa, Tlascalan, and Tonkawa, routinely interacted with Coahuiltecans. Members of these and perhaps other tribes undoubtedly married into Coahuiltecan families at the various San Antonio missions (Campbell and Campbell 1996; Schuetz 1980b). Based on research conducted for the present project, however, there is little in the census records or historical accounts to suggest that such inter-tribal marriages occurred during the early mission period at San Juan (Rock 1999; Schuetz 1968). Nonetheless, it is quite possible that as-yetunidentified Native Americans, of nonCoahuiltecan affiliation, married or simply moved into an otherwise decidedly Coahuiltecan Indian community at Mission San Juan. Moreover, it is certain that there was a substantial non-Coahuiltecan component in the community by the late 1700s. At that time, however, information on tribal or band affiliation was not recorded systematically in census or sacramental records. Furthermore, almost nothing is known about the degree to

which Indian heritage was maintained or otherwise embedded in individuals classified as mestizos or mulattos. Issues pertaining to lineal descent are also complex, especially as they apply to individuals interred at the mission during the late and post mission eras and whose remains were included among those removed by archaeologists in the late 1960s. To date, none of these remains has been identified as a known person. What is known, however, is that the San Juan skeletal population represents both Native Americans, notably geographic Coahuiltecans, and racially mixed individuals who came to dominate the community during the late 1700s and early 1800s (Francis 1999; Schuetz 1980b). Said differently, lineal descent from a Native American individual necessarily includes descent from mestizos, mulattos, and gente de razón who came to be listed as Spaniards in the official records, as well as naturales with Indian ancestors. What we do not know, of course, is the degree to which any of these people’s Native American genetic makeup or tribal identity was recognized by the individuals themselves, their families, or the community at the time. While a preponderance of evidence indicates that the vast majority of people listed in the San Juan records as either Indian or part Indian probably descended in part from geographic Coahuiltecans, other Native American tribes and groups are represented as well. Undoubtedly, the community included Tlascaltecan artisans and their descendants whose distant ancestors came from aboriginal

Page 130 – Chapter 11: Synthesis and Conclusions

homelands in central Mexico, but who themselves were born somewhere in today’s northeast Mexico, settled at the mission, and presumably were buried there. As noted, members of BIA-recognized tribes (e.g., Comanche, Apache, Tonkawa) were also missionized in San Antonio and may have married into the community without leaving a record of their tribal affiliation. Other potential Native Americans who came to San Juan during the late 1700s from communities in east Texas may have descended in part from members of Caddoan tribes, while those from New Mexico may have had Puebloan ancestors. In short, lineal descent issues at San Juan extend well beyond individuals whose “documented” biological makeup was wholly or substantially geographic Coahuiltecan. These issues are also complex and, as this study shows, merit further study. PERSPECTIVES ON COAHUILTECANS AND MISSION-INDIAN HERITAGE It is important to emphasize that Coahuiltecan does not designate a tribe per se in the same sense as Tonkawa, Comanche, or Caddo. Anthropologists often use the word “tribe” to denote a group of formally related bands that speaks a common language, shares most cultural traits, has definable territories, albeit often vaguely so, and is held together by kinship and varying degrees of sociopolitical ties. Alternatively, Coahuiltecans were not nearly so bound together, insofar as this designation encompassed hundreds of small, seemingly autonomous bands, some of which spoke mutually unintelligible languages. What these diverse bands had in common was their hunter-gatherer lifeways that were well adapted to an environmentally similar portion of the coastal plains drained by the Rio Grande and smaller rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico in south Texas and northeast Mexico (cf. Campbell 1983).

Officials of the Spanish colonial government during the late 1600s reportedly used the term Coahuiltecos in reference to the linguistically and ethnically diverse inhabitants of this vast region (Rock, personal communication 2000). Linguists used the term Coahuiltecan (or derivatives thereof) as early as the 1860s to denote a language family believed to have been spoken in this region (e.g., Powell 1891), but it has since become evident that more than one language was spoken there (Campbell 1983). Nonetheless, twentieth-century anthropologists and archaeologists came to refer collectively, albeit for different reasons, to south Texas’ and northeast Mexico’s diverse native peoples as Coahuiltecan (e.g., Atkinson 1935; Hester 1980, 1998; Hodge 1907; Mooney 1928; Newcomb 1961; Ruecking 1955a). (Note: in the remainder of this chapter, references are cited only for new materials and topics, or to reference an especially important statement; all other information summarized here is referenced in the preceding chapters). Over the last 150 years, linguists, ethnographers, anthropologists, archaeologists, other scientists, and historians have developed, modified, and sometimes rejected, their own concepts of “Coahuiltecans” (see Chapters 2, 3, and 7). Drawing from sparse historical records, researchers synthesized information about racially (i.e., Native American) and culturally similar groups of hunter-gatherers who had adapted to the semiarid environments of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Although similar in some respects, scholars now agree that Coahuiltecans of the Spanish Colonial era included many different bands and that among them there was considerable linguistic and ethnic diversity. Their homelands collectively occupied a vast area that extended south from the Guadalupe River in Texas and encompassed the entire lower Rio Grande drainage basin and lowlands in the Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.


By the late 1500s and early 1600s, native groups in this region were already a product of apocalyptic depopulation from European diseases, slave raiding, and warfare. Although socio-political structures undoubtedly changed as the remnants of pre-contact bands coalesced and reorganized, the groups remained racially and culturally Native American huntersgatherers who were well adapted to the region’s environment. More than 100 years later, many of their descendants began to reside at Mission San Juan and other San Antonio missions. Within a few generations after they arrived, and often through various degrees of miscegenation, the Indian inhabitants of San Antonio’s missions began to assimilate into the developing Tejano community. As discussed in Chapter 1, most students of Texas Indians, until recently, believed that Coahuiltecans became extinct about 150 years ago, culturally if not biologically. This view is aptly expressed in a 1935 book entitled The Texas Indians: The Central and South Texas Tribes, more particularly the Coahuiltecans, were destined to become the ‘mission Indians’ of history. Being tractable folk, they were eventually absorbed into the populace of both Texas and Mexico, losing identity entirely as aborigines” (Atkinson 1935:212).

Research conducted for the present study suggests that individuals who trace their ancestry to San Antonio’s mission Indians have retained elements of their cultural and ethnic identities, including a keen sense of their biological links to the region’s native inhabitants (see syntheses later in this chapter, especially “Perspectives from Interviewees”). They have also endeavored to learn more about indigenous lifeways and history by studying historical records and reviewing the works of historians, ethnologists, and archaeologists.

An article in the San Antonio ExpressNews (25 August 2000) attests to the sense of Native American affiliation. It relates to a recent theft of religious statues from the extant church building at Mission San Juan, a structure that had been in use as such for more than 200 years. The article reads in part as follows: For 25 days, parishioners and descendants of the Coahuiltecan Indians who helped build Mission San Juan have been praying for a miracle. Now they’re offering a reward—$1,000—, which they promise to pay, “no questions asked”—if the thief or thieves who stole three statues of saints will return them to the South Side mission established in 1731. On Friday, church leaders and representatives from the indigenous community who still live in the area began distributing fliers to raise awareness of the theft of three Spanish colonial-era statues. “The Statues are considered an important part of our history,” parishioner Mickey Killian said during a news conference Friday morning. Killian, whose family has continuously lived in the area for 200 years, said parishioners and various groups, including the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Mission Inc., raised the funds [Gutiérrez-Mier 2000].

That avowed descendants of Coahuiltecan people retain and honor elements of their native heritage should not come as a surprise to us, especially in San Antonio. We are certainly not surprised to know that hundreds of people legitimately trace their ancestry to a few dozen Spanish settlers from the Canary Islands who arrived four days after Mission San Juan was established and who soon became a dominant socio-political and economic force. By the time the Canary Islanders had settled in, a few thousand Coahuiltecans had already tried their hands at making a living in San Antonio’s riverside mission communities, and many of them were beginning to be integrated into the civilian population. Eventually, thousands more would be missionized in San Antonio,


including more than 1,500 who were buried at Mission San Juan (see Chapter 2). In May 2001, the 77th Texas Legislature also weighed in on the issue of Coahuiltecan heritage in the state. The House of Representatives passed (i.e., enrolled on 05/14/01) House Resolution 787 “recognizing the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions” (Turner 2001; Appendix H). The Texas Senate passed (i.e., enrolled on 05/11/2001) a similar resolution (SR 1038), commending the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation “for their exemplary preservation of their heritage and their many contributions to the culture of our state and nation...” (Zaffirini 2001; Appendix H). The President of the Senate formally presented members of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation with the resolution in the Senate chamber on May 18, 2001 (Raymond Hernández, personal communication 2001). NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL CHANGE AND SURVIVAL Throughout the New World, many changes occurred in the configuration of Native American groups in response to the massive depopulation from European diseases, slave-raiding, and warfare, as well as from population displacement and increasing intertribal warfare stimulated by European colonization. It is well known that new tribes periodically came into being as fragmented bands and dispersed families representing ethnically and linguistically distinctive populations, often including nonIndians, merged to form cohesive groups. The present-day Seminoles are a well-known example of this process. They formed from groups of farmers and hunter-gatherers that spoke entirely different languages, represented distinctive cultures, and came from a wide area of the American Southeast.

Among their numbers were Africans and African-Americans who had fled from slavery, as well people who descended in part from Europeans. Among their best-known leaders was Oceola, a man with a European father and an Indian mother who married an African-American woman. Today, more than 200 years after the Seminoles began to coalesce, there are federally recognized Seminole tribes in Florida and Oklahoma as well as many descendants of Black Seminoles in Mexico and Texas (Weisman and Greenbaum 1997; Britten 1999). Seminole native history is well documented, in part, because European settlers who recorded considerable information about their culture surrounded their homelands in Florida. Importantly, the Seminoles retained lands not only in Florida but also in Oklahoma and Mexico. Moreover, they were not missionized and thereby were not outwardly “civilized” nearly to the degree that the Coahuiltecans were. Seminoles survived as organized groups throughout the nineteenth century to the present. Alternatively, Coahuiltecans were huntergatherers who lived in areas sparsely populated by Europeans and who were missionized continuously for more than a century. Coahuiltecans did not survive as aboriginally organized socio-political and kin groups beyond the mid-nineteenth century; rather, they “merged” with Tejano and Hispanic populations. Only in the last decade or so have anthropologists and historians begun to understand that, although effectively “merged,” the mission Indians probably were never homogenized or assimilated to the point that they were unrecognizable. The problem was that most non-Indians never really paused long enough to see, study, or come to know the people who traced their ancestry to mission Indians. Nonetheless, non-Indians often wrote their own stories about mission


Indians, thereby usurping native history and, all too often, relegating descendants to a static, sometimes mythic, past (Thoms 1997; cf. Hester 1998; cf. Wolfe 1982).

San Antonio area today, Hester (2000) has encouraged descendants to trace their ancestry through written records as well as oral histories.

Formation in 1993 of the organization known as American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions signaled a marked change in the manner in which San Antonio’s mission Indian history would be presented. For the first time in the city’s modern history, avowed descendants of mission Indians began to publicly promote Coahuiltecan components of their biological and cultural heritage (see Chapter 3). In doing so, they drew heavily from historical records and writings of anthropologists and archaeologists about geographic Coahuiltecans. To renew and construct their own versions of native history and heritage, they selected specific information from the pool of data generated by the academic community and incorporated it into what they knew about mission Indians from family histories and community lore (see Chapter 4 and Appendix E). Not surprisingly, total agreement is lacking between the cultural histories presented by academic and mission Indian communities, as is typically the case when perspectives between victors and vanquished or dominant and minority groups are compared.

It is the nature of scientific investigation that new knowledge about geographical Coahuiltecans begets new models as Hester (1998) aptly argues, but the ever-changing perspectives are likely to have impacts of their own. This is especially the case during the last two decades as individuals sought to call attention to their Native American ancestry and their links to San Juan and other Spanish Colonial missions in south Texas. To supplement oral traditions, individuals seeking to prove their ties to mission Indians necessarily looked to and depended upon what is now being called outdated research about Coahuiltecan culture. Said differently, misinformation about Coahuiltecans created a proverbial can of worms that resulted in decidedly different historical perspectives and further complicated ethnic-identity and NAGPRA-related issues. Having said that, it is worth calling attention to a variety of “ethnic identifiers” used by today’s groups who trace their heritage, or parts thereof, to Mission San Juan: (1) American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions; (2) Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation; and (3) The Pamaque Band of San Juan Indians (see Chapter 3).

In a recent article discussing usage of the term Coahuiltecan, Hester (1998) called attention to linguistic, ethnographic, and historical data showing that “Coahuiltecans” were so diverse ethnically and linguistically that the term Coahuiltecan should no longer be used to denote the region’s native inhabitants. He argued that to do so only perpetuates the myth of a loosely bound, socio-political and linguistically affiliated group. He also suggested that San Antonio’s mission Indians be referred to by their band names as designated on Spanish Colonial records. Recognizing that there probably are descendants of mission Indians living in the

It is important to emphasize that during the last few years it has become evident that there are multiple voices representing politically diverse groups of resurgent Coahuiltecans. Disputes are not uncommon (see Chapter 4 and Appendix E). To gain a more holistic perspective on inter-community controversies, it will be necessary to carry out additional investigations with representatives of the various groups that promote mission Indian heritage in San Antonio (see “Recommendations for Management and Additional Research”).


As background for the project’s concluding interpretations regarding NAGPRA-related issues of cultural affiliation and lineal descent, the following sections summarize and synthesize information presented in Chapters 1-10. As such, it reflects the opinion of this chapter’s author (Thoms), the project’s principal investigator who is charged specifically with the responsibility of interpreting project results. Historical Contexts (Chapters 1 and 2) The present project focused its research efforts less on tracing lineal descent and cultural affiliation with neophytes from a known or suspected Coahuiltecan band and more on the questions of descent and affiliation as they pertain to the mission Indian populations regardless of their specific group or band identification. In doing so, we were able to emphasize the notion of geographically defined Coahuiltecans as the native inhabitants of south Texas and northeast Mexico for the last several millennia. From historical and cultural evolution perspectives, geographical Coahuiltecans arguably epitomize the concepts of cultural change and survival. First encountered in the early 1500s as aboriginal hunter-gatherers, they suffered apocalyptic depopulation as Old World immigrants came to control this vast area. Socio-cultural reorganization of aboriginal Coahuiltecans followed and continued over the next 200 years, but historical and archaeological studies illustrate that considerable biological and cultural ties to the past were surely maintained (cf. Hester 1989a, 1989b, 1989c). Through considerable metamorphosis, missionized Coahuiltecans emerged early in the post-contact era and continued to do so throughout the reducción or in-gathering process, from the middle 1600s and through the early 1800s. Schuetz (1980b) presented compelling evidence that a

vast majority of these people ultimately came to live, at least for a time, at missions in south Texas and northeast Mexico. Once there, a new round of metamorphoses occurred as a result of missionization and miscegenation processes. Acculturated (i.e., Spanish-speaking, Christianized Indians), Ladino Coahuiltecans, increasingly known as Indians, mestizos, mulattos, Mexicans, Hispanics, Tejanos, or sometimes Spaniards, left the mission grounds and were assimilated into the civilian communities. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in their new roles as members of “lower-economic tiers,” their native heritage came to be almost invisible to much of the outside world. San Antonio’s Indianness was often usurped for purposes of tourism by the growing Anglo-American community (see Chapter 3). From a Ladino Coahuiltecan perspective, however, it would probably be said that native heritage was purposefully veiled to insure survival in an economically hostile world. This time around, they adapted cryptically, through concealment and camouflage. Throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries, veiled Coahuiltecans remained a segment of the San Juan community and, as such, they maintained enough cohesiveness to retain elements of their Indian heritage (see Chapter 4). Archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan in 1967 served to spark and revitalize the community’s public commitment to Indian heritage. These sparks caught fire, especially with the controversies that surrounded reburial issues in San Antonio during the late twentieth century. As it turned out, the people with Indian heritage once again became readily visible, this time as resurgent Coahuiltecans.


Popular Literature Contexts (Chapter 3) Popular literature about San Antonio’s missions and the Indians who lived there does not routinely refer to Coahuiltecan Indians or any other specific ethnic groups for that matter. For more than 100 years, however, popular accounts have attested to a continuous presence of Native American people living around the missions, especially San Juan. An individual interviewed in the late 1800s reported that in 1836, more than 40 years after Mission Valero—today’s Alamo— was secularized, the Mexican Army elected not to cut off or divert the irrigation ditches that supplied water to the Alamo because the irrigation water was being used by Mission Indians. At the turn of the century, San Juan was widely considered to be the mission where the neighborhood people looked more like Indians than was the case anywhere else in Texas. There are also numerous reports of Indian families—descendants of the original mission population—living and sometimes farming around the mission throughout the twentieth century. More than 30 years ago Mardith Schuetz issued a plea to interview elderly descendants who still lived around San Juan, and thereby better document Native American traditions. Native American Groups (Chapters 2- 5) Since the late 1960s, San Antonio’s news media has regularly reported on the values and concerns of people who traced their ancestry to Mission San Juan and other Spanish Colonial missions in the city (also see Chapters 1 and 2). Today, there are several Native American groups (i.e., resurgent Coahuiltecans) in San Antonio whose membership traces its ancestry to geographic Coahuiltecans. Among those are the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan. Many members of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltec Nation are also members of a non-profit group, American

Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM, see Chapter 3). During the last decade, resurgent Coahuiltecans have also recounted their own histories on the worldwide web (e.g., American Indian Movement 2000) and in ethnically based magazines (e.g., Martínez 1998), as well as in the popular literature (e.g., England 1995). The Texas Chapter of the American Indian Movement, for example, includes in its mission statement “to provide support in whatever manner to our Nations and to recognize the Texas Nations thought to be extinct” (Texas Chapter of the American Indian Movement 2000). Among the chapter’s “requests” of Governor Bush was a statement that religious freedom of indigenous people in the state be acknowledged and respected, especially regarding the “Deer Dance of the Carrizo/Comecrudo and Coahuiltecan Indigenous Nations” (Texas Chapter of the American Indian Movement 2000). Another web page story reported that the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation had received a donation of a computer system through a federal program (American IndianAlaskan Native Employees Association 2000). As noted in Chapter 1, the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation recently requested and was granted a formal sponsor relationship with the federally recognized Wichita Tribe based in Anadarko, Oklahoma. In May 2001, as final revisions were being made to the present report in response to review comments from NPS, both the Texas Senate and House of Representatives passed resolutions recognizing the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions (see Appendix H). Initial conversations with prospective interviewees from the San Juan community revealed that numerous families had strong traditions about their “Indian blood.”


Individuals reported that the community at large had long referred to some family members as Indios. At a subsequent community meeting about the present project, co-sponsored by the San Juan/Berg’s Mill Catholic Men’s Club and AIT-SCM, some 20 individuals attested to the presence of a longterm and proud oral tradition that many San Juan community members have Indian ancestry. Actual interviewees included two middleaged men and one woman who trace their ancestry to Santiago Díaz. The woman is loosely affiliated with the Catholic Men’s Club, and to a lesser degree with members of one of the Native American Church groups. One of the men who traced his ancestry to Díaz is a member of the Catholic Men’s Club, and AIT-SCM, as well as a Native American Church group. The other man who traced his ancestry to Díaz is a member of a second Native American Church group, but not the Catholic Men’s Club or AIT-SCM. Santiago Díaz is known to have been a resident of San Juan for much of his life and to have served as the mission’s alcalde in late Spanish Colonial times (ca. 1815). Present-day descendants, who were interviewed for this project, believe that Díaz was at least part Indian, however, our genealogical research failed to prove conclusively that he was in fact an Indian (see Chapter 6). Clearly evident in the interviews were oral traditions represented in stories told about growing up, grandparents, traditional practices, ancestors, and relations to outsiders, typically Anglo-Americans. Among these traditions were stories about Indians in the area, including one grandfather nicknamed “El Indio” who aptly looked the part. Two interviewees recounted stories about how a parent, grandparent, or great-great-grandparent chased away stormy weather. One of them said the following:

Well, I know there’s this one custom my mother used to have back in the old days, this is when I was little. Now this is probably Spanish, this superstition. When it would get dark, and cloud up, she’d go and grab a butcher knife and go outside and make the sign of the cross…And I had to get out of the way of my mother because she was running and would grab that butcher knife. And of course we never did discuss it, because I thought that’s what people did! And I never did think about it. Now, of course, I’d like to know more about it but I think it was that her mother did that. And that’s why she did [Killian interview, Appendix E].

Another reported: She carried on a tradition that my dad told me the other day [that] my great-greatgrandmother…did. When it would rain she would stand at the door with a hatchet. She would say these prayers, or these chants and she would part the rain clouds so the rain could go away (Mendoza interview, see Appendix E).

It is noteworthy that this behavior closely resembles a practice of Nuevo León Indians, which was reported by Juan Bautista Chapa in the late 1600s. Schuetz, citing comments about Coahuiltecan behavior in a Spanish language publication of Chapa’s history of Nuevo León, stated that “the efforts of Nuevo León Indians to allay thunderstorms by shouting, grimacing, and hurling stones, sticks, and firebrands suggests a belief that they could control such nature spirits” (Schuetz 1980a:94). The point here is that what may well be centuries-old native traditions were still being practiced in the mid-twentieth century, and are recalled to the present day. Several Native American churches now exist in San Antonio (Ray Hernandez and Rick Mendoza, personal communication 2000), which attests to the maintenance of selected Coahuiltecan traditions, although probably modified from mission and premission periods. Mitotes, or religiously


organized fiestas, held by Coahuiltecans often involved the consumption of peyote in various forms (Schuetz 1980b:93-102); the use of peyote in Native American church ceremonies can be traced to the native inhabitants of south Texas and northeast Mexico (Tunnell 2000). As noted in Chapter 2, two separate Native American church ceremonies were held on November 28, 1999, at Mission San Juan to prepare members for church-sponsored reburial ceremonies. Some San Juan community members, who are also members of these two particular churches, report that in their families peyote has long held a special place in religious and healing practices. The degree to which peyote can be said to be a direct cultural affiliation link remains unclear and, as a topic, merits further study. Genealogical Contexts (Chapter 6) Adán Benavides’ genealogical research for the present project focused on Santiago Díaz’s family. He worked closely with Mickey Killian, a San Juan/Berg’s Mill community member who had conducted substantial genealogical research and traced his own family back to Santiago Díaz, an alcalde at Mission San Juan in 1815. Killian had also compiled considerable information about the history of Mission San Juan and its parishioners. Benavides’ research verified that Santiago Díaz was indeed among Mickey Killian’s ancestors. What remains unclear, however, is Santiago Díaz’s ethnic affiliation, at least insofar as none of the documents examined to date list him as an Indian per se. Rock (1999) reported, however, that Díaz’s family members were listed in various records as being Indian, mestizo, mulatto, and Español. These ostensible discrepancies are exemplary of the available historical records that are often inconsistent and, after Mexican independence, ethnic/racial distinctions are dropped from the records altogether.

In any case, Benavides could not find documentary evidence that linked Santiago Díaz or his wife, Maria Josefa Gutiérrez, to former neophytes (i.e., Indian converts to Catholicism) of Mission San Juan Capistrano. Díaz appears to have been born in San Antonio de Béxar in the mid-1770s; his father may have been an individual listed as a Spaniard from Nuevo León and his wife’s father was listed as a mulatto from Nuevo León. In short, the information does not indicate that Santiago Díaz’s parents or his inlaws were necessarily among the neoorganized Coahuiltecans who inhabited south Texas and northeast Mexico during the premission and early mission periods. It is possible, however, that Díaz’s wife and their children, and perhaps Díaz himself, were representative of Ladino Coahuiltecans who, through missionization and miscegenation, must have constituted a majority of the population in northeast Mexico at that time. This assertion is supported by the fact that Maria Josefa Gutiérrez and all her children are listed in one of two 1815 censuses, as well as in one of the 1819 reports, as mulattos y mestizos, that is individuals of mixed Indian or African and Spanish parentage. In all other censuses, however, these individuals are listed as Españoles. With one exception, Santiago Díaz is also listed as an Español in the census records reviewed for this project. Significantly, one of the two 1819 censuses (a draft version not signed by alcalde Díaz) lists him as a mestizo. In short, it is clearly possible that descendants of the DíazGutiérrez household were at least part Indian. It also seems possible, if not probable, that at least one of the individuals who descended from the Díaz-Gutiérrez family is likely to have married a “Ladinoized” geographical Coahuiltecan. This suggestion stems from the fact that many, if not most, people living in San Antonio during the late mission and early


post-mission periods would have had Ladino Coahuiltecans in their family trees (Poyo and Hinojosa 1991). It is certain, however, that members and descendants of the DíazGutiérrez family were buried at Mission San Juan. Ethnographic and Ethnohistoric Contexts (Chapter 7) It was only in the twentieth century that the term Coahuiltecan came into widespread use in reference to a broadly defined group of hunter-gatherers who inhabited south Texas and northeast Mexico and later lived and worked in each of San Antonio’s missions. Many bands once considered to be “Coahuiltecan” have been removed from that classification because their ethnic and linguistic affiliation has not been established conclusively. In general, ethnographers, archaeologists, and other anthropologists now seem to question the heuristic utility of the term Coahuiltecan, insofar as the known or assumed ethnic affiliations of groups historically linked to this rubric were all too diverse. Campbell’s (1977, 1988, 1996) research reveals that only a very small percentage of the hunter-gatherer groups identified by Cabeza de Vaca in the 1530s can be reliably linked to groups encountered by French colonizers and Spanish explorers in the late 1680s. Further, only a fraction of the groups seen during the late seventeenth century are well documented in Spanish Colonial government and missionary records. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Indian people who remained affiliated with San Juan and other missions and churches in the San Antonio area probably represented many ethnically and linguistically diverse groups. Of course, other survivors undoubtedly found their way into what would become mission, rural, and urban communities in northeastern Mexico.

Research by Hinojosa and Fox (1991) demonstrates that many Indians who lived around the San Juan missions during the early post-Colonial period moved into San Antonio and worked as laborers. It is worth pointing out that many textbooks about Native Americans published in the 1990s fail to mention Coahuiltecans, or any other hunter-gatherer groups by name, that inhabited greater south Texas during preColumbian and early post-Columbian times. This suggests that the region’s aboriginal inhabitants, for one reason or another, have remained invisible to most textbook researchers and writers. Part of the invisibility of Indians in the San Antonio mission communities has been discussed by De la Teja (1995) in San Antonio de Béxar: A Community on New Spain’s Northern Frontier. He traced changes in ethnicity as reported in church and government records for individuals, families, and communities in the San Antonio area. These records suggest a tendency to list a given individual as having less Indian blood through time as she/he presumably became more integrated into the non-Indian community (De la Teja 1995:2229). It is also likely that kidnapping/enslavement practices prevalent among non-Indian and Indian communities contributed substantially to what might be termed forced multiculturalism from the late 1700s through the mid-1800s (cf. Brooks 1996). An important addition to the ethnographic component is a recently completed report by Rock (1999) entitled Los Habitantes: A History of Texas’ Mission San Juan Capistrano and Its People. Consistent with broad generalizations by other historians, Rock’s detailed research calls attention to a marked decline, well underway by the late 1790s, in the proportion of Indians relative to non-Indians and mulattos and mestizos. Schuetz, in her 1980 report on excavations of the convento as well as in her 1980


dissertation, also concluded that as of the 1780s all the missions in San Antonio were becoming increasingly racially heterogeneous and by 1820 the San Antonio populations were largely mestizo. The 1792 census of Mission San Juan reflects this trend in its list of four Spaniards, 22 mulattos and mestizos, several of whom came from east Texas missions, and 25 Indians, including individuals representing some of the original Coahuiltecan groups, along with Tlascalan people whose ancestors originally came from central Mexico (also see Chapter 2). Rock reports that between 1824 and 1895 most of the Spanish surnames on the church registry had been replaced by the names of Catholic immigrants from Alsace, Germany, France, Italy, and elsewhere. The mission was clearly established for “Coahuiltecans,” as well as other linguistically and ethnically unidentified groups who may or may not have been Coahuiltecan-affiliated. In any case, before coming to the mission, these people resided throughout south Texas and adjacent parts of northeastern Mexico. Early records show considerable overlap in band representation at San Juan and Espada, but it is also clear that Coahuiltecans were well represented at Missions San José, and Concepción. The latter two missions were notably more ethnically diverse, however, and included Apachean, Karankawa, Comanche, and possibly Tonkawa speakers, along with representatives of many other groups who remain unidentified as to language or ethnicity. Of the ethnically/linguistically known groups, geographical Coahuiltecans were the primary occupants of Mission San Juan for more than 50 years after it was founded in 1731, but, by the end of the eighteenth century, changes in the community’s ethnic makeup were well underway. Other Indian people came to live there, as did an ethnically

diverse population characteristic of the northern Spanish Colonial frontier, such that by the late 1790s much of the San Juan community was decidedly Hispanic. Widespread patterns of ethnic diversity and inter-ethnic/racial marriages are clearly evident in the late eighteenth century census records for the San Antonio area, as well as for other missions in the eastern half of Texas. By the 1850s, in the aftermath of Texas’ independence from Mexico, San Juan’s and Texas’ ethnic makeup included a strong European Catholic and Anglo-American component. From the mid-1900s to the present, however, the San Juan community has been represented most strongly by its Hispanic heritage. Nonetheless, Catholic Euroamericans have remained a significant component of the community (see Chapter 2). Linguistic Contexts (Chapter 8) Through the years, there has been considerable debate among linguists about the nature and classification of the Coahuiltecan language family and the Coahuilteco language itself. While there is agreement that Coahuilteco was once spoken, there are no known speakers today and all of the languages spoken by south Texas Indians are poorly documented in historical records. Although new rounds of linguistic research are underway, there remains little consensus about which languages can be included under the rubric and whether Coahuiltecan is a legitimate language family. It is important to point out here that representatives of the American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions, the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan are working to develop and fund heritagerelated studies. The proposed studies are aimed at compiling existing information and gathering new information about languages spoken by geographically defined Coahuiltecans from consultants in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mexico (Raymond


Hernández and Joe Ricky Mendoza, personal communications 2000). It is becoming widely accepted that during the pre-Columbian era, Coahuilteco dialects (as a first language) may not have been spoken as extensively in southern Texas and northeastern Mexico as was once believed and that several very different languages were spoken in the region as well (cf. Hester 1998). With the coming of the Europeans and the onset of the Spanish Colonial era, however, Coahuilteco appears to have become a lingua franca for the region. In other words, the fact that many people spoke Coahuilteco dialects in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries probably tells us more about Spanish Colonial history and the missionization process than it does about pre-Columbian ethnic and cultural affiliation. Use of Coahuilteco as a lingua franca also reinforces the premise that with prolonged contact leading to reduced native population brought about a combining of groups, thus possibly contributing to the use of a “universal” language (Rosalind Rock, personal communication 2001). Archaeological Contexts (Chapter 9) Archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan began during the Depression Era and continue to the present. Mission San Juan’s layout is well established and several cemetery areas have been identified. Mardith Schuetz (1968, 1969, 1974, 1980a) excavated three of these in the late 1960s and early 1970s. She argued that some of the burials and most of the Native American artifacts are representative of Coahuiltecan populations. Hester (1989c) and others (e.g., Fox 1983) working in south Texas also have sought to relate artifacts and archaeological sites dating to the Late Prehistoric period and earlier to generic Coahuiltecan populations as representative of the hunter-gatherer groups who inhabited the region. It is clear, however, that within the last two decades

archaeologists have become more reticent about ascribing ethnic affiliation to specific artifacts and sites, including missions. Although south Texas is considered to be a poorly known archaeological region in general, its Late Prehistoric period is comparatively well understood. Archaeological research reveals that elements of pre-contact ceramic and chipped-stone technologies continued to be employed by native people after they entered into Spanish missions in the 1700s. Leon Plain, the primary Late Prehistoric ceramic type in south Texas, continued to be made by Indians after contact with Europeans. This type is virtually identical to Native ceramics found in a mission context, and to which archaeologists apply the name Goliad Ware. This ware continued to be produced well into the nineteenth century and it also circulated through non-mission communities in San Antonio. Guerrero arrow points, an unnotched triangular form made from chipped stone and sometimes chipped glass, represent the primary diagnostic hunting tool found in mission contexts. These points, newly developed by Indians who had entered the missions, are unlike any found outside of mission contexts. Numerous examples of Goliad Ware and Guerrero points have been recovered during archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan. Linked with the question of whether Late Prehistoric technologies continue into the Historic period is whether cultural affiliation can be assigned to any of the Late Prehistoric sites based on what is known about the native groups who lived in the region during the historic era. It is noteworthy, then, that Hinojosa and Fox (1991:117) referred to ceramics locally made in San Antonio as “Coahuiltecan ceramics.” Based on similarities in material culture traditions, Johnson (1994:278) suggested that the historically known Coahuilteco-speaking


peoples of south Texas may represent what he calls latter-day Toyah people who were represented in part by Leon Plain ceramics. Additionally, Schuetz (1969:81), in a brief summary of aspects of Coahuiltecan material and symbolic culture, noted “triangular flint points are equated with Coahuiltecan use in Texas and northern Mexico.” In spite of links between the material culture of mission Indians and sites dating to the Late Prehistoric period, most researchers hesitate even to tentatively identify a specific cultural affiliation (e.g., Coahuiltecan, Karankawa, Tonkawa) for pre-contact era native peoples who lived in southern Texas. Black (1989:57), for example, notes that the roots of this dilemma are to be found in the cultural diversity of the region. He concludes that while the same technologies that manifest themselves during pre-contact times are also manifested in mission contexts, it is unlikely that they can be tied to specific groups. Bioarchaeological Contexts (Chapter 10) A primary goal of the 1967 archaeological excavation of Mission San Juan’s unfinished church floor was the recovery of a sample of skeletal remains that would be representative of extinct (i.e., aboriginal or neo-organized) Coahuiltecans. Scientific studies of the recovered remains and associated funerary objects revealed, however, that most of the people had been buried there between the 1760s and the 1790s, and perhaps as late as the early 1800s (also see Chapter 2). Several of the interments represented individuals whose bodies had been reburied. Most of the human remains were clearly those of Indians, arguably geographical Coahuiltecans, but others represented a population that had already undergone miscegenation (i.e., Ladino Coahuiltecans). Human remains recovered from the floor of the extant church in 1969 were interpreted as representative of a racially mixed

population characteristic of the late Colonial and early post-Colonial periods (1780s1860s). While still a predominately Ladino Coahuiltecan population, it has what today would be termed a substantial “Tejano” component. One individual buried there was classified as definitely Caucasoid. Excavations in 1971 at the site of the first stone church, in use between about 1756 and sometime in the late 1780s, revealed additional burials that were left in place, as well as numerous empty grave pits. Based on ages of funerary objects associated with the graves and church records, some of the burials undoubtedly dated to Mission San Juan’s early Colonial period (ca. 1731-1750s) and were probably associated with the original jacal church. Others dated as late as the 1790s and were probably interred while the first stone church was in use (ca. 17561780s or later). Schuetz (1980a) considered all of the remains she observed in the vicinity of the first stone church, but left in place, to be those of Indians. Of all the examined human remains from Mission San Juan, those from the vicinity of the first stone church are the most likely to have included neoorganized Coahuiltecans who entered the mission from the “wilderness” prior to 1750. It is also possible that the remains of a female Native American discovered along a proposed drainage channel southwest of the mission compound in 1999 are representative of neo-organized Coahuiltecans or perhaps aboriginal Coahuiltecans. These remains were recovered and analyzed by personnel at the Center for Archaeological Research at the UTSA, returned to NPS, and reinterred with approval of the Texas Historical Commission (Francis 2000). Human remains from Mission San Juan have been held and analyzed at several universities in Texas, and special studies have been carried out in Massachusetts and California. Only one of the studies included


remains recovered from both the unfinished and the extant churches; the other studies included only remains from the unfinished chapel. The primary focus of all these studies was on health and dietary issues. With the exception of the preliminary study carried out by Humphreys in 1969, and the recent DNA analysis, the bioarchaeological research has been undertaken as Master’s thesis projects.

(where the remains were then held), the State Archaeologist’s Office (part of THC), NPS, and any direct descendants of the deceased (Mallouf 1986).

Comparatively little work has been devoted to ascertaining ethnic affiliations of the remains, although they have always been presumed to represent geographical Coahuiltecans (e.g., Flores 1995a; Hester 1986b; Mallouf 1986; Schuetz 1968, 1974). Humphreys’ more detailed study, her 1971 thesis, referred to the Native American skeletal remains as representative of Coahuiltecan Indians, although she recognized that the population was quite diverse. Most recent studies, however, downplay a “Coahuiltecan” connection and call attention to the heterogeneous nature of the mission’s Native American skeletal population.

Additional bioarchaeological studies were undertaken during the late 1980s and 1990s. NAGPRA was passed in 1990. Efforts by indigenous groups to claim reburial rights were initially tied to NAGPRA (AIT 1996), but it soon became clear that this case was not a NAGPRA issue. THC noted appropriately that Coahuiltecans were not among the federally recognized tribes and encouraged Native American groups to address issues of federal recognition (Tunnell 1994). NPS reported that the remains had been recovered prior to NPS assuming any management control; thus, reburial issues were beyond NPS’ purview. NPS began to manage part of the mission grounds as part of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park in 1978, and averred in accordance with NAGPRA’s provisions that: (1) the remains and funerary objects had been recovered prior to NPS assuming any management control; (2) they never had legal possession of remains and funerary objects from the mission compound, due to their management agreement with the Church; and (3) accordingly, reburial issues were beyond NPS’ purview (Amdor 1995). By the mid1990s, the State had relinquished its claim to the human remains and recognized that ownership and legal control rested with the Catholic Church. The Church maintained its position that the reburial issue was not NAGPRA-related and that only the Archdiocese had standing to seek the return of the remains and that it would continue to do so. Representatives contended that NAGPRA is not applicable to Native American remains

LINEAL DESCENT, CULTURAL AFFILIATION, AND NAGPRARELATED CONCERNS Questions about lineal descent, cultural affiliation, and the scientific importance of human remains recovered in the late 1960s from Mission San Juan resurfaced in 1986. It was then that the San Antonio Archdiocese expressed its intent to the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to rebury the human remains that had been recovered during Schuetz’s excavations (Mallouf 1986). At that time, THC maintained that comprehensive analyses still needed to be undertaken. THC recommended that after the studies were completed questions about final disposition of the remains should be discussed by representatives of the Archdiocese, UTSA

NAGPRA does not appear to be applicable to human remains and associated Funerary objects from Mission San Juan that are in the legal possession of the Catholic Church.


and associated funerary objects from Mission San Juan that are in its legal possession. Although the Act applies to any museum, agency, or institution that received federal funding, the Church also maintains that it is not a federal repository, therefore NAGPRA does apply to human remains and associated funerary objects from the mission (Flores 1995a, 1995b). NAGPRA would apply, nonetheless, if the recovered remains were in legal “possession” of UTSA (a federally funded facility) or NPS (a federal agency), as opposed to the San Antonio Archdiocese (i.e., the Catholic Church). NAGPRA’s museum provision specifically excludes on-loan collections: “Generally, a museum or Federal agency would not be considered to have possession of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony on loan from another individual, museum, or Federal agency” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:195). Insofar as the church “loaned” human remains and associated funerary objects to UTSA, but maintained “possession” of them, the Act does not appear to apply because neither UTSA nor SAAN can be said to be in legal possession of them (also see Chapter 1). Accordingly, the Catholic Church can be said to have been in possession and control of the human remains excavated in the late 1960s and early 1970s from mission grounds. These remains were reinterred in November 1999 when Church officials and members of AIT-SCM and Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation participated in reburial services. Presumably, the Church is also in possession and control of the associated funerary objects that are scheduled for reburial, but are still on loan to UTSA (Thoms 2000). Transfer of the human remains from UTSA to the Church and then to members of the Native American groups was handled as an entirely private matter by officials of the San Antonio Archdiocese. The remains were also privately prepared for

reburial by members of the Native American groups representing the descendants. Accordingly, records pertaining to the number and condition of the reburied remains were not available to the present project’s researchers. It is worth noting here that reburial ceremonies took place at Mission San Juan during the mid-eighteenth century as well. Archaeological evidence indicates exhumation of individuals interred in cemeteries associated with the original jacal church and the first stone church, both of which are located within the existing compound. Exhumations probably occurred in conjunction with the dismantling of these and related facilities and requisite desanctification of the respective cemeteries (Schuetz 1980a). The exhumed remains appear to have been reburied in the floor of the extant church and possibly at the “unfinished” church (Schuetz 1974, 1980a). Establishment of cultural affiliation under provisions of NAGPRA is not directly applicable to human remains or associated funerary objects from San Juan that are attributable to geographic Coahuiltecans. NAGPRA’s cultural affiliation component is not directly applicable to reburial issues at Mission San Juan because Coahuiltecans, by any name, are not among the federally recognized tribes. It is important to note, however, that a potentially affiliated group took a first step in 1997 towards a long and strictly regulated process to obtain federal recognition. The current process (Part 83 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations) was established by the BIA’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Research in 1978, revised in 1994, and became effective on March 25, 1994 (Gardner et al. 2000:33-35). On December 3, 1997, the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation (closely associated with


AIT-SCM) submitted a Letter of Intent to Petition to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs of the Department of Interior. As of April 2000, the group had not submitted supporting documentation, without which the process cannot proceed (U.S. Department of the Interior 2000). A recent study of cultural affiliation conducted for Fort Sam Houston and Camp Bullis Training Site, both of which are located in the greater San Antonio area, recommended that groups not currently recognized, such as the Coahuiltecans, consult with federally recognized tribes and seek their formal sponsorship. The intent of establishing such a relationship is to afford a formal opportunity for unrecognized tribes to address NAGPRA issues. As a precedent for this approach, the study pointed to a Lipan Apache group, not currently recognized as a separate tribe, who had established a formal working relationship with the federally recognized Mescalero Apache Tribe (Gardner et al. 2000:112). As noted in Chapter 1, the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation recently requested and was granted a formal sponsor relationship with the federally recognized Wichita Tribe based in Anadarko, Oklahoma (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 2000; Appendix H). Their request was based in part on historical evidence that the Wichita Tribe assimilated the Cantona, a group possibility affiliated with Coahuiltecans (Gardner et al. 2000:4246). The resolution noted “that the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes hereby sponsor the participation of The Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation in all official and appropriate matters involving their traditional homeland to include properties owned and controlled by the U.S. Government (Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 2000; Appendix H). As such, it appears to open a cultural-affiliation door, albeit indirectly, to NAGPRA’s applicability to human remains and funerary objects

recovered from Mission San Juan that can be attributed to geographic Coahuiltecans. NAGPRA clearly applies to human remains and associated funerary objects discovered on NPS-owned land at Mission San Juan, subsequent toeEnactment in 1990. The property from which the human remains were recovered during archaeological excavations in 1967, 1969, and 1971 is now and has long been owned by the Catholic Church. It was not until 1978 that NPS began to acquire any property around the compound of Mission San Juan. Moreover, NAGPRA’s federal or tribal land requirement applies only to the excavation or inadvertent discovery of human remains subsequent to the Act’s enactment in 1990 (Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990:3049; U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:214-215). Although the Catholic Church owns the compound and most of the land adjacent to it, NPS owns much of the surrounding property (see Figure 2). Native American remains, as well as associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony, found on NPS property are subject to NAGPRA and its regulations should be followed accordingly. Based on previous archaeological investigations, it is likely that Native American gravesites are present on NPS property at Mission San Juan. Remains of a single unidentified Native American female were discovered inadvertently during archaeological monitoring of a drainage channel construction project southwest of the compound and along the Church-NPS property line (Francis 2000). The monitoring project was conducted for SAAN under Texas Antiquities Permit 1748. As noted, the remains were returned to SAAN following a brief analysis and subsequently reinterred with approval of THC (Francis 2000:34).


Had this discovery been subject to NAGPRA, it would have been necessary to provide immediate telephone notification and follow-up written notification to SAAN as well as to Indian tribes likely to be culturally affiliated with the remains. Subsequent consultation should include representatives of tribes that aboriginally occupied the area. Based on cultural affiliation studies carried out for nearby federal lands (Fort Sam Houston and Camp Bullis), this could include the Caddo, Mescalero Apache, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Tonkawa, Comanche, and Kiowa (Gardner et al. 2000). Inclusion of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes might well lead to involvement of the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation, as per the Tribes’ sponsorship resolution (cf. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 2000). NAGPRA’s lineal descent component is not yet applicable to human remains or associated funerary objects from Mission San Juan. NAGPRA does not preclude repatriation of human remains to lineal descendants of Native Americans, whether or not they are members of federally recognized tribes, as long as they meet the criteria of lineal descendants as defined by the act and its regulations. Indeed, lineal descendants who are not members of recognized tribes have priority for repatriation over a tribe’s repatriation claim under cultural affiliation. Importantly, however, the standard for determining lineal descent, “requires that the earlier person be identified as an individual whose descendants can be traced” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1999:214). At Mission San Juan, skeletal remains of many individuals along with associated funerary objects were recovered, but none of the grave pits was marked with headstones or other means of denoting whose body was interred there. Moreover, none of the

funerary analyzed as part of Schuetz’s (1968, 1969, 1974, 1980a) investigations was marked in such a fashion as to identify the interred individual by name. Although some of the remains have undergone DNA analysis, the results have not been applied to issues of lineal descent. From the Church’s burial records, the names of hundreds of individuals interred at the mission are known, although it is seldom clear exactly where they were buried. Nonetheless, there is every reason to believe that at least some of the named individuals were among those whose remains were recovered by Schuetz during archaeological excavations of several church floors and adjacent areas. Research conducted for the present study demonstrates that there are indeed living descendants of San Juan’s eighteenth and early nineteenth century community members, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that some of them descended in part from Native Americans. As such, there can be little doubt that today there are de facto lineal descendants of individuals whose bodies were buried, exhumed, studied, and reburied at Mission San Juan (Figure 33). For the present time, all burials recovered from Mission San Juan, and subsequently reburied, represent remains of unknown individuals to whom lineal descent has not been traced in a manner that meets NAGPRA’s definition of a lineal descendant. The situation is somewhat analogous to a mass grave wherein the names of some individuals buried therein are known, but none of the individual remains has been traced to a known person. There does seem to be a potential, however, for DNA or similar studies to identify individual Native Americans interred at the mission, as well as their direct lineal descendants among today’s population. To the extent that such studies are successful, the door would be open to NAGPRA-related repatriation under a claim(s) of lineal descent, assuming that such action would be consistent with Church


ownership and legal possession of the remains and funerary objects. Lineal descent from geographically-defined Coahuiltecans is probable. Information compiled and reviewed for this project is entirely consistent with a premise that there are people living today whose ancestors can be traced reliably to Mission San Juan Capistrano during the Spanish Colonial era. Among those are the descendants of Santiago Díaz and Maria Josefa Gutiérrez who were interviewed as part of the present project. It must be emphasized, however, that our research effort failed to identify any member of the Díaz-Gutiérrez family as being from a particular band of mission Indians. Insofar as ethnic identities were often obscured by labeling Indians who had successfully undergone missionization as mestizos y mulattos or Spaniards, we do not know with certainty that members of the Díaz-Gutiérrez family were not at least in part Native Americans. In any case, our research has opened doors to further research that may yet trace descendants of San Antonio’s mission Indians to a known neophyte at a particular mission(see “Recommendations for Management and Additional Research”). A preponderance of evidence compiled for the present project leaves little doubt that there are people living today who are biologically related to San Juan’s eighteenth and nineteenth century residents who would fall under the rubrics of geographical and Ladino Coahuiltecans, as defined herein. Research by Schuetz (1980a), Rock (1999), and others (e.g., Poyo and Hinojosa 1991) indicates that acculturation and assimilation processes in San Antonio were efficient enough to effectively integrate substantial numbers of Ladino Coahuiltecans into the Tejano community. Insofar as neo-organized Coahuiltecans were the primary progenitors of Ladino Coahuiltecans, we can safely

conclude that among San Juan’s community members today there are likely to be lineal descendants of geographically defined Coahuiltecans. While Coahuiltecans, by this or any other name, are not among the federally recognized Indian groups, they have long been recognized as the Indian people who were missionized at Mission San Juan. Seen from this perspective, lineal descent is applicable to the spirit of NAGPRA. Cultural affiliation, in general, is probable between segments of the contemporary San Juan community (e.g., theTap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation and the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan) and the inhabitants of the mssion at the time of the burials in question, including geographic Coahuiltecans. Kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral traditions, and historical information were reviewed during the course of the present project. All of these information sources are considered to be appropriate lines of evidence for NAGPRA-related cultural affiliation. Results of this review point toward the existence of general cultural affiliations between some members of Native American groups associated with Mission San Juan and Ladino Coahuiltecans who were missionized there. There also seem to be links, including pottery and lithic traditions, that tie Ladino Coahuiltecans to identifiable earlier groups, neo-organized as well as aboriginal Coahuiltecans. In this sense, present-day Indian groups can be seen as having possible cultural affiliation with identifiable earlier groups. However, no evidence was found to indicate that native ceramic and lithic traditions are still being practiced by members of present-day Native American groups associated with the mission. Insofar as there may be members of the Native American Church among the resurgent


Coahuiltecans, there is a clear cultural link— through the role of peyote in religious ceremonies—with earlier geographically defined Coahuiltecan groups. Both Ladino and neo-organized Coahuiltecans are known to have used peyote in religious ceremonies, as do members of the Native American Church. Another possible cultural tie between resurgent and neo-organized Coahuiltecans is the “threatening” behavior reportedly used to chase away stormy weather. The strongest tie, however, that seems to bind present-day community members to mission Indians, by whatever name, is their keen sense of a deeply rooted Native American heritage. Seen in this light, cultural affiliation is quite probable and as such this linkage is also consistent with the spirit of NAGPRA. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH It is recommended that representatives of San Antonio Missions National Historical Park continue and expand their consultation with Native American groups with potential associations with Mission San Juan and the other missions in the park. Among the groups identified during the course of the present study with values and concerns that are known to or may encompass the missions are: (1) American Indians in Texas-Spanish Colonial Missions, Inc.; (2) the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation; (3) the Pamaque Band of Mission San Juan; (4) the Lipan Apache Band of Texas; and (5) the Tribal Council of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas; (6) Tonkawa Tribe, Tonkawa, Oklahoma; and (7) the Ebab Choctaw-Apache Tribe, Zwolle, Louisiana (see Appendices F and G for additional information). Other groups and individuals with potential interests should be sought out as well, including the Caddo, Mescalero Apache, Wichita and Affiliated

Tribes, Tonkawa, Comanche, and Kiowa, all of whom are known to have occupied territory in the vicinity of Mission San Juan during the historic era. As noted in media reports that surrounded the reburial ceremonies in November, 1999 (Barrios 1999a, 1999b; see Chapter 3), and as shown in correspondence (e.g., Gebehart 1994), there is dissension, sometimes considerable, among today’s descendants of geographical Coahuiltecans and other groups historically linked to San Antonio’s mission Indians. That diversity continues within what for centuries has been a linguistically and ethnically diverse community of geographically united Coahuiltecans should not surprise us. Such diversity among members of loosely bound groups can be seen as a testament to their own ancestors’ abilities to survive in the face of cultural change. It also testifies to the tenacity of Native Americans in general and especially to their quests to maintain and renew cultural identity in the face of great diversity. Future research efforts should include implementation of Schuetz’s call in 1968 for a major study to identify, locate, and gather oral histories from individuals who trace their ancestry to San Juan’s mission Indians, as well as other people of Native American lineage who lived there during the Spanish Colonial period. Most of the older descendants she met there 30 years ago have since died, but their descendants in turn may still be in the area and be sources of additional information about the values and concerns of people traditionally associated with the mission. Lineal descent can also be traced by beginning with individuals identified in Spanish Colonial records and tracing them through the centuries to their present-day descendants. Toward that end, genealogical investigations should be undertaken of


individual Indians identified in San Juan’s secularization records, as well as of Indians identified in the records from other San Antonio missions. In 1968, Schuetz (1968:58-60) recommended that such a study focus on four or five Indians who remained at the mission after initial secularization and appeared in church and census records as late as 1824. Benavides noted in the present study (Chapter 6) that although records from Missions San Juan and Espada are and incomplete, they are useful in establishing lineal descent from former mission Indians. He also recommended that research efforts focus on missions Concepción and San José where the records are more complete and the mission Indian populations were larger. Lineal descent and cultural affiliation studies at other missions would be greatly facilitated by the availability of detailed historical reports for each mission. Of the literature reviewed for the present project, Rock’s comprehensive history of Mission San Juan was especially important. It revealed details not found in other sources, including information about Indian groups who came to live there, about recruiting expeditions to the coast and off-shore islands, about the difficulties of maintaining Indian populations, and about the relationships among Indians at different missions in south Texas and northeast Mexico. Another avenue for future research about linkages between mission Indians, or other Indians who lived at the mission, and their present-day descendants is the role of peyote in religious ceremonies and for other purposes (Tunnell 2000). Chroniclers of the Spanish Colonial era documented the importance of peyote in the mitotes, or ceremonies, among native people throughout much of south Texas. Catholic priests complained throughout the Colonial Period that mission

Indians, along with their gentile relatives, continued to use peyote and to celebrate their mitotes even as they practiced Catholicism (Schuetz 1980b). A 1921 San Antonio newspaper article reported that thousands of Native Americans had traveled to the city to participate in Christian and native religious ceremonies (Thoms 1997). While the statements are not explicit about the nature of native ceremonies, they seem to imply that peyote may have been an integral part of them. In a recent conversation with Thoms, an AIT-SCM member recalled that when he was a boy his grandmother used peyote as an ointment to relieve pain from a burn he had received. One of the individuals interviewed for the present project reported having grandparents whom “would have their peyote ceremonies (also see interviewee transcript, Appendix E).” Within the last decade Native American Church ceremonies that traditionally incorporate the use of peyote have been held at Mission San Juan. Efforts should also be undertaken to assess Schuetz’s suggestions that cemeteries dating to the Spanish Colonial era may be located within the presently enclosed area south of the unfinished church and in the entire plaza area associated with the first stone church. Judging from the discovery of a Native American burial well to the southwest of the compound (Francis 2000), along the NPS-Church property line, there may be cemeteries on NPS-owned properties as well. If present, these cemeteries would certainly merit preservation and protection. Remote sensing techniques, including subsurface interface radar, should be explored as the primary means by which to identify burial sites. It also may be necessary, however, to conduct exploratory excavations to verify the presence of graves and firmly establish the areal extent of any identified cemeteries.

References – Page 149

REFERENCES CITED Almaraz, F. D. 1989 The San Antonio Missions and Their System of Land Tenure. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1992 Faith Along a River: Franciscan Missions of Spanish Colonial San Antonio, 17181836, Vols. 1-2. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. Amdor, R. C. 1995 Letter from R. C. Amdor, Superintendent of the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, to Raymond Hernandez, of the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions, regarding human remains and funerary objects recovered from Mission San Juan and stating that the Catholic Church, not SAAN, had legal standing in the matter of reburial issues, dated March 23, 1995. Copy on file at San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. American Indian-Alaskan Native Employees Association 2000 Home page. August 1. American Indians of Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions 1996 Coahuiltecan Journal: A Voice of Indigenous Peoples. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. American Indian Movement 2000 Mission Statement. American Indian Movement Texas Chapter. . November. Also see 2001 Home page. . January. Anderson, C. 1995 Indian Descendants Incorporated into the Mission Trails Project. San Antonio Express-News 29 November: 3B. Atkinson, M. J. 1935 The Texas Indians. The Naylor Company, San Antonio. Barnhart, C. L. (editor) 1947 The American College Dictionary. Random House, New York.

Page 150 – References

Barrios, J. 1999a Indian Remains’ Reburial Today. San Antonio Express News 27 November. 1999b Long Trek for Bones is Ended. San Antonio Express News 26 November. Barth, F. 1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by F. Barth, pp. 9-38. Allen & Unwin, London. Benavides, A. (compiler and editor) 1989 The Béxar Archives, 1717-1836: A Name Guide. University of Texas Press, Austin. Berlandier, J. L. 1969 [1830] The Indians of Texas in 1830, edited by J. C. Ewers. Translated by P. R. Leclercq. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Béxar Archives at the University of Texas Archives 1967-1970 172 reels, 35 mm. Austin: [University of Texas Library]. Black, S. L. 1989 South Texas Plains. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 39-62. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33, Fayetteville. Britten, T. A. 1999 A Brief History of the Seminole-Negro Indian Scouts. Native American Studies, Vol. 7. The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York. Brooks, J. F. 1996 Introduction. In Andele the Mexican-Kiowa Captive, by J. J. Methvin [1899], pp. 121. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Bruseth, J. and N. Kenmotsu 1993 From Naguatex to the River Daycao: The Route of the Hernando de Soto Expedition Through Texas. North American Archaeologist 14(3):199-225. Cadena, G.V. n.d. Family sheets created by genealogist Gloria V. Cadena from numerous sources. San Antonio.


Campbell, L. 1996 Coahuiltecan: A Closer Look. Anthropological Linguistics 38(4): 620-634. Campbell, T. N. 1971 Systematized Ethnohistory and Prehistoric Culture Sequences in Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 43:1-11. 1977 Ethnic Identities of Extinct Coahuiltecan Populations: Case of the Juanca Indians. The Pearce Sellards Series 26. Texas Memorial Museum, Austin. 1988 Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico, Selected Writings of Thomas Nolan Campbell. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin. 1983 Coahuiltecans and Their Neighbors. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 343-358. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Campbell, T. N. and T. J. Campbell 1981 Cabeza de Vaca Among the Indians of Southern Texas. In Historic Indian Groups of the Choke Canyon Reservoir and Surrounding Area, Southern Texas, edited by Center for Archaeological Research, Choke Canyon Series, 1:3-40, University of Texas at San Antonio. 1996 Indian Groups Associated with Spanish Missions of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Special Report No.16. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Originally published 1985, Special Report No. 16, Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Cargill, D. A. 1996 Stable Isotope Analysis at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio. Cargill, D. A. and R. C. Robinson 2000 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. El Carmen Church (Losoya, Texas). Sacramental Registers. Baptismal Records (BAP). 1855-1891 [JOL, 1982]. 1894-1907 [JOL, 1982]. Marriage Records (MR).

1855-1950 [JOL, 1982].

Burial Records (BUR).

1856-1925 [JOL, 1988].


Casis, L. (translator) 1916 Letter of Fray Damian Massanet to Don Carlos Siguenza Relative to the Discovery of the Bay of Espíritu Santo. In Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, edited by H. E. Bolton, pp. 353-387. Scribner’s, New York. Castañeda, C. E. 1937 A Report on the Spanish Archives in San Antonio, Texas. Yanaguana Society, San Antonio. 1976 Our Catholic Heritage in Texas, 1519-1936. 7 vols. Reprinted. Arno Press, New York. Originally published 1936, Von Boeckmann-Jones Company, Austin. Census [C] [All censuses will be noted in text with abbreviations and dates, as in “C-SJ 11/17/1790.” Abbreviations: Béxar Archives (1717-1836), Barker Texas History Center, Center for American History, University of Texas at Austin [BA]; Nacogdoches Archives, Texas State Archives (microfilm; Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin) [NA]; Our Lady of the Lake University (San Antonio) [OLLU]; Archivo General de Indias, Guadalajara legajo 283 (microfilm; Institute of Texan Cultures) [AGI/ITC]; and as noted below. Mission Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción [C]. 1790 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… Mission San Antonio de Valero [SAV]. 1790 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… Mission San Francisco de la Espada [SFE]. 1790 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… 11/22/1790 BA Padrón de los hijos de la misión… 1792 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… 12/31/1792 BA Padrón de las almas que existía… 12/31/1793a BA Padrón de las almas que tiene… [signed copy]. 12/31/1793b BA Padrón de las almas que existía… [unsigned copy]. 12/31/1794 BA Padrón de las almas que tiene este pueblo… 12/31/1795 BA Padrón… 12/31/1796 BA Padrón de las almas que tiene este pueblo… 12/31/1797 BA Padrón de las almas que tiene este pueblo… 12/31/1803 BA Padrón de las almas que tiene este pueblo… 1804 NA Estado que manifiesta el número de almas… 1808 BA Estado que manifiesta el número de indios… 1815 BA Padrón del número de almas… 2/27/1815 BA Padrón de las familias indias y españolas avencindados… 7/6/1817 BA Padrón del número de familias…de indios y españoles agregados… 11/12/1818 NA Indios de la misión…


Mission San Francisco de la Espada [SFE]. 1819 BA Padrón de la misión de la Espada y de San Juan… [12/4/1819?] BA Padrón… [draft] 3/20/1826 BA Padrón que manifiesta el número de personas… Mission San José y San Miguel de Aguayo[SJ]. 1790 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… 12/31/1793a NA Padrón de las almas que existen… [unsigned copy]. 12/31/1793b NA Padrón de las almas que existen… [signed copy]. 6/13/1815 BA Padrón del número de almas… 11/13/1818 BA Indios de la misión… Mission San Juan Capistrano [SJC]. 1772 OLLU Inventory of 1772…, trans. Benedict Leutenegger and Carmelita M. Casso, reproduced in Rock 1999: 47-53. 11/17/1790 NA Padrón general del número, estado y condición de gente… 1790 BA [Statistical census of the] Pueblo… 12/31/1792 BA Padrón de las almas que existía… 12/31/1793a NA Padrón de las almas que existen… [signed copy]. 12/31/1793b NA Padrón de las almas que existen… [unsigned copy]. 12/31/1794 NA Padrón del número de almas que tiene este pueblo… 12/31/1795 NA Padrón de las almas que tiene este pueblo… 1/1/1797 NA Estado que manifiesta el número de almas… 1/1/1798 NA Estado que manifiesta el número de almas… 12/25/1804 BA Estado que manifiesta el número de almas… 1808 BA Estado que manifiesta el número de indios… 6/7/1809 BA Padrón general de los individuos… 2/27/1815 BA Padrón de las familias indias y españolas agregados… 6/13/1815 BA Padrón del número de almas… 7/6/1817 BA Padrón del número de familias…de indios y españoles agregados… 11/12/1818 BA Indios de la misión… 1819 BA Padrón de la misión de la Espada y de San Juan… 12/2/1819 BA Padrón formado…de las familias avecindadas… 4/27/1823 BA Padrón del número de almas… 3/19/1826 BA Padrón que manifiesta el número de personas… Missions of San Fernando de Béxar [MSFB]. 12/31/1804 BA Noticia de las misiones… [statistical summary]. 6/19/1809 BA Manuel de Salcedo’s census report of the four missions. Villa de San Fernando de Béxar [Austria], villa [SFB]. 7/1-6/1779 AGI/ITC Extracto general de tropa y vezindario… 12/31/1792 NA Padrón de las almas que existen… 12/31/1793 BA Padrón de las almas que hay… 12/31/1795 BA Padrón de las almas que hay…


Villa de San Fernando de Béxar [Austria], villa [SFB]. 12/31/1796 BA Padrón de las familias y almas que hay… 12/31/1797 BA Padrón de las [almas] de esta villa… 12/31/1803 BA Padrón de las familias que hay en esta villa… Chabot, F. C. 1937 With the Makers of San Antonio; Genealogies of the Early Latin, Anglo-American, and German Families with Occasional Biographies, Each Group being Prefaced with a Brief Historical Sketch and Illustrations. Artes Gráficas, San Antonio. Chaney, G. S. 1909 San Antonio: Historical and Modern. Passing Show Publishing Co., San Antonio. Chapa, J. B. 1997 [1690] Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 1630-1690, edited by W. C. Foster. Translated by N. F. Brierly, University of Texas Press, Austin. Chipman, D. E. 1992 Spanish Texas 1519-1821. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coahuiltecan Nation 1995 Resolution of the Coahuiltecan Nation. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. Cohen, J. H. 1999a Cooperation and Community: Economy and Society in Oaxaca. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1999b Pedigree charts of interview participants from Mission San Juan community, San Antonio, for San Juan Lineal Descent Project (Thoms 2000), June-August 1999. Charts on file, Center for Ecological Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, and at San Antonio Missions National Historical Park headquarters, San Antonio, Texas. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1990 Native American Graves and Repatriation Act, Public Law 101-601, November 16, 1990. House Reports, No. 101-877. Congressional Report, vol. 136 (1990). Comuzzie, A. G. 1987 The Bioarchaeology of Blue Bayou: A Late Prehistoric Mortuary Site from Victoria County, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.


Corner, W. 1890 San Antonio de Béxar. Bainbridge and Corner, San Antonio. Covey, C. (translator and annotator) 1961 Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America. Collier Books, New York. Reprinted 1993. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cruz, G. R. 1983 San Antonio Missions National Historical Park: A Commitment to Research. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio, Texas. De la Teja, J. F. 1995 San Antonio de Béxar: A Community on New Spain’s Northern Frontier. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. de Vergara, G. 1965 [1732] El Cuadernillo de la lengua de los indios pajalates (1732) y El confesonario de indios en lengua coahuilteca, edited by E. del Hoyo. Publicaciones del Instituto Technológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Serie Historia 3. Monterrey, Mexico. de Zavala, A. 1917 History and Legends of the Alamo and Other Missions In and Around San Antonio. Adina de Zavala, San Antonio. Domenech, L’A. E. 1857 Journal d’un Missionaire au Texas et au Mexique, 1846-1852. Librairie de Gaume Frères, Paris. Doran, G. H. 1975 The Long Bones of the Texas Indians. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Doughty, R. W. 1987 At Home in Texas: Early Views of the Land. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Durst, J. J. 1999 Recent Excavations at Mission San Juan de Capistrano. Cultural Resources Management News and Views 11(1):31-33.


Edwards, D. B. 1990 [1836] The History of Texas: Or, the Emigrant’s, Farmer’s, and Politician’s Guide to the Character, Climate, Soil, and Productions of that Country: Arranged Geographically from Personal Observations and Experience. Reprinted, Texas State Historical Association, Austin. Originally published 1836, J. A. James, Cincinnati. 1850 Census of Bexar County, Texas. Transcribed by L. Russell. San Antonio, Texas: 1 December 1966. 1880 Census Records of South Bexar County. Losoya-Thelma Journal 1:3 (March 1996), 828; 1:4 (March 1997), 5-18. England, N. 1995 Urban Indians: Trails of Hope. Texas Highways 42(10):32-41. Escobedo, J. T. 1985 The Post-Colonial House: An Excavation Report. Manuscript on file, headquarters, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Ewers, J. C. 1973 The Influences of Epidemics on the Indian Populations and Cultures of Texas. Plains Anthropologist 18:104-115. Favata, M. A. and J. B. Fernández 1993 The Account: Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca’s Relación. Arte Público, Houston. Flores, P. K. 1995a Letter from the Archbishop of the San Antonio Archdiocese to Raymond Hernández, President of American Indians in Texas at Spanish Colonial Missions, asserting the Church’s legal standing as the only group with rights to seek the return of human remains recovered from Mission San Juan, dated May 10, 1995. Copy on file at the Chancery Office, Archdiocese of San Antonio, San Antonio. 1995b Letter from the Archbishop of the San Antonio Archdiocese to Reverend Jorge Baistra, parish priest at San Juan Capistrano Mission, asserting that NAGPRA is not applicable to the human remains recovered from Mission San Juan during archaeological excavations, dated June 9, 1995. Copy on file at the Chancery Office, Archdiocese of San Antonio, San Antonio. Foik, P. J. 1933 Captain Don Domingo Ramón’s Diary of His Expedition into Texas in 1716. Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 2(5):2-23.


Fontana, B. L. 1986 Indians and Missionaries of the Southwest during the Spanish Years: Cross Cultural Perceptions and Misperceptions. Proceedings of the 1984 and 1985 San Antonio Missions Research Conferences, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Forrestal, P. P. 1931 The Solís Diary of 1767. Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 1(4):2-42. 1935 Peña’s Diary of the Aguayo Expedition. Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 2(7):1-68. Foster, W. C. 1995 Spanish Expeditions into Texas, 1689-1786. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1997a Introduction. In Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 1630-1690, pp. 5-25, by J. B. Chapa, edited by W. C. Foster. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1997b Indian Tribes Reported in Captain Alonso de León’s Discourses, Juan Bautista Chapa’s Historia, and General Alonso de León’s Revised 1690 Expedition Diary. In Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 1630-1690, pp. 173-190, by J. B. Chapa, edited by W. C. Foster. University of Texas Press, Austin. Fox, A. A. 1989 Historic Anglo-European Exploration and Colonization. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 85-92. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33, Fayetteville. 1993 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring in Connection with a Drainage Project at Mission San Juan Capistrano San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report No. 217. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Fox, D. E. 1983 Traces of Texas History: Archaeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years. Corona Publishing Co., San Antonio. Francis, J. R. 1999 Temporal Trends in Mission Populations: A Comparison of Pathological Frequencies and Long Bone Length at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology University of Texas at San Antonio.


Francis, J. R. 2000 Isolated Burial Analysis. In Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, by D. A. Cargill and R. C. Robinson, Appendix IV. Archaeological Survey Report No. 296. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Frye R. G., K. L. Brown, and C. A. McMahan 1984 The Vegetation Types of Texas (a separate map). In The Vegetation Types of Texas, Including Cropland: An Illustrated Synopsis to Accompany the Map, edited by C. A. McMahan, R. G. Frye, and K. L. Brown. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. Gaillard, F. 1998 As Long as the Waters Flow: Native Americans in the South and East. J. F. Blair, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. García, B. 1760 Manual para administrar los santos sacramentos de penitencia, eucharistia, extremauncion, y matrimonio: dar gracias después de comulgar, y ayudara bien morir a los indios de las naciones: Pajalates, Orejonjes, Pacaos, Pacóas, Tilijayas, Alasapas, Pausanes, y otras muchas diferentes, que se hallan en las Misiones del Rio de San Antonio, y Rio Grande, pertenecientes a el Colegio de la Santíssima Cruz de la Ciudad de Queretaro, como son: los Pacuâches, Mescâles, Pampôpas, Tâcames, Chayopînes, Venados, Pamâques, y toda la juventud de Pihuiques, Borrados, Sanipaos, y Manos de Perro. Mexico. Gardner, K. M., E. F. Gadus, and K. W. Kibler 2000 Cultural Affiliation Overview for Fort Sam Houston and Camp Bullis Training Site, Bexar and Comal Counties. Prepared by Prewitt and Associates, Inc., Cultural Resources Service, Austin, Texas, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Manuscript on file at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Fort Worth. Gatschet, A. S. 1891 The Karankawa Indians: The Coast People of Texas. Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum Vol. 1, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge. Gebehart, G. J. 1994 Letter from the President of the Inter-Tribal Council of American Indians, Inc. and the San Antonio Council of Native Americans, Inc. to R. Hard, Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, regarding the return of human remains recovered from Mission San Juan, dated September 19, 1994. Copy on file at the Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Gente de Razón: People of the Missions 1998 Videocassette. Dir. J. Grabowska, Southwest Parks and Monuments Association for the National Park Service, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park. (MLA) 24 min.


Goddard, I. 1979 The Languages of South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, edited by L. Campbell and M. Mithun, pp. 355-389. University of Texas Press, Austin. Grahmann, F. 1969 Inter-office Correspondence from Father Grahmann to the Archbishop concerning the contract with the Witte Museum relative to discoveries of artifacts at Mission San Juan Capistrano, dated March 25, 1969. Copy on file at the Chancery Office, Archdiocese of San Antonio, San Antonio. Green, P. 1946 San Antonio, City in the Sun. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. Gregory, H. F. 1983 Los Adaes: The Archaeology of an Ethnic Enclave. Geoscience and Man 23:53-57. 2001 “The Ebarb Choctaw-Apache Tribe.” March 17. Gross, K. J. 1998 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring for a Proposed Drainage Channel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report No. 283. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Guerra, C. 1994 Indian Heritage Runs Deep Among San Antonians. Austin American Statesman 26 February:A11. Gutiérrez-Mier, J. 2000 Groups Issue Plea for Statues. San Antonio Express-News 25 August. . August. Habig, M. A. 1976 The Alamo Chain of Missions: A History of San Antonio’s Five Old Missions, revised edition. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. Hall, J. 1986 250-Year Old Bones of Indian Buried in Mission Chapel: Tribal Representatives Participate. San Antonio Light 3 August:Metro. Handlers, R. 1988 Nationalism and Politics of Culture in Quebec. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.


Hester, T. R. 1980 Digging into South Texas Prehistory. Corona Publishing Co., San Antonio. 1981 The Lithic Technology of Mission Indians in Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Lithic Technology 6(1-2):9-13. 1986a Spain Meets America: The Archaeology of Spanish-Indian Relations. Paper presented at the Spanish Heritage in Texas Symposium, Texas A&M University, College Station. 1986b Letter from the Director of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Texas at San Antonio to D. G. Steele at the Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University regarding bioarchaeological studies of human remains from Mission San Juan, dated June 24, 1986. Copy on file at the Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. 1989a Texas and Northeastern Mexico: An Overview. In Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 191-211. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 1989b Historic Native American Populations. In From the Gulf to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Cleland, pp. 77-84. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33, Fayetteville. 1989c Perspectives on the Material Culture of the Mission Indians of the Texas-Northeastern Mexico Borderlands. In Columbian Consequences, Vol. 1: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by D. H. Thomas, pp. 213-230. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 1998 “Coahuiltecan”: A Critical Review of an Inappropriate Ethnic Label. La Tierra 25(4):3-7. 1999 Artifacts, Archaeology, and Cabeza de Vaca in Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 70(1999):17-25. 2000 Archeological Roots. Discovery. Hester, T. R. and D. G. Steele 1989 The Interaction of Archaeology and Bioarchaeology: Some Observations. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 141-142. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Fayetteville, Arkansas.


Hinojosa, G. M. and A. A. Fox 1991 Indians and Their Culture in San Fernando de Béxar. In Tejano Origins in EighteenthCentury San Antonio, edited by G.E. Poyo and G.M. Hinojosa, pp. 105-120. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hobsbawn, E. and T. Ranger (editors) 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hodge, F. W. (editor) 1907 Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, In Two Parts, Part 1. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 30. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. Humphreys, S. B. 1969 Human Skeletal Material from San Juan Capistrano Mission. In The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Vol. 2. Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians, edited by M. K. Schuetz, Appendix C, pp. 116-124. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. 1971 The Skeletal Biology of Eighteenth Century Coahuiltecan Indians from San Juan Capistrano Mission, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Johnson, L. 1994 The Life and Times of Toyah-Culture Folk: The Buckhollow Encampment Site, 41KM16, Kimble County, Texas. Office of the State Archaeologist Report 38. Texas Department of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission, Austin. Johnston, L. C. 1947 San Antonio, St. Anthony’s Town. Librarians’ Council, San Antonio. Killian, M. 1982 Montes Family Generations. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. King, S. S. 1909 Texas Under Six Flags. In San Antonio, Historical and Modern, pp. 9-11. Passing Show Publishing Co., San Antonio. Kress, M. K. (translator) and M. A. Hatcher 1931 Diary of a Visit of Inspection of the Texas Missions Made by Fray Gaspar José de Solís in the Year 1767-68. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 35(1):28-76.


Krieger, A. D. 1955 Un Nuevo Estudio de la Ruta Seguida por Cabeza de Vaca, a Través de Norte América. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Kroeber, A. L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 38. University of California, Berkeley. Leal, C. (compiler and translator) 1979 Translations of Statistical and Census Reports of Texas, 1782-1836; and Sources Documenting the Black in Texas, 1603-1803. 3 reels, 35 mm. University of Texas at San Antonio, Institute of Texan Cultures. Mallouf, R. J. 1986 Letter from the State Archaeologist at the Texas Historical Commission to Rev. Balthasar Janacek, Director of the Old Spanish Missions for the San Antonio Archdiocese, regarding the Archdiocese’s intent to rebury the human remains recovered during archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan, dated June 25, 1986. Copy on file at the Texas Historical Commission, Austin. Manaster Ramer, A. 1996 Sapir’s Classifications: Coahuiltecan. Anthropological Linguistics 38(1): 1-38. Martínez, Y. 1998 Indios del Norte: Hispanics in the Southwest Rediscover Their Links to Native American Culture. Hispanic July/August:45-48. McCaleb, W. F. 1961 Spanish Missions of Texas. Naylor Co., San Antonio. McCormick, N. F. 1909 San Juan, or Third Mission. In San Antonio, Historical and Modern, p 21. Passing Show Publishing Co., San Antonio. McGraw, A. J. and J. W. Clark 1991 Summary. In A Texas Legacy: The Old San Antonio Road and the Caminos Reales, A Tricentennial History, 1691-1991, edited by A. J. McGraw, J. W. Clark, Jr., and E. A. Robbins, pp. 283-286. Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin. McGraw, A. J., J. W. Clark, Jr., and E. A. Robbins (editors) 1991 A Texas Legacy: The Old San Antonio Road and the Caminos Reales, A Tricentennial History, 1691-1991. Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin.


Mendoza, J. R. 2000 Various family history documents compiled by author. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park headquarters, San Antonio. Miller, E. A. 1989 The Effect of European Contact on the Health of Indigenous Populations in Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. 1994 The Effect of European Contact on the Health of Indigenous Populations in Texas. In Bioarchaeology of Native American Adaptations in the Spanish Borderlands, edited by B. J. Baker and L. Kealhofer, pp. 126-147. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Mitchell, J. L. 1980 Brief Notes on the Archaeology of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4):18-26. Mooney, J. 1928 The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 80(7). Mounger, M. A. 1959 Mission Espíritu Santo of Coastal Texas: An Example of Historic Site Archaeology. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Nash, M. 1989 The Cauldron of Ethnicity in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Newcomb, W. W., Jr. 1961 The Indians of Texas, from Prehistoric to Modern Times. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1983 Karankawa. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 359-367. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1988 Foreward. In The Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico: Selected Writings of Thomas Nolan Campbell, by T. N. Campbell, pp. ix-x. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin. 1993 Historic Indians of Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 64:163.


Nickens, E. 1992 Legacies of Faith. Historic Preservation 44(2):16-16-20. Orozco y Berra, M. 1864 Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. Impr. De J. M. Andrade y F. Escalante, Mexico. Perdue, N. 1986 250-year-old Boxed-up Remains of Indians to be Buried. San Antonio Light 24 July:F6. Powell, J. W. 1891 Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Poyo, G. E. 1983 Immigrants and Integration in Late Eighteenth-Century Béxar. In Tejano Origins in Eighteenth-Century San Antonio, edited by G. E. Poyo and G. M. Hinojosa, pp. 61-83. University of Texas Press, Austin. Poyo, G. E. and G. M. Hinojosa (editors) 1991 Tejano Origins in Eighteenth-Century San Antonio. University of Texas Press, Austin. Procter, B. 1965 San Juan Capistrano. In Six Missions of Texas, edited by J. M. Day, pp. 169-194. Texian Press, Waco. Quezado, J. G. 1999 Los Habitantes: The People of San Juan. Oral History Interviews. In Los Habitantes: A History of Texas’ Mission San Juan Capistrano and Its People, edited by R. Z. Rock, pp. 178-313. In fulfillment of Southwest Parks and Monuments Association Grant # 98-8. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, San Antonio. Ramsdell, C. 1959 San Antonio, a Historical and Pictorial Guide. University of Texas Press, Austin. Reinhard, K. J., B. W. Olive, and D. G. Steele 1989 Bioarchaeological Synthesis. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 129-140. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Fayetteville. 1990 The Bioarcheological Synthesis of the Western Portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In The Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, vol. 2, edited by D. A. Story, J. A. Guy, B. A. Burnett, M. D. Freeman, J. C. Rose, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, and K. J. Reinhard, pp. 419-424. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38. Fayetteville.


Rock, R. Z. 1999 Los Habitantes: A History of Texas’ Mission San Juan Capistrano and Its People. In fulfillment of Southwest Parks and Monuments Association Grant # 98-8. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park. Romero, D. C., Jr. 2000 The Castro Family History of the Lipan Apache Band of Texas. Royce, A. P. 1982 Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Ruecking, F., Jr. 1954a Bands and Band-clusters of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Student Papers in Anthropology 1(2):1-24. Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. 1954b Ceremonies of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 7(3): 330-339. 1955a The Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. 1955b The Social Organization of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 7(4): 357-388. Salinas, M. 1986 Historic Indian Populations of the Rio Grande Delta and Vicinity: An Approach to Definition of Basic Ethnic Units. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. San Antonio Archdiocesan Catholic Archives (San Antonio, Texas) [SAACA]. [The sacramental registers for baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and deaths of the San Antonio missions and the town of San Fernando de Béxar now form part of the San Fernando Cathedral Archives. The originals (which were not consulted) are located at the Catholic Chancery. References in the report refer, principally, to the typescripts and translations created by John O. Leal [JOL]. These are on file at the San Antonio Public Library [SAPL]. Additionally, at least two microfilm sets are available of the original manuscripts: through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and through the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, University of Texas at Austin. Abbreviations will be used as noted above and below.]


Mission Nuestra Señora de la Purísima Concepción [C]. Marriage Records (MR). 1733-1790 [JOL, 1977]. Mission San José y San Miguel de Aguayo [SJ]. Baptismal Records (BAP). 1777-1823 [JOL, 1977]. Marriage Records (MR). 1778-1822 [JOL, 1977]. Only record book extant. Mission San José y San Miguel de Aguayo [SJ]. Burial Records (BUR). 1781-1824 [JOL, 1977]. Only burial book extant. San Carlos de Parras, Segunda Compañía Volante [SCP]. Baptismal Records (BAP) 1788-1824 [JOL, 1988]. San Fernando Parish Church (now, Cathedral) [SFPC]. Baptism Records (BAP). 1731-1775 [JOL, 1976]. 1775-1793 [JOL, 1976]. 1793-1812 [JOL, 1976]. 1812-1825 [JOL, 1976, 1988 copy]. 1826-1843 [JOL, 1977]. 1844-1850 [JOL, 1977]. 1851-1858 [JOL, 1977]. Confirmation Records (CR). 1759 [JOL, 1976]. Marriage Records (MR). 1742-1780 (incomplete) [JOL, 1976]. 1798-1856 [JOL, 1976]. June 14, 1856-Dec. 26, 1883 [JOL, 1992]. Sept. 1-Dec. 29, 1884 (incomp.) [JOL, 1992]. Jan. 1, 1885-Nov. 5, 1891 (incomp.) [JOL, 1992]. Burial Records (BUR). 1808-1865 [JOL, Camposanto…, 1975]. San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau 1998 Guide to Historic San Antonio Mission Trails. Brochure. San Antonio Convention and Visitors Bureau, San Antonio. San Antonio Express-News (SAEN) [San Antonio, Texas] 1999 “Laid to Rest Again.” 28 November. San Antonio. San Antonio Light (SAL) [San Antonio, Texas] 1967 “18th Century Mission Excavation Yields Many Clues.” 7 June. San Antonio.


San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 1996 San Antonio Missions: Official Map and Guide. Government Printing Office: 1996404-954/40005. 1998 Scope of Work, Lineal Descent and Cultural Affiliation Study, Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, San Antonio. Santísima Trinidad Parish Church Records (Von Ormy, Texas). Baptismal Records (BAP) 1866-1879 [JOL, n.d.]. Includes confirmations. 1879-1919 [JOL, n.d.]. Includes confirmations. Burial Records (BUR). 1867-1905. Sapir, E. 1920 The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4):280-290. 1925 The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 27(3):402435, (4):491-527. 1929 Central and North American Indian Languages. In Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 5 (14th edition), pp. 138-141. Encyclopedia Britannica Company, New York. (Reprinted in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality, edited by D. G. Mandelbaum, pp. 169-178. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1949.) Scarborough, W. F. 1929 Old Spanish Missions in Texas: V. San Juan Capistrano. Southwest Review 14(2): 237-255. Schuetz, M. K. 1968 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume I (of II): Historical Documentation and Description of the Structures. Report No. 10. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. 1969 The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume II: Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. 1974 The Dating of the Chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Special Reports, No. 12. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin.


Schuetz, M.K. 1980a The History and Archaeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Volume IV: Excavation of the Convento. Manuscript on file, Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archaeologist, Austin. 1980b The Indians of the San Antonio Missions 1718-1821. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas, Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1980c An Historical Outline of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4): 3-15. Scurlock, D., A. Benavides, D. Isham, and J. W. Clark, Jr. 1976 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Mission Parkway, San Antonio, Texas. Archeological Survey Report No. 17. Office of the State Archaeologist, Texas Historical Commission, Austin. Shea, J. G. 1855 History of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the United States, 15291854. Edward Dunigan & Brother, New York. Skeels, L. L. M. 1972 An Ethnohistorical Survey of Texas Indians. Texas Historical Survey Committee, Office of the State Archaeologist, Report No. 22. Spanish and Mexican Archives in the Bexar County Courthouse: Land Titles 1981 13 reels, 35 mm., and contents list. Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City. Steele, D. G. 1998 Land of the Desert Sun: Texas’ Big Bend Country. The Louise Lindsey Merrick Natural Environment Series No. 28. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Steele, D. G. and B. W. Olive 1989 Bioarchaeology of the Region 3 Study Area. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, edited by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 93-114. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Fayetteville. 1990 Bioarchaeology of the Western Portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In The Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, Vol. 2, edited by D. A. Story, J. A. Guy, B. A. Burnett, M. D. Freeman, J. C. Rose, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, and K. J. Reinhard, pp. 129-162. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38. Fayetteville. Story, D. A., J. A. Guy, B. A. Burnett, M. D. Freeman, F. C. Rose, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, and K. J. Reinhard (editors) 1990 The Archaeology and Bioarchaeology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, Vol. 1. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38. Fayetteville.


Swenson, H. S. 1981 8800 Texas Marriages, 1824-1850. Index by F. T. Ingmire. 2 vols. H. S. Swenson, Round Rock, TX. Swanton, J. R. 1915 Linguistic Position of the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist 17:17-40. 1940 Linguistic Material from the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 127. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1952 Indians of North America. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 145. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Texas Chapter of the American Indian Movement 2000 . September. Texas General Land Office, Archives and Records, Spanish Collection [GLO]. Tezel, M. 1997 San Antonio Missions: Mission San Juan. Brochure. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio. Thoms, A. V. 1993 The White Creek Archaeological Project: Cultural Resources Assessments for the Proposed Texas A&M University Wastewater Treatment Plant, Brazos County, Texas. Reports of Investigations No. 13. Archaeological Research Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station. 1997 Sacred Guardians, Profane Practitioners, and Texans without History. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 68:191-213. 1998 Proposal: Mission San Juan Lineal Descent and Cultural Affiliation Study. Submitted to the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by the Center for Ecological Archaeology, Texas A&M University. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, San Antonio. 1999 Planning Underway for Texas’ Largest Native American Reburial Ceremony. Council of Texas Archaeologists Newsletter 23(3):20-21. 2000 Mission San Juan Reburial Ceremony. Council of Texas Archaeologists Newsletter 24(1):3-4. Torres, L.


1997 Voices from the San Antonio Missions. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. Trigger, B. G. 1982 Ethnoarchaeology: Some Cautionary Considerations. Ethnography by Archaeologists, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 1-9. 1978 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, Washington D.C. Tunnell, C. 1967 Letter from C. Tunnell, State Archaeologist (State Building Commission) to Archbishop Robert E. Lucey, of the San Antonio Archdiocese, concerning an agreement to conduct preliminary archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan Capistrano, dated January 11, 1967. Copy on file at the Texas Historical Commission, Austin. 1994 Letter from the Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission to members of the San Juan Capistrano Mission Repatriation Committee regarding the Committee’s request to obtain human remains and funerary objects recovered during archaeological excavations at the mission, dated August 15, 1994. Copy on file at the Texas Historical Commission, Austin. 2000 A Landmark Court Decision in Southern Texas on Peyote and the Native American Church. Special Publication Number 8. Southern Texas Archeological Association, San Antonio. Turner, B. 2001 HR 787 Enrolled 05/14/2001, Recognizing the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions. Texas Legislature Online. . May. Turner, D. D. 1988 Excavations at San Juan Capistrano, 41 BX 5, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 171. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. United States Department of the Interior (USDOI) 1999 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations. Legal mandates for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; 104 Stat. 3048-3058), revised as of October 1, 1999. 2000 “Letter of Intent to Petition to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior.” United States Department of the Interior. August 10. Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin 1964 Languages of the World: Native America Fascicle Two. Anthropological Linguistics 7(7):1-150.


Weisman, B. R. and S. Greenbaum 1997 The Southeast Culture Area. In Native North Americans: An Ethnohistorical Approach, second edition, edited by M. R. Mignon and D. L. Boxberger, pp. 159-198. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. West, E. H. (translator) 1905 DeLeón’s Expedition of 1689. Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 8(3):199-224. White, G. E. 1966 The 1840 Census of the Republic of Texas. Pemberton Press, Austin. 1983 1830 Citizens of Texas. Eakin Press, Austin. 1983-1984 1840 Citizens of Texas. 2 vols. G. White, Austin [also distributed by Ingmire Publications, St. Louis, Missouri, and Ericson Books, Nacogdoches, Texas]. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 2000 Resolution to sponsor the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation of San Antonio, Texas in their efforts and activities to protect and preserve their sacred sites, burial grounds and artifacts. Resolution adopted on May 23, 2000, attested by S. D. Williams and approved by G. McAdams. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Anadarko, Oklahoma. Wilkinson, R. G. 1977 Osteological Evidence for the Identification of Pre-Contact Karankawa. In Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland. Anthropological Papers 16. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Wolf, E. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. University of California Press, Berkeley. Zaffirini, J. 2001 SR 1038 Enrolled 05/11/2001, Commending the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation. Texas Legislature Online. . May.

Appendix A – Page 173

APPENDIX A

MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (41BX5) UTSA ARTIFACT BOX INVENTORY (EXCLUDING SKELETAL REMAINS) Compiled by Patricia A. Clabaugh


Mission San Juan Capistrano (41BX5) UTSA Artifact Box Inventory (excluding skeletal remains) BOX #

BOX SIZE

1

Small

1a 1b

CONTENT Ceramic, glass, metal, faunal bone Lithic, faunal bone, glass, metal, ceramic, plastic, etc. Core drilling, bone, brick, Goliad sherds

PROVENIENCE

Shovel Test Levels 1-2

YEAR

PI

1998

J. Durst

1996

Kevin Gross

1983

Anne Fox Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

1

Small

Nails and metal

1971

2

Small

Nails and metal

1971

3

Small

Metal

1992

Anne Fox

4

Medium

Glass, ceramic, nails, mussel

1992

Anne Fox

5

Small

Bone bead, shell bead

1967

Mardith Schuetz

6

Medium

Metal

1992

Anne Fox

7

Medium

Ceramic-plain white sherds

1967

8

Large

Brick, handpainted sherds

1971

9

Large

Indian ceramic

1971

10

Very large

Nails

1967

11

Medium

Plain white sherds

1967

12

Medium

Plain white sherds

1967

13

Medium

Plain white sherds

1967

14

Small-Medium

Fresco painted wall

15

Medium

Brick

1971

16

Large

Brick

1967

17

Very large

Shell, ocher

1967

18

Large

Ceramic, glass, small objects, illustrated artifacts

1992

Anne Fox

19

Large

Corn cobs, copper (Box #2)

1967

Mardith Schuetz

20

Large

17 church sherds and artifacts (burial items removed 11-161995)

1969

Mardith Schuetz

21

Large

Storage pit samples, brick

1969

Mardith Schuetz

Acequia bridge

Room 17, Floor 3

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

Page 176 – Appendix A

BOX #

BOX SIZE

CONTENT

PROVENIENCE

22

Small

Plain white sherds

1971

23

Small

Plain white sherds

1971

24

Small

Brick

1971

25

Large

26

Large

27

Large

28

Small

Brick

1971

29

Large

Ceramic, glass, metal*

1987

30

Large

Nails

1971

31

Large

Nails

1971

32

Small-Medium

Metal, ceramics, bone

1971

33

Medium

Ceramic, lithic, brick (Illustrated?)

34

Large

Metal, lithic

35

Medium

18th/19th century sherds (Box 1 of 2)

36

Small

Ceramic, glass surface

37

Small

38

Small

39

Medium

Plain white sherds

1971

40

Medium

Shell, charcoal, stone discs

1971

41

Medium

Stone discs

1971

42

Large

Metal, glass, (?)

43

Medium

Goliadware

1967

44

Medium

Goliadware

1967

45

Medium

Goliadware

1967

??

Medium

Goliadware

1967

46

Medium

A/C ducts

Porcelain, transfer, plain, colonial Indian ceramics and misc. unglazed sherds Stoneware, utility vessels, plain white sherds (unnumbered)

YEAR

1971 1971 1971

South end of Convento

1967 1971

PI Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

1994

Soil samples (sealed vials with ground samples and slides) Brick, plaster, arrow points, lithics

1994 1994

Convento

1971

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz


BOX #

BOX SIZE

CONTENT

PROVENIENCE

YEAR

47

Medium

Chert (Box 2 of 2)

48

Medium

Tin glaze burnished, lead glaze, ceramics

49

Medium

Barbed wire

1967

50

Very large

Local pottery, hotel china

1967

51

Large

Ceramic, metal, faunal bone

52

Large

Post-colonial glass

53

Large

Metal personal items, ground stone, other colonial artifacts

54

Medium

Hotel china

1967

55

Medium

Pottery sherds (Box 2 of 2)

1967

56

Large

Artifacts, bone, concrete

1975

57

Large

Charcoal, coal

1967

58

Large

Plaster

1971

59

Large

Plaster

1971

60

Large

Soil samples

1967

61

Very large

Floor samples #19, plaster #20, gateway

1967

62

Medium

Marbles, buttons, coins

1967

63

Medium

Debitage

1971

64

Small

Lithic, nails, ceramics

Room 14, 15, garden

1970

65

Medium

Bone, ceramic, etc.

Utility trench

1995

66

Medium

67

Medium

68

Large

69

Large

Plaster

70

Medium

Unglazed ceramic, plugging pieces

71

Medium

Post-colonial metal

72

Medium

18th/19th century sherds (Box 2 of 2)

73

Medium

Post-colonial metal

1967 All units

1967

1967

Lead-glazed sherds (Box 1 of 2) Lead-glazed sherds (Box 2 of 2) Reconstructed vessels, Anglo, lead glaze only

1967 1967 1967 1971 Convento

1971 1967

Room 17 and 18 outside wall

1967 1967

PI Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz D. Scurlock Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz


BOX #

BOX SIZE

CONTENT

PROVENIENCE

YEAR

74

Large

Flint, plaster, shell, tile, brick

Room 18

1968

75

Large

Unidentified metal

76

Very large

Lead glaze ceramics

77

Very large

Plaster, tile

1971

78

Medium

Brick

1971

79

Medium

Brick

1971

80

Large

Nails

1971

81

Large

Metal, plastic, soil, (monitoring)

82

Medium

Plain white sherds

83

Medium

Plain white sherds

1971

84

Large

Faunal material

1992

Anne Fox

85

Medium

1976

Scurlock(?)

86

Large

87 88

1967 Convento

Drainage

1971

1992

PI Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Anne Fox

Chert, Goliad, metal, glass, metal button, illustrated Chert (pulled for A. Fox analysis)

1967, 1969, 1971, 1976

Small

Ceramics

1984

Anne Fox

Medium

Faunal bone, mortar

1984

Anne Fox

Chimney Room 4


Mission San Juan Capistrano (41BX5) UTSA Artifact Box Inventory—Faunal Bone BOX #

BOX SIZE

CONTENT

PROVENIENCE

YEAR

1

Large

Faunal bone

Room 9

1967

2

Medium

Faunal bone

Units 20, 21, 22

1967

3

Small

Faunal bone

G-3

1986

4

Very large

Faunal bone

5

Very large

Faunal bone

6

Very large

Faunal bone

7

Very large

Faunal bone

8

Very large

Faunal bone

9

Large

Faunal bone

10

Very large

Faunal bone

11

Very large

Faunal bone

12

Very large

Faunal bone

13

Very large

Faunal bone

14

Very large

Faunal bone

15

Very large

Faunal bone

16

Very large

Faunal bone

17

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 7

1967

18

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 3

1967

19

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 1

1967

20

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 6

1967

21

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 4

1967

22

Very large

Faunal bone

Rooms 8, 9 (1.0-1.5) Sack 1

1967(?)

23

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 2 Room 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 1

1967

24

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10

1967

25

Medium

Faunal bone

T-1, T-2

1974

Room 1 (0.5, 1.0-1.5) Room 4 (0.0-3.5) Rooms 5, 7, 11, 13 varies Room 6 (0.5, 1.0-1.5) Sacks 1, 2 Room 6 (1.5-2.0) Sacks 1, 2 Rooms 6, 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 1 Room 8 (1.5-2.0) Sack 1 All Testing Room 8 (.5-1.0, 1.0-1.5, 1.5-2.0) Sack 2 Room 10, Unit B Trench Room 8 (0.0-0.5) Sack 1 Room 8 (0.5-1.0) Sack 2 Room 8 (1.0-1.5) Sack 1 Room 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 3 Room 10 (0.0-0.5) Sack 1 Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 8-unlabelled Room 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 4 Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 4

1967 1967 1967 1967 1967

PI Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

1986 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz


BOX #

BOX SIZE

CONTENT

PROVENIENCE

YEAR

26

Medium

Faunal bone

T-1, T-2

1974

27

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 12 (0.5-1.0) Sack 2

1967

28

Very large

Faunal bone

Church, Sack 2

1967

29

Very large

Faunal bone

Church, Sack 1

1967

30

Very large

Faunal bone

Church, Sack 3

1967

31

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 17

1967

32

Very large

Faunal bone

33

Medium

Faunal bone

Rooms 14, 17, 18

34

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (1.0-1.5) Sack 5

1967

35

Very large

Faunal bone

Room 10 (0.5-1.0) Sack 2 Room 10 (1.5-2.0) Sack 1

1967

Faunal bone

Units 8, 9 All Levels

1998

Jeff Durst

Faunal bone

Units 1-7, 6A, 6B, 10: All Levels, Shovel Test: All

1998

Jeff Durst

1 2

LargeArchival LargeArchival

Associated Records stored at UTSA—ca. 2 linear feet Approximate box sizes: Small = 6"×4.5"×3" or less Medium = 12"×9"×4" Large = 18"×12"×8" Very large = >18"×12"×8" *Note: On loan to TARL to B. Inman (6-18-1996) Box 18—4 chert flakes (modified?) Box 20—32 chert flakes, Dart point base Box 29—2 flakes, 2 arrow point fragments Box 56—3 chert flakes

PI Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

Mardith Schuetz Mardith Schuetz

Appendix B - Page 181

APPENDIX B

MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (41BX5) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND NAGPRA INVENTORIES

Compiled by Patricia A. Clabaugh from NPS documents

MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (41BX5) National Park Service Inventory of Accession No. 6 ACC NO.

NPS NO.

CABINET

DRAWER

DESCRIPTION

N=

6

6-1

K

11

2 pair of scissors, corroded

2

6

6-2

G

2

Bowl fragment

1

6

6-3

K

11

Rusted spoon fragment

1

6

6-4

K

11

Metal point

1

6

6-5

K

11

Corroded piece of metal

1

6

6-6

I

2

Grinding stone

1

6

6-7

J

3

Bone and shell necklace

1

6

6-8

G

2

Misc. pottery sherds

6

6-9

K

11

Copper handles

2

6

6-10

I

1

Chert fragments

2

6

6-11

I

1

Chert fragments

4

6

6-12

K

11

Metal fragments

2

6

6-13

G

2

Pointed stilt/sherds

3/2

6

6-14

G

2

Stone cobble/sherds

1/2

6

6-15

G

2

Pot fragment

1

6

6-16

Pot fragments, reconstructed

2

6

6-17

Clay pigs

2

6

6-18

18th cent. handwoven cotton fabric

1

Appendix B – Page 183

H

NAGPRA

ACC NO.

NPS NO.

6

DESCRIPTION

N=

6-18

Bone tools

7

6

6-18

French strike-a-light

1

6

6-18

Gun flint

1

6

6-18

Pieces of pottery

2

6

6-19

Spanish chain mail

6

6-19

Reproduction of Villa San Fernando map by Viceroy Casafuerte

1

6

6-19

Sword hilt guard

1

6

6-19

Stone gun flint

5

6

6-19

Cock from flint lock pistol

1

6

6-19

Lead rifle balls

2

6

6-19

Real pieces c. 1772 and 1777

2

6

6-19

Real piece "Carolus IV"

1

6

6-19

Iron points

2

6

6-19

Drawing "J. Cisneros"

1

6

6-19

Reproduction map. presidential cordon c. 1780

1

6

6-20

Bridleplate

1

6

6-20

Bridle buckle

1

6

6-20

Spur

1

6

6-20

Pieces of jewelry

4

6

6-21

Various photos of San Juan

4

6

6-21

Reproduction map of San Juan c. 1756

1


CABINET

DRAWER

NAGPRA

Burial 8-C summer 1967 excavation cat. # 2815 & 2816

1 from Burial 16A-Summer 1967 excavation cat. # 2814

ACC NO.

NPS NO.

6

DESCRIPTION

N=

6-21

Fresco fragment

1

6

6-21

Colonial glazed tile fragments

9

6

6-21

Misc. pieces colonial bricks, mortar, plaster

7

6

6-21

Nails, colonial

2

6

6-21

Hinge

1

6

6-21

Chain link

1

6

6-21

Door decoration

1

6

6-21

Reproduction map of San Juan c. 1762

1

6

6-22

Pottery sherds, tin-enameled and lead-glazed

3

6

6-22

Pieces, tin-enameled earthenware

8

6

6-22

Tin-enameled bowl and pitcher, contemporary

1

6

6-22

Lead-glazed pitchers, contemporary

2

6

6-22

Tin-enameled mug, contemporary

1

6

6-22

Candlestick, contemporary

1

6

6-22

Sherds, black luster ware, Puebla

4

6

6-22

Sherds, black luster ware, Santa Fe

8

6

6-22

Lead-glazed polychrome, contemporary

1

6

6-22

Vessels, slip-painted, contemporary

3

6

6-22

Sherd, burnished slip-painted

1

6

6-22

Sherds, lead-glazed polychrome

8

6

6-22

Sherds, burnished and slip-painted

2


CABINET

DRAWER

NAGPRA

ACC NO.

NPS NO.

6

DESCRIPTION

N=

6-23

Earring

1

6

6-23

Set, cufflinks

1

6

6-23

Spoon handle

1

6

6-23

Buttons, possibly copper

4

6

6-23

U.S. military bayonet

1

6

6-23

Reproduction of copper real

1

6

6-23

Reproduction of San Juan map by Saucedo

1

6

6-23

Painting of San Juan, reproduction of Lungkiwtz

1

6

6-23

Fragmented Mexican lead-glazed bowls

2

6

6-25

Fragment of pitchfork

1

6

6-25

Piece of iron hoe

1

6

6-25

Square nails

2

6

6-25

Partially repaired English pottery vessels

4

6

6-25

English pottery sherds

12

6

6-25

Texas pottery sherds

3

6

6-25

Short square nail

1

6

6-25

Thimbles

2

6

6-25

Scissors

1

6

6-25

Metal hook w/ring

1

6

6-25

Buttons

10

6

6-25

Fork

1


CABINET

DRAWER

NAGPRA

ACC NO.

NPS NO.

6

DESCRIPTION

N=

6-25

Spoon, broken

1

6

6-25

Glass bottles

5

6

6-25

Small metal ring

1

6

6-25

Fragments of porcelain doll

2

6

6-25

Fragments of porcelain toys

2

6

6-25

Toy whistle

1

6

6-25

Marbles

20

6

6-25

Painting of San Juan, reproduction of Gentilz work

1

6

6-26

Worked stone

17

6

6-26

Whetstone

1

6

6-26

Minerals

4

6

6-26

Carved sandstone snail

1

6

6-26

Round stones

6

6

6-26

Carved mussel shells

3

6

6-26

Carved gar bone

1

6

6-26

Mano and metate

1

6

6-27

Statue of mountain lion

1

6

6-27

Reproduced copy of Menchaca map

1

6

6-27

Photograph of aqueduct

1

6

6-28

Fragments of 18th century church vestments

3

6

6-28

Statue of Jesus Christ, carved wood, colonial

1


CABINET

DRAWER

NAGPRA

ACC NO.

NPS NO.

6

DESCRIPTION

N=

6-28

Marriage manual c. 1789

1

6

6-28

Maniple couched with gold and silver thread, 18th century

1

6

6-28

Religious medal

1

6

6-28

Votive

1

6

6-28

Crucifixes

2

Burial 11C summer 1967 excavation, cat. # 2813

6

6-28

Necklace of mourning beads

1

Burial 18-B summer 1967 excavation cat. # 2812

6

6-28

Cover page, religious manual, photocopy

1

6

6-29

G

2

Clay whistles

2

6

6-29

G

2

Bucket

1

6

6-29

G

2

Fragment of jar

1

6

6-30

J

Iron arrow point

1

2817 a, b

6

6-30

J

Arrow point

1

From arch. invest. of chapel of SAJU Sept & Oct 1969 Burial A


CABINET

DRAWER

NAGPRA


Mission San Juan Capistrano (41BX5) NPS NAGPRA Artifact Inventory CATALOG

2812

2813a, b 2814 2815 2816 2817a, b 2818

DESCRIPTION Rosary with 19 hand-cut, faceted square jet beads drilled through opposite corners (approx. 10mm×10mm×6mm maximum height), strung on double row of small glass beads (approx. 10 beads strung between jet beads) a-Copper crucifix; heavy corrosion b-Bronze crucifix; heavy corrosion Metal lobed cross with 4 circular blue glass beads set into each arm and center of cross; 24mm across; heavy corrosion Spanish coin, 1777; profile of Carlos III on one side and Spanish coat of arms on the other Spanish coin, 1772; profile of Carlos III on one side and Spanish coat of arms on the other Iron projectile point (broken a, b); possibly made by Apaches One incomplete human vertebra with cupreous metal projectile point embedded

PROVENIENCE

Room 26, Burial 18B

a-Room 26, Burial 11E b-Room 26, Burial 11C Room 26, Burial 16A Room 26, Burial 8C Room 26, Burial 8C Burial 17A No burial indicated

Appendix C – Page 191

APPENDIX C

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Compiled by Jennifer L. Logan, Charlotte E. Donald, J. Bryan Mason, and Adán Benavides, Jr.


SAN JUAN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ARCHAEOLOGY

Carlson, S. B. 1994 Texas Beyond the Periphery: An Archaeological Study of the Spanish Missions During the 18th Century. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. This study utilizes ceramic assemblages from the Texas missions, both in and outside of San Antonio, to analyze the economic status of Spain when Texas was colonized by the Spaniards. Based on the predominance of locally made ceramic wares, Carlson concludes that “the missions were established during recognized periods of economic stagnation” and that “they were participating in a local economy which was not benefiting the economy of Spain” (p. iii). Durst, J. J. 1999 Recent Excavations at Mission San Juan de Capistrano. Cultural Resource Management News and Views 11(1):31-33. Texas Historical Commission, Austin. A brief overview of excavations conducted in 1998 outside the western wall of the chapel at Mission San Juan by the Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio. Escobedo, J. T. 1985 The Post-Colonial House: An Excavation Report. Prestabilization Archeology at Mission San Juan. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, San Antonio. Escobedo describes results of 1983 excavations along exterior walls and underneath the wooden floor of the “Tufa” house. The excavations accompanied stabilization work on the house’s foundations. The house was built over an extensive midden that in some places reached a depth of 4 ft. According to Escobedo (p. 21), the house represented “the entire occupational scheme of the mission and this structure.” Excavations revealed a complex building sequence indicating that the house was built no earlier than 1853 over Colonial period ruins (p. 27). A formal flagstone floor, dating from the Colonial period, was revealed below the Tufa house. This previous structure may have served either as a granary or as an administrative facility, possibly related to the unfinished church (room 26) as part of the church’s convento area (pp. 24-25). The Colonial period ruins below the post-Colonial house may well have been “blueprints in the ground of a convento area which never developed beyond this state” (p. 26).

Page 194 – Appendix C

Fox, A. A. 1993 Archaeological Testing and Monitoring in Connection with a Drainage Project at Mission San Juan Capistrano San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report No. 217. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Fox presents a description of the cultural materials, faunal remains, and archeological features located during testing of four locations on the east wall and southeast corner of Mission San Juan Capistrano to be impacted by construction activities to alleviate drainage problems. Fox, D. E. 1979 The Lithic Artifacts of Indians at the Spanish Colonial Missions, San Antonio, Texas. Special Report No. 8. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. This report attempts to define and describe the assemblage of cultural lithic material thought to be representative of four missions in South Texas. These missions include Concepción, San José, San Antonio de Valero, and San Juan Capistrano. 1983 Traces of Texas History: Archeological Evidence of the Past 450 Years. Corona Publishing Company, San Antonio. In this book, written for the general reader, Fox gives an overview of the history and archaeology of Texas by the cultural groups that came to define each period (Spanish, Mexican, European, American), as well as by types of sites (industrial, military, urban). With his historical summaries, Fox provides examples of archaeological sites that illustrate written history. Greer, J. W. 1967 A Description of the Stratigraphy, Features and Artifacts from an Archeological Excavation at the Alamo. Report No. 3. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. Summary of excavations conducted in 1966 along the north side of the church and in the northwest corner of the present Alamo property. Harris, R. K. 1972 Analysis of Glass Trade Beads from San Juan Capistrano Mission (41BX5) at San Antonio in Bexar County, Texas. In The History and Archeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, Vol. 3: Excavation of the Convento, by Mardith K. Schuetz, Appendix A, pp. 1-8. Manuscript on file, Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archeologist, Austin, Texas.


Analysis of some 150 glass beads recovered from Room 31 (the original church) during excavations at Mission San Juan Capistrano in 1971. These range in age from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Hester, T. R. 1977 The Lithic Technology of Mission Indians in Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Lithic Technology 6(1-2):9-13. Review of lithic assemblages from several missions in an attempt to understand changes in the technology of Native Americans during the Spanish missionization period. 1980 Digging into South Texas Prehistory. Corona Publishing Company, San Antonio. Summary of Native American tribes in south Texas before and after European contact, including archaeological and ethnohistorical information. 1981 Tradition and Diversity among the Prehistoric Hunters and Gatherers of Southern Texas. Plains Anthropologist 26(92):119-128. Analysis of ethnohistoric and archaeological data on pre-contact lifeways in South Texas. 1989a Texas and Northeastern Mexico: An Overview. In Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 191212. Columbian Consequences, vol., 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Overview of Native American lifeways, focusing on the Coahuiltecans, the Karankawa, the Caddo, and the Indians of the lower Rio Grande Valley, the history of European interest and settlement in the region, and the history of scholarly research into this area of the Spanish borderlands. Includes chronology of significant events beginning with the Spanish entrada into Texas. 1989b Perspectives on the Material Culture of the Mission Indians of the Texas-Northeastern Mexico Borderlands. In Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands West, edited by David Hurst Thomas, pp. 213-230. Columbian Consequences, vol., 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Discussion of continuities between Late Prehistoric material culture and early Historic period indigenous material culture in Texas, especially as it pertains to the missions. 1999 Artifacts, Archeology, and Cabeza de Vaca in Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 70:17-25. Comparison of artifacts recovered from archaeological sites throughout south Texas with items described by Cabeza de Vaca as evidence to support de Vaca’s much-debated route across Texas in the 1530s.


Hester, T. R. and T. C. Hill, Jr. 1975 Some Aspects of Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology in Southern Texas. Special Report No. 1. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. This report discusses the last several hundred years of the pre-contact period in southern Texas, specifically the internal structure and artifact assemblages characterizing archaeological sites along the Nueces River and its tributaries in Zavala and Dimmit counties. Johnson, L. 1994 The Life and Times of Toyah-Culture Folk: The Buckhollow Encampment Site, 41KM16, Kimble County, Texas. Office of the State Archeologist Report 38. Texas Department of Transportation and Texas Historical Commission. Detailed site report containing observations about the relationship of Coahuilteco-speaking groups of Texas with Classic Toyah bison hunters of the Late Prehistoric in Texas. Maslowski, R. F. 1978 The Archeology of Moorehead Cave: Val Verde County, Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. Discussion of the recovery of a diversity of material remains, including perishable items, from the rockshelter known as Moorehead Cave in the Amistad area of Trans-Pecos Texas. Mitchell, J. L. 1980 Brief Notes on the Archaeology of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4):18-26. Summarizes characteristic features of the material culture of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Mission San Juan Capistrano, based upon excavations that took place during the 1967 and 1969 field seasons. Schuetz, M. K. 1966 Historic Background of the Mission San Antonio de Valero. Report No. 1. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. The emphasis of this report is the Spanish period of the mission’s history, although it discusses both the siege of the Alamo and later history. Ethnohistoric documents such as the Ortiz report of 1756 and the Dolores report of 1762 are presented in both the original Spanish and an English translation.


Schuetz, M. K. 1968 The History and Archeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. 1. Historical Documentation and Description of the Structures. Edited by C. Tunnell and C. Peoples, pp. 1-263. Report No. 10. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. Report of excavations at Mission San Juan Capistrano undertaken for purposes of restoration, with specific goals of identifying artifacts and cultural remains associated with Coahuiltecan Indians and understand building sequences at the mission. 1969 The History and Archeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. 2. Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. Analysis of Colonial, post-Colonial, and Native American artifacts and human remains recovered from excavations at Mission San Juan Capistrano. 1970 Excavations of a Section of the Acequia Madre in Bexar County, Texas and Archeological Investigations at Mission San José in April 1968. Report No. 19. Texas Historical Survey Committee, Austin. Report of excavations on a portion of a major acequia in use from the eighteenth century to the late nineteenth century. 1974 The Dating of the Chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Special Report No. 12. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archeologist, Austin. Report of excavations of the chapel at Mission San Juan, including descriptions of 92 human burials recovered from the chapel floor. 1980 The History and Archeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. 4. Excavation of the Convento. Manuscript on file, Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archeologist, Austin. Unpublished account of excavations at Mission San Juan between 1969 and 1971, during the course of which the ruins of the earliest church erected on the site and the convento that accompanied it were uncovered.

Scurlock, D., A. Benavides, Jr., D. Isham, and J. W. Clark, Jr. 1976 An Archeological and Historical Survey of the Proposed Mission Parkway San Antonio, Texas. Archeological Survey Report No. 17. Office of the State Archeologist, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.


Monumental report of excavations and historical background of each of the five missions (Alamo, Concepción, San José, San Juan, and Espada) within the Mission Parkway in San Antonio. Contains an extensive bibliography, list of potential interviewees, and useful maps for what has become the recent federally funded San Antonio Mission Trails project carried out by the City of San Antonio. Skeels, L. L. M. 1972 An Ethnohistorical Survey of Texas Indians. Report No. 22. Texas Historical Survey Committee, Office of the State Archeologist, Austin. Ethnohistoric data for Native Americans in Texas during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Two separate appendices discuss the travels of Cabeza de Vaca and Coronado in Texas. Tunnell, C. 1966 A Description of Enameled Earthenware from an Archeological Excavation at Mission San Antonio de Valero (The Alamo). Report No. 2. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. A description of 667 tin-enameled earthenware sherds recovered from excavations at The Alamo is provided in this report. These earthenwares, commonly called Majolica, are representative of the Spanish Colonial period in Texas. Turner, D. D. 1988 Excavations at San Juan Capistrano, 41BX5, Bexar County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report No. 171. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Description of material remains recovered during excavation of midden deposits situated outside of the north wall of the Mission San Juan Capistrano compound. Excavations were undertaken in order to determine the impact of potential City Water Board trenching activities on buried structural features; however, no subsurface structural features were located by the archeologists. ETHNOGRAPHY Almaráz, F. D., Jr. 1992 Harmony, Discord, and Compromise in Spanish Colonial Texas: The Río San Antonio Experience, 1691-1741. New Mexico Historical Review 67(4):329-356. This article discusses the San Antonio area as a case study exploring the mutual dependency between civic, religious, and military institutions on the Spanish Colonial frontier.


Barkley, R. R. (editor) 1996 Coahuiltecan Indians. In The New Handbook of Texas, vol. 2, pp. 171-174. Texas State Historical Association, Austin. The summary presented in this entry was compiled from a number of well-known sources and discusses the language, culture, and demography of the Coahuiltecan Indians as huntergatherers and mission Indians. Campbell, T. N. 1975 The Payaya Indians of Southern Texas. Special Publication No. 1. Southern Texas Archaeological Association, San Antonio. Overview of available material on Payaya Indians including name variants, early contacts, settlement locations, mission affiliation, language, territory, culture, and remarks on Ruecking’s Coahuiltecan Culture. Campbell defines a distinctive culture for the Payaya, a small group that Ruecking grouped in the Coahuiltecan culture. 1977 Ethnic Identities of Extinct Coahuiltecan Populations: Case of the Juanca Indians. The Pearce-Sellards Series No. 26. Texas Memorial Museum, Austin. Review of name variants for a group of Coahuiltecan speakers who were first encountered in the Frio County area during the Terán de los Ríos expedition in 1691. Campbell suggests that the name Juanca be used to identify these Indians in order to reduce confusion. 1979 Ethnohistoric Notes on Indian Groups Associated with Three Spanish Missions at Guerrero, Coahuila. Archaeology and History of the San Juan Bautista Mission Area, Coahuila and Texas, Report No. 3. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Drawing extensively from ethnohistoric documentation, especially census reports and baptismal registers, this book presents a comprehensive listing of tribes found at three Spanish missions near the Rio Grande at present-day Guerrero in northeastern Coahuila. The missions included San Francisco Solano, San Juan Bautista, and San Bernardo. At least 88 distinctively named Native American groups were identified in this area from 1700 to 1703. 1983 Coahuiltecans and Their Neighbors. In Southwest, edited by B. G. Trigger, pp. 343358. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. Assessment of linguistic, ethnohistoric, and historic information sources used by various researchers to identify Coahuiltecan dialects, geographic homeland, and settlement patterns of this poorly known cultural area. Provides ethnographic descriptions of the Mariames of southern Texas and the Nuevo León Coahuiltecans and reevaluates usage of the term “Coahuiltecan.” Campbell divides southern Texas and northern Mexico into 15 areas and lists the names of all bands associated with each area. The author concludes his article with a listing of primary and secondary sources from which his information was gathered.


Campbell, T.N. 1988 The Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico: Selected Writings of Thomas Nolan Campbell. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas, Austin. Compilation of Campbell’s research on the Coahuiltecan Indians, including case studies (i.e., the Payaya and Juanca Indians), regional studies, information on the ethnographic observations of Spanish explorers, and research on the mission Indians. Campbell, T. N. and T. J. Campbell 1996 Indian Groups Associated with Spanish Missions of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Reprinted. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Originally published 1985, Special Report No.16, Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. Campbell and Campbell use ethnohistorical data and mission records to construct this review of Indians in the missions. They discuss many of the different Indian groups, including the Coahuiltecans, who were thought to have been at San Juan Capistrano. Campbell and Campbell emphasize that the Coahuiltecan language was not a universal language in south Texas, and that of the 20 or so Coahuiltecan groups at San Juan, only perhaps three were actually Coahuilteco speakers. Hindes, V. K. 1995 Native American and European Contact in the Lower Medina River Valley. La Tierra 22(2):25-33. Hindes reviews the ethnohistorical literature in order to identify contacts with Indian groups in the lower Medina River valley. The study is organized by Indian group and includes the Xauna, Payaya, Pampopa, Pastia, and Sijame groups. Each group heading is followed by a detailed discussion of which ethnohistorical documents have references to the groups, as well as an explanation of the origin of each group’s name. Hinojosa, G. M. and A. A. Fox 1991 Indians and Their Culture in San Fernando de Béxar. In Tejano Origins in EighteenthCentury San Antonio, edited by G. E. Poyo and G. M. Hinojosa, pp. 105-120. University of Texas Press, Austin. Discussion of the importance of Indian economic contributions, particularly with regard to mission Indian ceramics and lithic materials in Spanish households located well away from the missions. The authors focus primarily on the mission Indians and the Coahuiltecans. Demographic trends, including adoption of Indian children into non-Indian households, marriage patterns among Native Americans, birth and death rates, and family patterns, are discussed as well, providing a dynamic perspective on mission Indian culture not often encountered in the literature.


Kroeber, A. L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Los Angeles. Kroeber generalizes the tribes in South Texas as a single cultural group in his broad study of North American cultures. He makes statements such as “Every tribe in it [South Texas] has long been culturally extinct; some are absolutely so” (p. 20). He describes the people as “poor and hungry,” citing Cabeza de Vaca for this characterization. Kroeber also calls the people of South Texas cannibals and sees them as having a “backward culture” because they do not practice agriculture (p. 21). Mitchell, J. L. 1980 Brief Ethnographic Notes on the Indians of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4):16-17. Mitchell briefly summarizes the known information about the Coahuiltecan bands known to be associated with Mission San Juan. Newcomb, W. W., Jr. 1953 A Reappraisal of the “Cultural Sink” of Texas. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 12(2):145-153. Newcomb evaluates the term “cultural sink” as coined by Swanton (1924), agreeing with Ruecking that the term is probably used to primarily distinguish these “low” cultures from the seemingly “high” cultures that surround them. Like Ruecking, Newcomb also mentions that the distinction seems to rely primarily on the presence or absence of cannibalism. Newcomb then describes the groups in the cultural sink, concluding that the Tonkawa are affiliated with Plains culture and the Atakapa are affiliated with the cultures of the Southeast. Newcomb puts the Coahuiltecans and Karankawa into a category of their own called the Western Gulf Culture (defined as most of south Texas and northeastern Mexico), while stressing that all of these cultures are distinct. 1961 The Indians of Texas, from Prehistoric to Modern Times. University of Texas Press, Austin. Newcomb devotes two chapters in his book to Native Americans of south Texas: one for Coahuiltecans and one for Karankawa. In each chapter, he reviews the natural history of the area and has headings for origins and early history, appearance and dress, subsistence and material culture, social organization, and supernaturalism. Newcomb treats the Coahuiltecans as a homogenous group for the most part, noting deviations from the norm whereby he believes some groups were different. Newcomb seems to agree with the idea of the cultural sink and says that the Coahuiltecan culture was a static one that worked in the unproductive habitat of South Texas.


Rock, R. Z. 1999 Los Habitantes: A History of Texas’ Mission San Juan Capistrano and its People. Manuscript on file, San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Detailed social history of Mission San Juan as a religious and secular community. Ethnohistoric research sheds light on poorly known aspects of the relationship between the priests and the mission Indians during the Colonial period, as well as San Juan’s economic and political circle of influence. Includes transcripts of a number of interviews with presentday community members. Rogers, M. 1934 Spanish Attempts to Civilize Texas Indians. Frontier Times 12(3):93-96. Directed toward a popular audience, Rogers presents an overview of Spanish and Native American encounters and the subsequent attempts made by the Spanish to settle Texas and missionize the native Coahuiltecan groups. Ruecking, F., Jr. 1955a The Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas, Austin.

Ruecking devotes most of his thesis to discussion of the Coahuiltecan culture itself and also discusses other topics such as the disappearance of the Coahuiltecans, their history, the boundaries between bands, and the idea of the “ethnographic sink.” Ruecking believes that the Coahuiltecans were a homogenous group of many small, different bands that can be distinguished from their neighbors such as the Tonkawa, Karankawa, and others. 1955b The Social Organization of the Coahuiltecan Indians of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 7(4):357-388. Ruecking draws from a variety of sources in order to discuss the Coahuiltecans. Specifically, he focuses on their physical appearance; customs associated with birth, puberty, marriage, and death; kinship; warfare; religious beliefs and practices; and “miscellany” concerning various practices and activities.


Schuetz, M. K. 1980 The Indians of the San Antonio Missions 1718-1821. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas, Austin. Shuetz’ research covers the period of Spanish Colonialism and missionary activity from the original establishment of the missions in San Antonio to their final secularization, pulling information from census reports, church records, archeological excavations, and ethnographic sources. The author covers such topics as the nature of Coahuiltecan lifeways prior to their missionization, the impact of disease on mission Indians, acculturation, and biographical sketches of selected Indian families associated with Mission San Antonio de Valero and Mission Concepción. Sjoberg, A. F. 1953 The Culture of the Tonkawa, A Texas Indian Tribe. Texas Journal of Science 5(3):280-304. Sjoberg reviews data from Swanton (1915) and Sapir (1920) on the linguistic affiliation of the Tonkawa and agrees that they should be placed in the Coahuiltecan group. He also discusses European contacts with the Tonkawa; they were not encountered much before mission times and so little is known about pre-mission life. Sjoberg states that the Tonkawa joined with the Lipan and were removed to Oklahoma. Sjoberg reviews what is known about Tonkawa culture. In his conclusion, Sjoberg brings up the idea of the “cultural sink” and seems to disagree with this idea. Torres, L. 1997 Voices from the San Antonio Missions. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. This study is a collection of transcribed oral interviews conducted by the author in English and Spanish. Torres’ goal in writing this book is to document the interviewees’ insights concerning life associated with the missions. Torres asks background questions concerning each family’s ancestry, their professions, their history of residence near the missions, and the multifaceted ways in which proximity to the missions has affected their lives. The nature of these questions leaves the reader with a sense of the power of place in forming personal and social identity. Troike, R. C. 1959 Researches in Coahuiltecan Ethnography. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 30:301-309. This is a brief summary of archaeological and ethnohistorical data on Coahuiltecan groups. 1962 Notes on Coahuiltecan Ethnography. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 32:57-63. This is a brief article that contains various information on Coahuiltecan groups, including ethnohistoric references and population data from the late 1700s into the 1800s.


ETHNOHISTORY Berlandier, J. L. 1969 The Indians of Texas in 1830. Edited by J. C. Ewers. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. This book presents Berlandier’s sketches of Indian tribes he met during his stay in Texas in the late 1820s and early 1830s, including ethnographic detail contained in his accounts of the cultures of various tribes with which he had firsthand knowledge. Berlandier’s focus is on the Comanche and Apache, and although he names some Coahuiltecan tribes in his summary of Texas tribes, he does so using secondhand information and references only coastal groups. Chapa, J. B. 1997 Texas and Northeastern Mexico, 1630-1690. Edited by W. C. Foster, translated by N. F. Brierley. University of Texas Press, Austin. This journal is Chapa’s tribute to his late colleague, Alonso de León, in which Chapa vows to carry on de León’s documentary efforts in spite of fears of the Inquisition. Chapa records numerous travels with Governor de León into east Texas on a reconnaissance mission to learn of French activities in the territory. In doing so, Chapa leaves an extraordinary, detailed account of friction between the Spanish and Indians in Mexico, of the natural environment of the places through which he traveled, the difficulties encountered by his group, and of their reception by the various Native American groups they encountered. Covey, C. 1993 Cabeza de Vaca’s Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Covey provides a translation of de Vaca’s memoirs from his stay in Texas during the early 1500s. The author’s own research is included as explanatory text in many places. Hatcher, M. A. 1932 The Expedition of Don Domingo Terán de los Ríos into Texas (1691-1692). Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 2(1):3-67. This is a translation of a series of diaries describing the journeys of Don Domingo Terán de los Ríos into Texas between 1691 and 1692. The expedition passes through south Texas and the area near San Antonio where some contact with the native people occurred. One comment worth noting was made on June 19, 1691. The expedition met a group of Indians made up of Jumana, Cibula, Cisqueza, Cantoma, and Madones people near San Antonio. The group had about 2,000 people and it was mentioned that these people had recently moved into the area. McGraw, A. J., J. W. Clark, and E. A. Robbins (eds.) 1998 A Texas Legacy: The Old San Antonio Road and the Caminos Reales, a Tricentennial History, 1691-1991. 2nd edition. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.


This monumental research project containing ethnohistoric information on the environmental landscape of Texas as it was experienced by early Europeans; data on historically known indigenous groups, especially the Coahuiltecans; and translations of various documents pertaining to the caminos reales. Tous, G. (translator) 1930a The Espinosa-Olivares-Aguirre Expedition of 1709. Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 1(3):1-14. This is a translation of an original Spanish document written by Fray Isidro Felís de Espinosa from the Archivo General de Indias recounting the 1709 journey of Espinosa, Fray Olivares, and Fray Aguirre to find the Tejas Indians. Their travels begin at Mission San Juan Bautista just south of the Rio Grande and end after they reach the Colorado River. The diary covers both the initial foray and the return trip. 1930b The Ramón Expedition: Espinosa’s Diary of 1716. Preliminary Studies of the Texas Catholic Historical Society 1(4):1-24. Espinosa’s diary of his trip to the land of the Tejas Indians in Domingo Ramón’s party provides a good overview of eastern Texas Indians. The party started their journey at Mission San Bernardo and went all the way to the site of Mission San Miguel across the Sabine River. Espinosa describes the geography and natural environment in detail. LINGUISTICS Campbell, L. 1996 Coahuiltecan: A Closer Look. Anthropological Linguistics 38(4):620-634. Campbell argues, in response to Manaster Ramer’s study, that Coahuilteco, Cotoname, and Comecrudan are not related to one another and should not be grouped together under the Coahuiltecan language family. García, B. 1760 Manual para administrar los santos sacramentos de penitencia, eucharistia, extremauncion, y matrimonio: dar gracias despues de comulgar, y ayudara bien morir a los indios de las naciones: Pajalates, Orejonjes, Pacaos, Pacóas, Tilijayas, Alasapas, Pausanes, y otras muchas diferentes, que se hallan en las Missiones del Rio de San Antonio, y Rio Grande, pertenecientes a el Colegio de la Santissima Cruz de la Ciudad de Queretaro, como son: los Pacuâches, Mescâles, Pampôpas, Tâcames, Chayopînes, Venados, Pamâques, y toda la juventud de Pihuiques, Borrados, Sanipaos, y Manos de Perro. Mexico.


Religious manual published to aid the missionaries who were teaching the Indians in their own language. The language in the manual was later named Coahuilteco by Orozco and Berra (1864). The manual is an important source because its title lists the names of Indian groups that speak Coahuilteco. Goddard, I. 1979 The Languages of South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, edited by L. Campbell and M. Mithun, pp. 355-389. University of Texas Press, Austin. Citing early accounts of a diversity of languages and the presence of sign language for communication between groups as evidence, Goddard comes to the conclusion that, contrary to popular belief, the languages in south Texas and northern Mexico represent many different language families. Gursky, K. 1964 The Linguistic Position of Quinigua Indians. International Journal of American Linguistics 30(4):325-327. Gursky demonstrates that the Quinigua language, spoken by a small group of Mexican Indians, is not related to the Hokan-Coahuiltecan complex as had been thought by Swanton. Ramer, M. A. 1996 Sapir’s Classifications: Coahuiltecan. Anthropological Linguistics 38(1):1-38. Manaster Ramer utilizes linguistic analyses in order to support the reality of a Coahuiltecan language group, largely in order to refute Sapir’s critics who dismiss the existence of a Coahuiltecan language family. Manaster Ramer designates the name Pakawan to the group including Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, and Cotoname (Powell originally named this group Coahuiltecan in 1891) and uses Coahuiltecan for the family including the languages listed above, plus possibly Karankawa and/or Atakapa. In his conclusions, Manaster Ramer states that it is unlikely that Karankawa belongs with Coahuiltecan, that the affinity of Atakapa remains uncertain, and that Tonkawa (previously considered a Coahuiltecan language) is in no way related to Coahuiltecan. Sapir, E. 1920 The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(4):280-290. Noticing similarities while reading Swanton’s work on the Coahuiltecan language, Sapir formally compares the Hokan and Coahuiltecan languages in this work. Despite the limited information available for either language, Sapir proposes a tentative similarity that he considers an indication that the languages are related. He mentions that the groups are separated by a long distance, but discounts this information on the grounds that the Athapaskan speakers who separate them are newcomers to the area.


Swanton, J. R. 1915 Linguistic Position of the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. American Anthropologist 17:17-40. This is a comparison of the Indians of south Texas and northeastern Mexico (Coahuiltecans) to the Caddo. The main focus of this work is the comparison of six languages: Tonkawa, Atakapa, Karankawa, Coahuiltecan, Comecrudo, and Cotoname. Swanton concludes that, with the exception of Atakapa, these languages are all related. 1940 Linguistic Material from the Tribes of Southern Texas and Northeastern Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 127. Washington, D.C. Swanton has compiled all data on the languages of Coahuilteco, Comecrudo, Maratino (Cotoname), Aranama, and Karankawa known at the time, concluding that the languages, while seemingly very different, are probably dialects of the same stock. Voegelin, C. F. and F. M. Voegelin 1965 Languages of the World: Native America Fascicle Two. Anthropological Linguistics 7(1):1-150. Summary of results of “consensus classification” conference, whereby it was decided that Coahuiltecan should be viewed as a linguistic isolate, Comecrudo and Cotoname should be grouped under Comecrudan, and Comecrudan and Coahuiltecan should be placed in the in Hokan Phylum.

Missions Bolton, H. E. 1915 Texas in the Middle Eighteenth Century: Studies in Spanish Colonial History and Administration. University of Texas Press, Austin. Bolton wrote a very good reference book concerning the Spanish movements in Texas. He details the missions’ establishment, rise, and fall, as well as many events during their operation and their way of life. Unfortunately, he only mentions Coahuiltecans twice and does not give much information concerning Mission San Juan Capistrano. Day, J., J. B. Frantz, B. Procter, J. W. Schmitz, L. Tinkle, and D. H. Winfrey 1965 Six Missions of Texas. Texian Press, Waco. This book offers historical accounts of the establishment of each of the six San Antonio missions and the events leading to their eventual decline and initial secularization in the early 1790s. In Chapter 6 on San Juan Capistrano, Procter notes that 12 of the Indian neophytes were given land after secularization.


De Zavala, A. 1917 History and Legends of the Alamo and Other Missions In and Around San Antonio. Adina de Zavala, San Antonio. The author provides a history of the Alamo and brief accounts of the other San Antonio missions, stating that at Mission San Juan, there is strong evidence for a continued Indian presence. Domenech, L’Abbé E. 1857 Journal d’un Missionaire au Texas et au Mexique, 1846-1852. Librairie de Gaume Frères, Paris. This book presents L’Abbé Domenech’s memoirs of traveling through Texas and Mexico in the mid 1800s, including an account of his visit to San Antonio and Missions San José and Concepción. At Mission San José, he notes that the descendants of the original neophytes are “indo-mexicans” still living in the vicinity. The publication is entirely in French. Gómez, A. R. 1979 Documentary Evidence for the Spanish Missions of Texas. Spanish Borderlands Sourcebooks No. 22. Garland Publishing, New York. This book includes historians’ accounts of early Spanish explorations and entradas into Texas, as well as primary sources consisting of translated correspondence, diaries, and Franciscan documents to cover the exploratory and mission periods in Texas. Jackson, J. 1986 Los Mesteños, Spanish Ranching in Texas, 1721-1821. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Jackson discusses in detail the interaction of civilian and mission subsistence activities centered on ranching, providing comprehensive information on the complex land disputes often involved with the establishment of the Spanish ranching system in Texas. Leutenegger, B. 1974 Report on the San Antonio Missions in 1792. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 77(4):487-498. As an illustration of the circumstances leading to the decline of missions in Texas, Leutenegger provides a translation of a letter written in 1794 by Fray José Francisco López to the “Reverend Father Guardian and the Venerable Board of Counsellors of the College of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Zacatecas.” Lopez’s letter addresses issues of consolidation of the missions and care of the Native American (mostly Coahuiltecan) neophytes belonging to the missions. It was at his suggestion that four of the missions at San Antonio (San Juan Capistrano, Espada, Concepción, and San José) were partially secularized and consolidated into two, with one missionary at each.


McCaleb, W. F. 1961 Spanish Missions of Texas. Naylor Co., San Antonio. This is a historical account of the fluorescence and decline of the mission period in Texas. Persons, B. 1958 Secular Life in the San Antonio Missions. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 62(1):45-62. Persons provides an account of the various aspects of secular life at the missions in San Antonio, both for Native Americans and non-indigenous settlers. The author focuses on materialistic issues, discussing at length the various work activities that were important to the functioning of the missions, as well as the architectural structure of the buildings in the mission complexes, the provisions allotted to the missions, and divisions of labor amongst mission occupants. The latter half of the article consists of an overview of the social background that served as a context for the eventual decline of the mission system in San Antonio. Scarborough, W. F. 1929 Old Spanish Missions in Texas: V. San Juan Capistrano. Southwest Review 14(2):237255. Scarborough presents a general overview of the context within which San Juan Capistrano was established. Dramatic events associated with this mission are detailed by the author, illustrating the complex relationship between Native Americans and the Spanish during this phase of Spanish colonialism. Scarborough utilizes baptismal records to trace the rise and decline of San Juan Capistrano through the numbers of Indian (Coahuiltecan) families registered, from its founding in 1731 until secularization occurred in 1807. Scarborough concludes the article by noting that a remnant of the original indigenous population served by San Juan still resides in the locality. Schuetz, M. K. 1980 An Historical Outline of Mission San Juan de Capistrano. La Tierra 7(4):3-15. In this article, Schuetz provides a chronological outline briefly detailing noteworthy events occurring at San Juan Mission from 1731 to the 1920s and 1930s. Shea, J. G. 1855 History of the Catholic Missions among the Indian Tribes of the United States, 15291854. Edward Dunigan & Brother, New York. Shea presents a comprehensive guide to the history of Catholic missions in California, the Northeastern United States, and Texas. When concluding the section on the Texas missions, Shea’s commentary includes a reference to the continuing existence of a mission Indian community in San Antonio.


Tezel, M. 1997 San Antonio Missions: Mission San Juan. San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, Texas. Tourist brochure with a map and brief historical notes, including comments about the existence today of many community members who proudly claim descent from the Indians originally missionized by the Spanish.


BIOARCHAEOLOGY Cargill, D. A. 1996 Stable Isotope Analysis at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio. Using stable isotope analysis to infer dietary patterns of the earliest Coahuiltecan residents of Mission San Juan Capistrano, Cargill concludes that their diets were dominated by marine and freshwater resources, indicating that these residents may have come to the missions from the Texas Gulf Coast. These findings are at odds with Comuzzie (1987), whose analysis is based on skeletal morphology of coastal versus inland (mission) populations. Comuzzie, A. G. 1987 The Bioarchaeology of Blue Bayou: A Late Prehistoric Mortuary Site from Victoria County, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. Comuzzie’s analysis is centered on skeletal remains recovered from excavations at Blue Bayou, a site on the Texas Gulf Coast; however, he compares this sample to human skeletal remains from Palm Harbor, a more inland coastal site, and Mission San Juan Capistrano. Based on analyses of dental characteristics and cranial and postcranial remains, Comuzzie concludes that the Blue Bayou and Palm Harbor samples are more similar to each other than either is to San Juan, giving evidence to the belief of many researchers that the Coahuiltecan groups of southern Texas represent breeding populations distinct from those associated with the coastal area of Texas. Doran, G. H. 1975 The Long Bones of the Texas Indians. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas, Austin. Doran utilizes long-bone measurements and stature estimates to compare coastal versus central populations of Texas Indians,. Doran notes that differences between groups are not significant and that prehistoric populations in these areas of Texas probably experienced minimal nutritional stress. In addition to comparing samples within Texas, Doran compares these characteristics to skeletal samples outside of Texas and finds further support for his conclusion that Texas Indians had higher nutritional status and superior health than did indigenous groups outside of Texas. Francis, J. R. 1999 Temporal Trends in Mission Populations: A Comparison of Pathological Frequencies and Long Bone Length at Mission San Juan de Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at San Antonio.


Francis undertook this study in order to examine the health status of Indians at Mission San Juan during the Post-Colonial period. He found no significant differences in the health status of mission Indians following secularization of the missions and the consequent socioeconomic changes that characterized the transition from Colonial to Post-Colonial. Francis draws a number of conclusions that depart from previous studies of the human skeletal remains from Mission San Juan Capistrano—for instance, he counts a minimum number of 49 individuals that were recovered from the ruins of the old church (room 26), rather than 92 as noted by all previous researchers. Also, he takes what he calls a “conservative” and, in his opinion, more accurate approach to analysis of the skeletal pathologies, concluding that the population at Mission San Juan did not display nearly as high an occurrence of disease-related stress as has been noticed in previous studies of the same samples. 2000 Isolated Burial Analysis. In Archaeological Testing and Monitoring of a Service Drive at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas, by D. A. Cargill and R. C. Robinson, Appendix IV. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 296. Center for Archaeological Research, the University of Texas at San Antonio. This chapter describes the monitoring of construction and discovering, removing, analyzing, and reinterring Native American human remains along a drainage channel of the compound at San Juan Capistrano. Hester, T. R., S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement 1988 From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Fayetteville, Arkansas. This volume is of particular interest to those seeking an understanding of the environment, archaeology, and adaptations of indigenous peoples of central, south, and Trans-Pecos Texas. Particular emphasis is placed on characterizing the skeletal remains of this area; researchers concluded that this area of Texas was inhabited by a number of different biological populations. Humphreys, S. B. 1968 Human Skeletal Material from San Juan Capistrano Mission. The History and Archeology of Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. 2. Description of the Artifacts and Ethno-History of the Coahuiltecan Indians, edited by Mardith K. Schuetz, Appendix C, pp. 116-124. Report No. 11. State Building Commission Archeological Program, Austin. Examination of the skeletal remains of 53 adult burials from Mission San Juan Capistrano for skeletal pathologies (deformative, inflammatory, degenerative, dietary, and unknown). This is essentially a descriptive study, with little effort made to draw parallels between the pathologies present on the individuals and their lifestyle.


Humphreys, S. B. 1971 The Skeletal Biology of Eighteenth Century Coahuiltecan Indians from San Juan Capistrano Mission, San Antonio, Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. This represents the first thesis written using the human remains from Mission San Juan Capistrano in San Antonio. Humphreys conducts a detailed analysis of the burials, from which she notes that the Coahuiltecans appear to represent a heterogeneous group displaying a wide range of variation in physical characteristics. Miller, E. A. 1989 The Effect of European Contact on the Health of Indigenous Populations in Texas. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. The author analyzes skeletal remains of indigenous (Coahuiltecan?) peoples from Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Francisco Xavier de Horcasitas, as well as human remains recovered from the prehistoric sites Blue Bayou and Palm Harbor, in order to assess the effects of European contact on the health of indigenous peoples of the eighteenth century. She notes the frequency of pathological conditions among the samples recovered from the missions, remarking also that few differences in the frequency of observed pathologies existed between the mission populations. Miller concludes, “This supports the hypothesis that contact with Europeans was detrimental to the health of indigenous hunter/gatherer populations in Texas” (p. iv). 1996 The Effect of European Contact on the Health of Indigenous Populations in Texas. In Bioarchaeology of Native American Adaptation in the Spanish Borderlands, edited by B. J. Baker and L. Kealhofer, pp. 126-147. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. This chapter is a consolidated version of the study Miller conducted for her Master’s thesis. Schuetz, M. K. 1974 The Dating of the Chapel at Mission San Juan Capistrano, San Antonio, Texas. Special Reports No. 12. Texas Historical Commission, Office of the State Archeologist, Austin. Description of 92 individuals (51 adults and 41 children) recovered during excavations of the San Juan chapel in 1969. Schuetz observes what she describes as a racial admixture with a predominance of Native Americans represented. Based on associated grave goods and incidental artifacts (i.e., buttons, brass hooks and eyes), Schuetz concludes that the burials from the east wall correspond to the dates 1764 to the 1780s, and the remainder date from the late Colonial period toward the end of the 1700s and early 1800s, and that the burials are contemporaneous. The racial admixture in these late Colonial burials also leads Schuetz to believe that these burials appear to represent members of what later became the Berg’s Mill community (see Schuetz 1968:65-66).


Steele, D. G. and B. W. Olive 1989 Bioarcheology of the Region 3 Study Area. In From the Gulf Coast to the Rio Grande: Human Adaptation in Central, South, and Lower Pecos Texas, by T. R. Hester, S. L. Black, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, A. A. Fox, K. J. Reinhard, and L. C. Bement, pp. 93-114. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 33. Fayetteville. This chapter is primarily a literature review and summary of previous research on human remains from south and central Texas, the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the Gulf Coast. 1990 Bioarcheology of the Western Portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In The Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, vol. 2, by D. A. Story, J. A. Guy, B.A. Burnett, M. D. Freeman, J. C. Rose, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, and K. J. Reinhard, pp. 129-162. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38. Fayetteville. This chapter is primarily a literature review and summary of previous research on human remains from south and central Texas and the Gulf Coast. Story, D. A., J. A. Guy, B. A. Burnett, M. D. Freeman, J. C. Rose, D. G. Steele, B. W. Olive, and K. J. Reinhard. 1990 The Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Gulf Coastal Plain, vol. 2. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 38. Fayetteville. The information contained in this volume pertains to the study of material and human remains from the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas and portions of Oklahoma near the Red River. The research findings are summarized according to both the western and eastern portions of the Gulf Coastal Plain. For those interested in studying Coahuiltecan populations, the findings concerning the western portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain should be informative. SAN ANTONIO De la Teja, J. F. 1995 San Antonio de Béxar: a Community on New Spain’s Northern Frontier. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. De la Teja provides an examination of the founding of San Antonio from its days as a frontier outpost, looking closely at the roles of the missions, military, and immigrant colonists (Canary Islanders) in the construction of a community. The author also addresses issues of land distribution among residents of San Antonio and mission neophytes, including the history of land ownership at mission San Juan when secularization of the missions occurred in 1793-1794. Historical Research Committee 1976 San Antonio in the Eighteenth Century. San Antonio Bicentennial Heritage Committee, San Antonio.


A collection of essays by several authors documenting various aspects of life in San Antonio from the peak years of the Spanish Colonial period to the 1820s. Most of the articles take the perspective of the Spanish. Those articles discussing Coahuiltecans within the context of this time period follow a more classic ethnographic style of writing, focusing at length on Coahuiltecan traditions and subsistence patterns and less on their lives as active members of the town and missions. Passing Show Publishing Co. 1909 San Antonio: Historical and Modern. Passing Show Publishing Company, San Antonio. This is one of a number of popularly written books providing an overview of San Antonio’s history and landmarks. Poyo, G. E. and G. M. Hinojosa (editors) 1991 Tejano Origins in Eighteenth-Century San Antonio. University of Texas Press, Austin. A collection of essays describing San Antonio’s communities during its formative Years, including an account of the process of Tejano identity-formation from its Spanish Colonial and indigenous roots, with a discussion of the influences of military, religious, immigrant, and Native American—both Coahuiltecan and “independent” tribes—on the formation of San Antonio. HISTORICAL AND CENSUS-RELATED Almaraz, F. D., Jr. 1989 The San Antonio Missions and Their System of Land Tenure. University of Texas Press, Austin. A brief description of land use by the missions and a description of the land distribution following the secularization of the missions. Benavides, A., Jr. (compiler and editor) 1989 The Béxar Archives, 1717-1836: A Name Guide. University of Texas Press, Austin. A guide to the more than 8,000 names that appear in the calendar of the Béxar Archives.

The Béxar Archives at the University of Texas Archives 1967-1970 Archives consisting of 172 reels, 35 mm. University of Texas Library, Austin. Consists of more than 250,000 pages of manuscript documentation and 4,000 pages of printed material of colonial archives of Texas produced during the Spanish and Mexican periods, 1717-1836.


Cadena, G. V. n.d. Family sheets created by genealogist Gloria V. Cadena based upon numerous sources. San Antonio. Mrs. Cadena’s files are especially rich with information regarding the Hispanic families of central and south Texas and of families from the neighboring Mexican states of Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas. Castañeda, C. E. 1937 A Report on the Spanish Archives in San Antonio, Texas. Yanaguana Society, San Antonio. Description and guide to the Spanish and Mexican documents that were retained by the Bexar County’s Commissioners Court when the Béxar Archives were transferred to the University of Texas at Austin in 1899. De la Teja, J. F. 1995 San Antonio de Béxar: A Community on New Spain’s Northern Frontier. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. The most recent, complete history of San Antonio during its formative years. Habig, M. A. 1976 The Alamo Chain of Missions: A History of San Antonio’s Five Old Missions. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. A simply written history of the San Antonio missions based on primary sources from the Franciscan archives in Mexico. Leal, C. (compiler and translator) 1979 Translations of Statistical and Census Reports of Texas, 1782-1836; and Sources Documenting the Black in Texas, 1603-1803. 3 reels, 35 mm. University of Texas at San Antonio, Institute of Texan Cultures. Contents: Reel 1—Statistical Reports of Texas, 1783-1820, and Census Reports of Texas, 1782-1806; Reel 2—Census Reports of Texas, 1807-1834; and Reel 3—Census Reports of Texas, 1835, and General Manuscript Series, 1603-1803. A partial paper copy has been published entitled Residents of Texas, 1782-1836 (3 vols., University of Texas at San Antonio, Institute of Texan Cultures; distributed by Ingmire Publications, St. Louis, Missouri, and Ericson Books, Nacogdoches, Texas). San Fernando Cathedral (San Antonio, Texas). 2000 Marriage, Death and Burial Registers of San Fernando Parish Church, 1703-1860. 6 reels, 35 mm, and guide. Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, The University of Texas, Austin.


Records of San Fernando Parish Church (which became San Fernando Cathedral in 1874), with registers of missions, deposited at San Fernando Church. In 1972, the original documents were transferred to the San Antonio Archdiocesan Catholic Archives located at the Catholic Chancery in San Antonio. The film, on file at the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection, the University of Texas at Austin, is a third-generation copy made in 2000. The primary copy is located at the Bexar County Courthouse. Spanish and Mexican Archives in the Bexar County Courthouse: Land Titles 1981 13 reels, 35 mm, and Contents list. Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City. Records of the county clerk of Bexar County, Texas, pertaining to land titles, mostly covering the period from 1736-1836. Copy on file at the Tarlton Law Library, the University of Texas at Austin. Swenson, H. S. 1981 8800 Texas Marriages, 1824-1850. 2 vols. H. S. Swenson, Round Rock, Texas. Includes an index by F. T. Ingmire. A 1995 reprint is also available from Ericson Books, Nacogdoches, Texas. White, G. E. 1966 The 1840 Census of the Republic of Texas. Pemberton Press, Austin. Contains census data for towns and countries. 1983 1830 Citizens of Texas. Eakin Press, Austin. Contains Austin’s Register of families; Titles in DeWitt’s colony; 1830 census of San Antonio; 1830 census of Nacogdoches; General Land Office records; Clerk’s returns and reports; registered voters of 1867; and Appendix: Population statistics for Texas. Land laws. 1983-1984 1840 Citizens of Texas. 2 vols. Gifford White, Austin [also distributed by Ingmire Publications, St. Louis, Missouri, and Ericson Books, Nacogdoches, Texas]. Compilation of individuals appearing in state records for land grants (vol. 1) and from tax rolls (vol. 2). Vol. 2 is the second edition of The 1840 Census of the Republic of Texas (1966).

Appendix D – Page 219

APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE Compiled by Dr. Jeffrey H. Cohen


The following questions come from Robert Atkinson’s The Life Story Interview (published by Sage, 1998) and are a basic set.

Birth and Family Origin When were you born? Where were you born? What was going on in your family at the time of your birth? What was going on in your community at the time of your birth? What was going on in the world at the time of your birth? What was going on in the Parish at the time of your birth? Were you ever told anything unusual about your birth? What family stories were/are told about you as a baby? What do you remember most about your Grandparents? How would you describe your parents? How would you describe your mother? (physically, personality) How would you describe your father? (physically, personality) What do you think you inherited from them? What feelings come up when you recall your parents? What is your earliest memory? How many brothers and/or sisters do you have? What can you tell us about them? What relatives stand out in your mind from your childhood? Why? Cultural Setting and Traditions What is the ethnic or cultural background of your parents? Were there any stories of family members or ancestors who first came to this country? Was there a noticeable cultural flavor to the home you grew up in? What was growing up in your house or neighborhood like? What are some early memories of traditions? What family or community celebrations, traditions, or rituals were important in your life? Was your family different from other families in your neighborhood? If so, how? What beliefs or ideals do you think your parents tried to teach you? What was your first experience with death? What was that like for you? Was religion important in your family? How would you describe the religious atmosphere in the home? Did you attend religious services as a child, as a youth? What was that like for you? Was religion important to you as a child, as a youth? Were there any religious ceremonies that you observed? Is religion important to you now? What cultural influences are still important to you today? How much of a factor in your life do you feel your cultural background has been?

Page 222 – Appendix D

Social Factors How did you feel cared for as a child? By your family, friends, community? Were you encouraged to try new things, or did you feel held back? What do you remember most about growing up with (or without) brothers and sisters? Did you get along with your family members? Did your parents spend time with you? What did you do with them? What were some of your struggles as a child? What was the saddest time for you? How was discipline handled in your family? What would you say was the most significant event in your life up to age 12? Did you make friends easily? What childhood or teenage friendships were most important to you? What pressures did you feel as a teenager, and where did they come from? Did you tend to go in for fads, or new styles? Were you athletic? What clubs, groups, or organizations did you join? Did you enjoy being alone, or was that too boring? What did you do for fun or entertainment? What was the most trouble you were ever in as a teenager? What was the most significant event of your teenage years? What was being a teenager like? The best part? The worst part? What was your first experience of leaving home like? What special people have you known in your life? What shaped and influenced your life the most? Who did you look to as role models? Who most helped you develop the current understanding of yourself? What social pressures have you experienced as an adult? Were you in the military? (If yes) What was this experience like? How do you use your leisure time? Is a sense of community important to you? Why? How? Education What is your first memory of attending school? What is the last level that you completed? What do you remember most about elementary school? Did you have a favorite teacher in grade school? In junior high? In high school? How did they influence you? What are your best memories of school? What are your worst memories of school? What accomplishments in school are you most proud of?


Did you continue formal education after high school? What do you remember most about college? What organizations or activities were you involved with in school? In college? What was the most important course you took in school or college? What was the most important book you read? What did you learn about yourself during these years? What has been your most important lesson in life, outside of the classroom? What is your view of the role of education in a person’s life? Love and Work Do you remember you first date? Your first kiss? Did you have a steady boy or girlfriend in high school? What were your attitudes toward sex when you were a teenager? What was the most difficult thing about dating for you? Are you married? How would you describe your courtship? What was it about her (him) that made you fall in love? What does intimacy mean to you? Do you have children? What are they like? What roles do they play in your life? What values or lessons do you try to teach to them? What have been the best or worst parts about marriage? What else about your marriage you would like to add? What dreams and ambitions did you have as a child? As an adolescent? Where did they come from? What did you want to be when you were in high school? Did you achieve what you wanted to, or did your ambitions change? What were your hopes and dreams as you entered adulthood? What events or experiences helped you understand and accept your adult responsibilities? How did you end up in the type of work you do (did)? Has your work been satisfying to you, or has it been something you had to put your time into? What is (was) important to you in your work? What comes (came) the easiest in your work? What is (was) most difficult about your work? Why do (did) you do this work? When did you realize you had become an adult? How do love and work fit together for you in your life?


Historical Events and Periods What is the most important thing given to you by your family? What is the most important thing you have given to your family? What is the most important thing you have given to your community? Do you recall any legends, tales, or songs about people, places, or events in your community? What is different or unique about your community? Are you aware of any traditional ways that families built their buildings, prepared their food, or took care of sickness? What did your work contribute to the life of your family? Community? What has your life contributed to the history of your family? Community? Retirement (optional, used as needed) What was retiring from work like for you? Did you miss it? Or were you glad to have it over? How do you feel about your life now that you are retired? What do you do with your time now? Is there anything you miss about your work? What is the worst part about being retired? What is the best part? Have all your children left home? How is it having an empty nest? Do you have grandchildren? Do you like spending time with them? What do you enjoy most about your grandchildren? What do you enjoy the least? What do you hope to pass to your grandchildren? Inner Life and Spiritual Awareness How would you describe yourself as a child? Do you think you had a happy childhood? What was your happiest memory from childhood? Did you feel loved as a child? Did you have any deep thoughts, or inner dreams, as a teenager? What was it like to turn 30, 40, 60? What are the stresses of being an adult? What transitions or turning points did you experience as a teenager? As an adult? What changes have you undergone since 40? Since 50 (or beyond)? What role does spirituality play in your life now? What primary beliefs guide your life? Have you ever had a spiritual experience? What is most important to you about your spiritual life? Have you ever felt the presence of a spiritual guide within you? How has this guide helped you?


Do you have a concept of God or a higher power? What does that consist of? Has imagination or fantasy been part of your life? Do you feel you have inner strength? Where does that come from? In what ways do you experience yourself as strong? How would you renew your strength, if you felt you were really drained? What values would you not want to compromise? What do you see as the purpose of life? What do you see as the strongest ideal we can strive for? Do you feel you are in control of your life? What single experience has given you the greatest joy? What is your view of why there is suffering in the world? Did you ever have any doubts about achieving your goal in life? Do you feel at peace with yourself? How did you achieve this? Do you have any kind of daily or regular practice? How would you describe this? Major Life Themes What gifts (tangible or intangible) are still important to you? What were some crucial decisions that you made in your life? What has been the most important learning experience in your life? What did it teach you? How have you handled any mistakes in your life? How have you overcome and learned from your difficulties? How do you handle disappointment? Are you satisfied with the life choices you have made? Is there anything you would change? What has been the happiest time in your life? What was the least enjoyable time? What relationship in your life has been the most significant? How would you describe those relationships? Have you helped or hindered your own spiritual growth? Has there been a special person that has changed your life? What have been your greatest accomplishments? Are you certain of anything? What are some things you hope you never forget? Is there anything in your experience of life that gives it unity, meaning, or purpose? How do you feel about yourself at the age you are now? What is your biggest worry now? In what ways are you changing now? What has been the greatest challenge of your life so far? What has been the most awe-inspiring experience you have ever had? What one sentiment or emotion makes you feel most deeply alive?


What matters most to you now? What do you wonder about now? What time of your life would you like to repeat? What was the most important thing you have had to learn by yourself? How would you describe yourself to yourself at this point in your life? Is the way you see yourself now very different than it was in the past? How would you describe your view of the world? Vision Of The Future When you think about the future, what makes you feel most uneasy? What gives you the most hope? Is your life fulfilled yet? What would you like to achieve in your life? What do you see for yourself in the future, in 5, 15, 25 years? What is your view on death? What do you want most to experience before you die? How long do you believe you will live? How would you like to die? What three things would you like said about your life when you die? Do you have any advice or wisdom for the younger generation? Closure Questions Is there anything we’ve left out of your life story? Do you feel you have given a fair picture of yourself? What are your feelings about this interview and all that we have covered?

Appendix E – Page 227

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS Jeffrey H. Cohen and Interviewees (Transcribed by Debra Dandridge and Hillary Standish) i Interview with Rebecca Stuart Interview with Rick Mendoza and Rey Ríos Interview with Mickey Killian


The information contained in the transcripts below constitutes relevant data from the interviews recorded by Dr. J. H. Cohen between July and August 1999. Each interviewee reviewed a draft of his/her own transcript. Interested individuals may consult the actual recordings archived at the National Park Service Headquarters in San Antonio. Transcription of Dr. Jeff Cohen’s (JC) interview with Rebecca Stuart (RS), San Juan Mission, San Antonio, TX, 7/7/99. Tape #1 of 4. Transcribed by Debra Dandridge. Mrs. Stuart is active with her husband in the Men’s Club and acts as caretaker for the cemetery. JC:

…the way that we’ll do this is, and the reason I thought it would be easier if we get on the table is, this way you can help me, you can look at this while I’m doing it. It’s just a very kind of simple way of graphing out people. And what I use are a series of symbols, and we’ll just slowly fill them in, and you don’t have to worry if they’re people that you don’t remember. If you know there is somebody there who, but you maybe don’t remember who they are, but you have—Just don’t worry, we’ll just fill in whatever we can. And to just start off, the way we do it is with boxes, boxes and circles and triangles. And you’re a box because you’re the person we’re making the chart over, and I’m just going to put you down here, and probably we’ll go through a lot of paper doing this. But anyway, so this is you and then we’ll just go from here, and if you have any questions about any of this stuff I’m writing down here, just let me know. Okay?

RS:

Okay, okay.

JC:

So, this is you Rebecca, and this is—your married name is Stuart?

RS:

Stuart.

JC:

Yeah, and what was your maiden name?

RS:

Montes.

JC:

M-O-N-T-E-S? T-E?

RS:

Well, its either way, T-E-S or T-E-Z.

JC:

Okay, and you’re married?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

And what’s your husband’s name?

RS:

Arthur.

Page 230 – Appendix E

JC:

Okay and do you have kids?

RS:

I have one daughter.

JC:

This is your, is this your only marriage?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

And if I, don’t be offended by anything I ask too, I mean if anything like, you know, asking about marriages or something, it’s just to make sure that we get it all together.

RS:

Oh, oh no, that’s fine.

JC:

And your daughter’s name?

RS:

Celeste.

JC:

Is she married?

RS:

No.

JC:

How old is she?

RS:

She’s 21.

JC:

Twenty-one, and how old are you?

RS:

I’m 49.

JC:

Forty-nine, and how old’s your husband?

RS:

Fifty-one.

JC:

Okay, now what we’ll do is we’ll go up and we’ll get your—you have siblings? Brothers and sisters?

RS:

Yes, I have one of each.

JC:

Okay. Okay what’s your brother’s name?

RS:

Nicasio. N-I-C-A-S-I-O. Montes.

JC:

And is he married?

RS:

He’s married. Yes.


JC:

And do they have children?

RS:

They have two boys.

JC:

And what’s his wife’s name?

RS:

Leticia.

JC:

And what are their boys’ names?

RS:

Uh, the oldest is Nicasio, the fourth, Nicky the IV, and Raymond, Raymond Lee.

JC:

And your sister? Is she married?

RS:

She’s married, yes, her name is Rosemary.

JC:

And what’s her last name?

RS:

Married name is Anthony.

JC:

And what’s her husband’s name?

RS:

Jesse.

JC:

And do they have children?

RS:

They have three girls and one boy.

JC:

You can see how this gets very complicated very quickly. [laughs]

RS:

Mmm hmm.

JC:

One boy, and you said three girls?

RS:

Three girls.

JC:

Okay, are any of these children, any of your brother’s sons married?

RS:

No, no.

JC:

And are any of your sister’s children married?

RS:

They’re all married.

JC:

They’re all married. Okay now are they, are your brother and sister older than you or younger than you?


RS:

My sister’s older. My brother’s younger.

JC:

Okay, how old is your sister?

RS:

My sister’s 54.

JC:

And your brother?

RS:

And my brother is 43.

JC:

Okay, let’s go up, I might come back to them. Let’s go up and let’s do your parents here. Okay, your mom’s name.

RS:

Odelia. O-D-E-L-I-A.

JC:

Okay.

RS:

Cantú. C-A-N-T-U.

JC:

And that’s a real common name around here, isn’t it? Cantú?

RS:

Mmm hmm, mmm hmm.

JC:

And your dad’s name?

RS:

Nicasio Montes.

JC:

And do you know when they were born?

RS:

Yes, my mother was born, do you want just the year?

JC:

Yes.

RS:

Well, I know the dates.

JC:

Or the date, that’d be fine.

RS:

January 1, 1910—1920, I’m sorry.

JC:

Okay, and your dad?

RS:

He was April 21, 1920—1910. There’s ten years difference, yeah. He’s 1910, she’s 1920.

JC:

Okay, and are either of them alive still?


RS:

She is.

JC:

Okay, and when did he pass away?

RS:

He passed away on February 23rd, ’66.

JC:

And she’s still alive. And does she live here in the community still?

RS:

Yes. She lives over there by the mission.

JC:

Great. And did your mom have siblings? Brothers and sisters?

RS:

Oh yes, she had nine.

JC:

We’ll have to start a new page, there. Okay.

RS:

She had, there was, well there was nine with her, so she had seven sisters.

JC:

Seven sisters, wow.

RS:

And two brothers.

JC:

Okay, seven sisters, and two brothers. Okay, well, can you recall all the names of the sisters?

RS:

I know the names, I won’t know the birth dates.

JC:

Well that’s okay, that’s okay.

RS:

But okay, the sisters, is Concepción, Guadalupe, Lydia, Margarita, Eustolia, E-US-T-O-L-I-A, and Gorgonia, G-O-R-G-O-N-I-A. And of course, my mother. I’m sorry, there was seven.

JC:

Yeah, seven. Okay, and then the brothers?

RS:

The brothers, it was a one of the, the oldest it was Candido, C-A-N-D-I-D-O, and Juan.

JC:

And was he the eldest of all the children? Candido?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

Okay. Wow that’s a big family. And they all were married with children?

RS:

Yes.


JC:

Okay do you remember the names of their husbands and wives?

RS:

Their husbands, yes. Concepción husband’s Manuel.

JC:

Uh huh, and his last name?

RS:

Martinez. And Guadalupe is her—Her husband’s name was Zaragoza González. Zaragoza with a “z.”

JC:

Okay.

RS:

And Lydia, her husband’s name was Estanlisado, E-S-T-A-N-L-I-S-A-D-O, Pérez.

JC:

Okay.

RS:

Eustolia, her husband’s name was Lucio Cantú. And Gorgonia, her husband’s name was Jesús González.

JC:

And, Candido, his wife?

RS:

No, I don’t know his wife’s maiden name, he died 35 years ago, and I don’t recall his wife’s—his wife’s name was Adalina, but I don’t recall her maiden name.

JC:

Okay, that’s okay.

RS:

And Juan Cantú, his wife’s name is Catarina Garza.

JC:

Would this have been a cousin?

RS:

Lucio Cantú and Eustolia were distant cousins, yes.

JC:

Okay, do you remember the name of your mom’s parents? They would be your grandparents?

RS:

Yes, Juan Cantú, Juan N., the initial “N,” Cantú, and Vicenta, V-I-C-E-N-T-A, Vela, V-E-L-A.

JC:

Okay, and do you have an idea of when your granddad was born?

RS:

When he was born? No, I know he passed away in February of ’76, but I don’t know the year. He was born August 12th , but I’m not sure of the year.

JC:

Okay, and your grandma?


RS:

Her, I know she died December 23rd, of ’44 I believe, but I don’t recall her birth date.

JC:

Okay, how about on your dad’s side?

RS:

He had three sisters and one brother.

JC:

Okay and their names?

RS:

Helena, she spelled it H-E-L-E-N-A. Helena, and Juanita, and Cecelia, and Juan Montes. They were all Montes.

JC:

And, were they all married?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

Their spouses, husbands?

RS:

Elena was José Salazar.

JC:

S-A-L . . .

RS:

S-A-L-A-Z-A-R. And Juanita was Manuel Ayala, A-Y-A-L-A. And Cecelia was Gilberto.

JC:

With a “G”?

RS:

With a “G.” Saenz. S-A-E-N-Z. And Juan was married to Sophia Anthony.

JC:

Great, okay. Okay, and your dad’s parents.

RS:

Nicasio Montes. And his mother was Emelia Huron.

JC:

Is it with a “H”?

RS:

H-U-R-O-N.

JC:

And do you have an idea of how old they were, or when they were born?

RS:

Mmm, no I sure don’t.

JC:

No, okay, do you remember when they passed away?

RS:

No, I know the months, I don’t know the years, and I see them all the time, because they’re at the cemetery here.


JC:

Oh, are they?

RS:

At the mission, yes.

JC:

Okay, I can actually go and look them up then. Do you remember anything about your granddad’s, this man, Juan Cantú, his family, his parents?

RS:

No.

JC:

Okay, do you, did anybody say anything about whether they were born here?

RS:

Now my mother’s side of the family is not from San Antonio, they’re from south Texas. They’re from Alice, Alice Texas and ranches around Alice. Now it’s my dad’s side of the family that was from the mission.

JC:

Oh, okay. So that would be Nicasio, the Montes.

RS:

Montes, right, right.

JC:

What kind of things did people say about them? Being you know, in terms of being from the mission.

RS:

Well—

JC:

Did it ever come up, you know, that—Anyone ever say anything about, say, your great-grandparents?

RS:

Where they came from?

JC:

Yeah, where they came from.

RS:

No. Like I said the last time I talked to you, my grandfather would always say that he was Indian, but . . .

JC:

And that would be this man, right here?

RS:

Yes, he would always say that he was Indian, but he never went into detail, he never told us, you know, about—I know his parent’s names, his mom and dad.

JC:

Okay, what were their names?

RS:

Which was Juan Montes, and Refugia Díaz. Those were his parents, yeah.

JC:

Okay, so let’s see, this would have been about 1910, and maybe 1890s, 1880s, 1870s or 1860s maybe?


RS:

Mmm hmm, now they’re both buried also at San Juan Cemetery.

JC:

Is that cemetery open? Or is it always locked?

RS:

Oh, its open.

JC:

Is it open?

RS:

Mmm hmm. In fact, I oversee the cemetery.

JC:

Oh do you?

RS:

Yes, I just make sure that it’s cleaned once a month, because it doesn’t belong to the city, see, it belongs over here to the community. So I just make sure that it’s cleaned, and I have boys that need community hours. I work with the Bexar County Probation office.

JC:

Oh, so you get them?

RS:

Yes, so they come out and help me, and I just provide lunch and drinks. But I make sure that it’s cleaned up. In fact we have a date next week.

JC:

Oh, do you really? What day?

RS:

We’ll be there Wednesday and Thursday.

JC:

Cleaning up?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

Oh, what times do you do that?

RS:

We’re going to be there about nine in the morning, about nine to about noon, for both days. You know, if you want to come down, you can see a lot of the headstones out there.

JC:

Yeah, what I’m thinking is I may—See if I can’t do it, maybe Jennifer, who’s working down here with the Parks service, she should come in because that might be a real nice way to actually come in and take some photos of the stones.

RS:

Oh sure, we’ll be down there. Hopefully it’ll stop raining for awhile and we can go.

JC:

Okay, do you know, did you ever hear stories about the parents of Juan or Refugia?


RS:

No, now Mickey Killian can probably tell you more about them. He knows a lot more than I do.

JC:

Is this somebody who’s related to him, because he had mentioned—

RS:

Refugia Díaz? Yes, yes. She’s related to him on his mom’s side. I have a picture of my grandfather, if you’d like to see it.

JC:

You do? Oh yeah, that would be neat.

RS:

If you’d like to see it, I can bring it. Yeah, he looks Indian.

JC:

Oh does he really? Yeah? Oh that’s great, yeah.

RS:

See how he looks?

JC:

He does look it, yeah.

RS:

And that’s his wife.

JC:

So this would be, okay. . .

RS:

Emelia Huron.

JC:

Okay that’s a wonderful photo.

RS:

Actually, it was just a small one and I had it blown up.

JC:

Do you know when that was taken?

RS:

In ’55, 1955.

JC:

What kinds of things do you remember about your granddad?

RS:

Well, he never did talk much about his childhood with us. Now all he would ever say was that he grew up around the mission, you know, they used to play at the mission, and at the time they didn’t think that the mission was like, one of San Antonio’s treasures.

JC:

Yeah.

RS:

That’s what they call them. They just considered it a church, you know they thought nothing, it was just a church. But I know he and his family grew up around there. He used to plant, you know we, he had—In fact, my mother still lives on that property where he lived.


JC:

Oh does—

RS:

Yes, it was willed to her when they passed away, and of course, my mother’s a widow and she lives there by herself. But he used to have a garden, he used to plant, and he had a water well, you know, his own irrigation.

JC:

His own well.

RS:

Uh huh, and but he also worked, he worked at Brooks Air Force Base for awhile. My grandmother never worked.

JC:

She stayed, she was at home?

RS:

She was at home, yeah.

JC:

Do you know what he did at Brooks?

RS:

I believe he worked with the fire department.

JC:

And did he refer to himself as an Indian?

RS:

As an Indian, yeah.

JC:

And when would that come up in conversation?

RS:

Well, he would tell my grandmother, you know, that he was Indian, and like I said I think it was maybe just something between she—My grandmother was not, I know she wasn’t Indian. Well, I don’t know about the Hurons, what they were. Her father was Huron, and her mother was Hall, actually, her name was Jenny Hall, and she came from Tennessee. That was Emelia’s. Her mother was Jenny Hall, and her father was José María Huron. And from what I understand, José, the Hurons migrated over here from Canada.

JC:

Right, right.

RS:

And I know Jenny Hall came from Tennessee.

JC:

And so, what, so he would say things though like “I was an Indian”?

RS:

Yeah, “I’m an Indian” you know, but he never did go into detail as far as how he was raised. I don’t think that he was raised with an Indian culture because he never did pass that on to his kids. I guess he just knew he had Indian blood in him.

JC:

Did he use it kind of like a joke?


RS:

Yeah, yeah—well, no, he referred to his like he was proud of it.

JC:

Okay. And did your dad ever talk about it?

RS:

No. No, he just talked about his times around the mission, you know, growing up in the neighborhood. But no, he never referred to himself as an Indian, or like I said, my grandfather I guess never brought that up, the stories.

JC:

Did people have, did you have like a special name for your granddad or for your dad, like nicknames?

RS:

Well, I just called them Grandpa and Grandma. You know, that’s it.

JC:

Do you know if they had nicknames for each other?

RS:

I think Nicky and Wally would know more about this, but back then, you know, in the neighborhood, the men had nicknames for each other. And I know they used to call him “El Cameo.” El, E-L, Cameo, C-A-M-E-O. Which means “camel”, I guess because he was so tall, because he was a very tall person. But men used to have nicknames for each other.

JC:

Hmm, and did your dad have one? Did the people used to—

RS:

No, no.

JC:

What did your dad do?

RS:

My father was in construction. He was in construction. In fact he worked with one of Wally’s uncles. He used to work with him in construction.

JC:

And what did your, did your mom work? Or was she. . .

RS:

No, she didn’t work in her early years. She did start working when she became a widow at 48. And she started working then, and she retired from the State, 20 years service.

JC:

What did she do?

RS:

She worked in food service, and, ’cause my dad past away at, he was 58 when he passed away, and she, that’s when she started working at 48.

JC:

What kind of things do you remember growing up? With, do you remember any like, special moments with your mom or with your dad?

RS:

Oh yeah, Sundays, yeah, Sundays were. There was always a family get-together because everybody lived in the neighborhood. So Sundays was always a big get


together—you know fried chicken and the watermelon and chili, and all that good stuff. So it was always a big family get together on Sundays. JC:

And did all of your relatives come, your mom’s?

RS:

Yeah, well it was just my Uncle Juan, and Cecelia, and actually my dad’s side of the family because my mother’s side of the family didn’t live here.

JC:

Oh okay. Where were they living?

RS:

They lived in a little town called Realitos, R-E-A-L-I-T-O-S, and that’s southwest Alice, Texas, in south Texas.

JC:

Okay, do people ever say, talk about you know, their background, besides your grandpa saying that he was an Indian? You said that your other grandma was from Tennessee, did they ever talk about that?

RS:

Well, all she ever said was that Jenny was Irish. Her mother was Irish. And I guess she came to Texas with, you know at one time during the battle of the Alamo, remember there was the people from Tennessee that came to Texas, and I guess she came, because I never figured out how she met my grandfather, my great-grandfather, if he was from Texas, you know. I guess she came with that group of people, that migrated to Texas from Tennessee, but she always said that her grandmother was Irish. And I think she was, cause she was a real hothead.

JC:

Like, what made her a real hothead?

RS:

Well, she would get upset you know, she would really get upset, for every little thing. Turned red.

JC:

Now did any of your siblings inherit that?

RS:

I think we all did, a little bit. I think we all did.

JC:

What do you know about the Huron side of your family?

RS:

Well, I know José María, which was her dad. I don’t think it was him, it may have been his dad. Mickey once had mentioned to me that his name is on a plaque at the Alamo where he fought at the Alamo, José María Huron. But I have I’ve never, I haven’t been to the Alamo to go research it, and like I said, it may not have been him, it could have been his dad. But, were one of the men that fought at the Alamo. And I know he had two other brothers and those, between the three, that’s what connects us all, you know. It connects the Gaitáns, it connects the Geigenmillers, and you haven’t met any of the Geigenmillers.

JC:

No, I haven’t, just at the reunion. I said hello to some of them.


RS:

Oh, okay, yeah. And it connects the Navairas. You know, because of those three, we’re all connected.

JC:

And what was the third name?

RS:

Navaira, N-A-V-A-I-R-A.

JC:

And so, basically, the Gaitáns, the Geigenmillers, and the Navairas, through those three brothers, y’all are all distant cousins.

RS:

Yeah, we’re all distant cousins. And it was Jose Maria Huron, it was Estevan Huron, and it was Melchor, M-E-L-C-H-O-R. Those were the three brothers.

JC:

Do you remember any other stories about them, besides possibly being at the Alamo?

RS:

No.

JC:

The kinds of things that they did?

RS:

No, no, like I said, Mickey might be able to help you more. Have you talked to Mickey today?

JC:

Not yet, we weren’t able to get together for today, but probably for another day.

RS:

We have a meeting, well yeah, it’s a, we’re planning—The mission just went through a crisis, the air-conditioner broke down…So the community got together, and it’s fixed, the air-conditioner, it’s fixed, and it was replaced with a new unit and all, but now we’re having a fund-raiser dance to recoup some of those funds. So we’re getting together this afternoon to distribute some tickets and see how we’re doing on raffle gifts. In fact, I’m working with another lady on raffle prizes. What we have is raffle prizes and door prizes, and the dance.

JC:

What are you raffling?

RS:

Oh, we get different things. We get savings bonds, baskets with liquor bottles and everything. They’re nice raffle gifts. Nice raffle prizes. And the fee is only five dollars a person, for the dance. But if we do good we should recoup some of it, you know at least a third of it.

JC:

Now have you always lived here in San Antonio? Or did you spend any time away from the area?

RS:

I was born and raised right there, by the mission, and I did move away for two years because my husband was in the Marine Corps and we lived in San Diego,


California for two years. But that was in, I came back in ‘71 and I’ve been here since. JC:

And have you always been real active in the church?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

And in the same church, in San Juan?

RS:

In the same church.

JC:

What kind of things do you remember about, say San Juan, when you were growing up?

RS:

Well, I attended CCD classes there.

JC:

What is CCD?

RS:

That’s—

[End of Side A, beginning of Side B] RS:

—for our first sacrament. But I’ve always been active with the festivals. There’s always been an annual festival, or fundraisers, and I’ve always been active there. I do belong to another parish, you know, because I live now so far away from—I don’t live that far away from the mission, but I do belong to another parish. I just attend. I just go to the mission because, well, my roots are there, and you’ll find that with most of the members, they grew up in the area, and they live in other parts of town, but they come back over here to the mission on Sundays. I guess that’s what keeps it alive, otherwise, they’d declare it a historical landmark.

JC:

Well they’ve declared it.

RS:

Well it’s still active, otherwise it wouldn’t be active.

JC:

Right, right. When you say you’ve been active with the festivals, are there certain ones that you remember? Like when you were growing up, were there certain festivals that you celebrated at the mission that stand out in your mind?

RS:

Well, the festivals are always held in August, early August in honor of the, they call it “Día de los Misiones,” which is August 6th. August 6th is the “Día de los Misiones,” which is the “Day of the Missions.” And San Juan has always tried to hold their festival around that week, in honor of the missions.

JC:

And what kind of things do you do for the festival?


RS:

I normally have a booth. I’ve sold popcorn, cotton candy, I’ve sold snow cones, I’ve sold hamburgers, or I bake cakes, you know, help in the cake booth. Yeah, it’s a lot of fun.

JC:

Yeah, yeah, what other kinds of things happen?

RS:

Oh they have several food booths, and then they have lots of games. They have music, live music with street dancing. And plenty of games for the kids, like the dunking booth, and the fishpond, and horseshoes and things like that.

JC:

Now is this something that you remember having celebrated when you were growing up too?

RS:

The Día de los Misiones?

JC:

Yeah, or other festivals?

RS:

It’s always, well, no, it’s always been Día de los Missiones, and other than its small fundraisers, you know, during the year.

JC:

Yeah, yeah, okay. When you were growing up here, are there certain events that kind of stick out in your mind, like things that happened that were either really great, or just kind of tragic, that you remember from growing up, that might be related to the mission?

RS:

Well, what was tragic to us, to me, was when it was declared a historical landmark, and the national parks took it over.

JC:

Yeah, now why do you think that was tragic?

RS:

Because before that, we could do, we could plant, if we wanted to plant around the mission. We could do what ever we wanted, as far as events, you know, hold events around the mission. Now, we have to, you know like for the reunion, we have to ask permission from the national parks to do that. We can’t go in there and plant a tree, or a rose bush without permission from the national parks, and they only allow certain plants to be planted, where as before, you know, it like, it belonged to us.

JC:

Yeah, so do you feel kind of like it was taken away almost?

RS:

Yeah, to a certain point.

JC:

And is it the kind of thing that like, and you mentioned before, that if you didn’t do these things, that you feel like it would just become a historic site and it would cease to function as a church almost?


RS:

Mmm hmm, mmm hmm.

JC:

Yeah, and do you feel like there are, do you feel like your children, or your grandchildren, or other people in the area, have kids that are going to take your place and keep it going?

RS:

Oh yes, because I have, well my daughter is not married, but I do have nieces that are married with children. In fact, I just had one niece that baptized her baby there Sunday.

JC:

Oh, how wonderful.

RS:

And she’s from Dallas. She’s from Dallas, but she called Father Jim, and she came and baptized her baby here, because she was baptized here, so she wanted her baby baptized in the mission also.

JC:

Oh that’s wonderful. That’s really nice, yeah.

RS:

So I have my nieces and my nephews still, that they attend services there. In fact, they’ve all had their children baptized there. And they belong to other areas of San Antonio. So I hope that it remains open, it remains active, and that’s what, there is a group called the Berg’s Mill Community Men’s Club, and that’s what they try to do. They try to keep the community active so the church can continue to be active.

JC:

And that’s what Wally is the president of right? Did I say that right?

RS:

And that’s another reason why I took over the cemetery. I’ve been overlooking the cemetery for three years. The cemetery does not belong to the mission, but about 100%, almost about 90% of the people buried there grew up around the mission. And, because it doesn’t belong to the city, there was a time there where it went neglected, and there was weeds, and people couldn’t even get in there. So some of us got together and one of the Navairas, which is Emelio Navaira’s aunt, and I got together, because the Navairas were also born and raised in this area. And there’s another girl, Sally Ramírez. We decided to form our group and overlook the cemetery. We didn’t want national parks to come in and take over the cemetery as well, you know, because so much of it already belongs to them. And there’s still a few widows that are to be buried there because their husbands are there. So, by keeping it clean, and making it look nice, this way national parks won’t take over, they’ll know the community is concerned.

JC:

So now, people can no longer be buried there, though from the mission—?

RS:

There’s no more space. There’s no more space. The only ones that we’re allowing are women, like widows, and I say widows because it seems like all the men died. You know, the women out lived them, so their husbands are buried


there. We still have about ten or twelve ladies that are widows and in their 80s that their husbands are there, so of course they want to be buried with their husbands. JC:

Is your dad buried there?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

And so is your mom?

RS:

My mom will be buried there when she passes on, yes.

JC:

That must be kind of nice in a way, to know that they’re there.

RS:

Yes, yes, so you know, we, by overlooking it, and making sure it’s always clean, national parks won’t come in and try to take it over.

JC:

Now, do you feel like the, how do you feel about the relationship to National Park? You said that you have to ask their permission. When you ask their permission is it something that they grant pretty easily?

RS:

Yes, yes I think they worked pretty good with Janie Garza during the reunion, yeah, I think they were real good about it. But I know for sure, I know for a fact that they won’t let you just go in there and plant something. It used to be, you know you could go plant rose bushes or whatever. Now we can around the priest’s, you know around his house, but we can’t in front of the church now. That’s something that National Parks takes care of.

JC:

Now when you were in high school, were you active in say, was there like a group for teenagers that was tied to the church or the mission at all?

RS:

No, no. No, we used to go from Connell, which was Hot Wells Middle School at the time, and into to Highlands, but no, there was no connection between the schools and the mission.

JC:

And what was the high school that you went to?

RS:

Highlands.

JC:

One of the things that, I think it was Enrique, was saying was that there was like a real kind of dividing line in San Antonio between south San Antonio and north San Antonio. Or like south and east and north and west and he felt like there was you know, you couldn’t go past, I think he said it was like Commerce St. You couldn’t go past that. Did you feel at all like that growing up?


RS:

I don’t ever remember going to the north side, my parents ever taking me to north side. No, the furthest we went was downtown. Now, I’m familiar with downtown very well, because there was always Fiesta. And we used to go to that every year, because Fiesta was always celebrated on my dad’s birthday, April 21. So of course we always made it to Fiesta downtown, and most of our shopping was done downtown, but I don’t ever recall going to the north side of San Antonio, and I don’t know what the reason was.

JC:

Yeah, yeah. But it wasn’t anything you really thought about then? That’s not something that was in your mind?

RS:

No, no.

JC:

Do you remember seeing many people that would have been, and I guess classified as Anglo Americans around here, or do you feel like most everyone around here, you know around you and that you were involved with, was more Hispanic?

RS:

Around the mission?

JC:

Yeah.

RS:

Yeah, there was quite a few, there was the Kuntz and the Geigenmillers and the Grafs, and the Pooleys, but I think they also—I don’t, well, I’d like to say they all considered themselves equal Hispanic. Because they grew up in the area, they all know how to speak Spanish, you know, and even now, if there’s a death in the community, you see them all. You see them at the services, and I guess they all consider themselves, you know, family. Of course, they don’t look Hispanic, but they consider, because they grew up together.

JC:

Now would you consider yourself Hispanic?

RS:

Hispanic.

JC:

Would you ever use a term like Tejano to describe yourself, or no.

RS:

No. Hispanic.

JC:

Okay, just Hispanic?

RS:

Mmm hmm.

JC:

Okay. It’s interesting, because you know, you say like the thing about the family like the Geigenmillers, who look very Anglo, but then, you’re all related too.


RS:

But yeah, the Geigenmiller’s mom and my grandmother were related, they’re cousins. Their mother and my grandmother were cousins.

JC:

That’s very interesting how that happens.

RS:

Of course their dad wasn’t from around here, I don’t think, but their mother and my grandmother were related.

JC:

Now they own one of the stores, is that correct? That they own one of the stores in the neighborhood in Berg’s Mill?

RS:

Right. There was a little store on San Presa called Buddy’s. It was a garage, Buddy’s Garage. And that was an uncle, that was their uncle I believe.

JC:

And that was like a repair shop?

RS:

Right, right.

JC:

Who was it then that owned the store? Cause there was like, a couple people talked about, you know, there’s like where kind of, I guess what would be sort of the center of what everything, of the community, there were. There were two little dry goods stores, like supermarket type of store.

RS:

Was it Chapa Grocery?

JC:

Yeah, that was it yeah.

RS:

Chapa Grocery. Now I knew, I knew Mr. Chapa the owner then. I believe there was an owner before, but I don’t know the name.

JC:

Yeah, yeah, what do you remember about that store?

RS:

Well we used to wait for the school bus there. You know, we didn’t live, well, I myself I didn’t live close to the store, I lived way over here, you know. But we’d all walk in the morning, up to that store. And that store was right, when you go down Corpus Christi highway, and it curves like this at the stop sign. It’s been torn, in fact it was just torn down recently. The store. And we used to have to walk all the way up there to wait for the school bus. The school bus would only make one stop, and it was there. And it would drop us off there and then we would have to walk home.

JC:

So when you got dropped off there would you go into the store at all?

RS:

Oh yes.

JC:

What kind of stuff did you—


RS:

Buy? Well, he sold everything, he sold candy, he sold sodas, you know, and that that was our…

JC:

And was it the kind of store where you could walk in and say, grab a handful of candy and not have to worry about paying for it because you know that you would work out the bill later? Because you know, your mom or your dad would take care of that later?

RS:

Yeah, sometimes, but I remember I always used to—My allowance wasn’t that much, so I’d always pay for what I get, you know, Popsicle or whatever to eat on the way home.

JC:

Yeah, yeah, are there certain foods that you remember as being kind of a special food that you might associate with growing up?

RS:

Frito Pie, and as far as candy, Frito Pie was very popular growing up in school they used to sell those in school, candy was the Big Hunk. Have you ever eaten it? It’s a white, and you still find it in some stores. It’s long and flat and square. You know, and it’s like a white nougat with pecans, peanuts, it’s called Big Hunk. It comes in a dark wrapper. It’s like a taffy candy. That was very popular when I was growing up, that candy.

JC:

And Frito Pie, it’s just a little…?

RS:

It’s just a bag, it’s a bag of Fritos. They’d cut it open in the middle and pour chili on it, with cheese. And you’d eat it out of the bag.

JC:

Out of the bag, so early style nachos.

RS:

And we still, you know whenever we have festivals, we have someone who wants to have a food booth with Frito Pies.

JC:

Yeah, well, I’ll have to come down.

RS:

It’s a big seller.

JC:

Do you recall any events, not that occurred here, but that occurred nationally that had a kind of a big impact on the mission, or on the community at all as you were growing up?

RS:

On the mission? Maybe not on the mission. On the community, well I remember me, myself, the day Kennedy was assassinated. I guess because it happened in Texas, in Dallas. And it just, I remember, it’s something that you’ll always remember what you were doing that day. I was in high school and we were in PE and I guess that nothing to do with the mission, just had a big impact on us. And I


remember coming back from school on the bus, everybody was so sad that this is what had happened. JC:

Yeah, and did you have like a service at the church or anything?

RS:

Yes, if I recall, that Sunday.

JC:

Let’s see, which one of the friends that you had when you were growing up that were from this—Were most of your friends, I assume would be from the neighborhood from here?

RS:

From here, uh huh.

JC:

Are is there anybody who you remember in particular that you might still even know?

RS:

Yeah, well Sally, Sally Ramírez. Her name was Sally Flaca at the time, and she’s the one that overlooks the cemetery with me. We went to school together, elementary school back there in Berg’s Mill.

JC:

And so, did you know her whole family?

RS:

Mmm hmm.

JC:

And were they a family that had been here for a long time?

RS:

Oh yes. Yes, her grandfather had a, in fact right across the street from the cemetery, on the other side of the tracks, just close to the tracks, her grandfather had a little cantina that they used to call a cantina.

JC:

Would that be a kind of where Slattery Hall is now?

RS:

No, that’s right as you cross the railroad tracks to your right. Where that brush is, right there. So yeah, she grew up in the area we went to elementary school together, and of course, we grew up and got married and she was in Utah for awhile and I was in California for awhile. And then we met again years later, we saw each other at the grocery store, and that’s when I learned that she had just moved back to close to the neighborhood, to the mission. And it was during a Christmas season, and I invited them to the Christmas dance, to a New Years dance, there at the hall. And she was glad to come back you know to see a lot old friends to the mission. So that’s when she and her husband started being active, and he belongs to the Men’s Club now, and she and I oversee the cemetery.

JC:

Is there anyone else?


RS:

There’s a lot of them, well, a lot of them still. I still see them because they go to church here. I think it was just Sally that I was close to when I was little that has come back. Everyone else I still see because they still come to services here on Sunday.

JC:

And when, let’s say it was a hot day like this, when you were say ten years old, do you remember what kind of things you would do?

RS:

On a Sunday, there was a baseball field in Berg’s Mill—in fact, right next door to Mickey’s house—and we used to go to the ball games, and this was like on a Saturday. We’d go to the ball games.

JC:

And would it be like guys playing, or would they be real, official teams?

RS:

No, there were teams.

JC:

Like company teams?

RS:

Uh huh.

JC:

What were the teams from? From the base?

RS:

Well, some were from like in icehouses. You know they form teams and come and play. And maybe from the other mission, from the smaller mission.

JC:

And did San Juan have a team?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

And so that was like their home field?

RS:

Right.

JC:

And so you’d spend the day watching the game?

RS:

Yeah, we’d spend the day watching the game, or too, we’d play by the—of course you can’t do that now—but we played by the river, by the acequia, actually. Because I lived on this side of Presa, and so we’re not that close to the river, but we did have the acequia, which extends all the way almost into Brooks. So we used to play by the acequia, go fishing for tadpoles.

JC:

And would you do that with your—?

RS:

My brother.

JC:

Brother, yeah. Did he ever play on the baseball teams?


RS:

No, no. He was a lot younger. By the time he grew up and was old enough to play, that had dissolved already, and he joined the army when he was 18, right out of high school.

JC:

Do you remember, let’s see now, your sister is older, right?

RS:

She’s older.

JC:

She’s older. Do you remember stories about her when you were growing up?

RS:

Well, she married very young, she married at 17. She married at 17 and she had four kids by the time she was 21. She had all of her family by the time she was 21. So she married and didn’t move too far away. She moved close to San Jose Mission because that’s where her husband’s parents was from, San Jose Mission.

JC:

With the other missions, did you ever, growing up, do stuff at the other missions? Did you take, you know, trips to the other missions?

RS:

The only other one would be Espada, because it’s so much closer than the other missions. Yeah, we’d go to Espada Mission to either the festivals, or we’d have CCD classes over there sometimes as well. But that’s about the only one. In fact, I really didn’t get to know the other missions that well until I was older. I went to visit San José and Concepción, but Espada Mission has always been closer than San Juan mission. The people, too, have worked together.

JC:

So you feel like really, in a way, your world was really just right around Berg’s Mill and the mission?

RS:

And that’s the way pretty much, my grandparents were. Their world just revolved around the mission and Berg’s Mill.

JC:

Did they ever travel much?

RS:

No.

JC:

Never left the area?

RS:

No, no. In fact, my grandmother had a sister that married an Air Force guy and moved to Rawlings, Wyoming, and she died up there, but she would come visit us, but my grandmother never did go up there to visit her. And I have relatives in Wyoming that I don’t even know. Never met.

JC:

How’d you meet your husband?

RS:

Well he’s from Victoria, and he was going to school and working in San Antonio. So I met, he was working at a gas station, and that’s where I met him.


JC:

Was he filling up your car?

RS:

Mmm hmm, in fact the first people he met were the Geigenmillers.

JC:

Oh really? So there was a station like, right here?

RS:

There was a gas station right on South Presa, going over to, right next to McCoy’s, right there on South Presa. And he’s always said that the first people he met when he came to San Antonio where the Geigenmillers. Of course, I didn’t meet him through the Geigenmillers, I met him just, you know, just going into the gas station. But it just turned out later that he already knew a lot of the people from the area, from the neighborhood. That’s how I met him.

JC:

So now, what did a gas station attendant do to win your heart, filling up your car? Was it love at first sight?

RS:

No, no. I used to, at the time, you may not even remember, I don’t know how old you are but they used to give you like a savings stamps, with a fill-up. So he always used to double my stamps.

JC:

That’s great.

RS:

He’d double my stamps, and of course you’d redeem those books for gifts. You know, so he’d always double my stamps.

JC:

[Laughs] That’s great. And how long have you two been married?

RS:

It’ll be thirty years in August.

JC:

Wow, that’s wonderful, congratulations. My parents are closing in on their 40th.

RS:

Oh well, I just went to a couple from the mission, that little house right there in the corner, back where we stopped, they celebrated their 50th last night, they had their mass. That’s the mass that I told you I was going to attend. It was really nice, in fact they were married there, and they celebrated their 50th there. And they’re celebrating on Saturday. A big celebration on Saturday. It was really nice.

JC:

Now were you married here in the mission?

RS:

No.

JC:

Where were you married?


RS:

My husband and I were just married by the Justice of the Peace. In fact we’re in the process right now, Father Jim’s gonna marry us by the church. Nothing big, you know he’s just gonna marry us by the church.

JC:

Well that’s neat. And so, you’ll do that in the mission?

RS:

Yes.

JC:

When are you planning to do that?

RS:

On August the 6th, because that’s our original date.


Transcription of Dr. Jeff Cohen’s (JC) interview with Rick Mendoza (RM) and Rey Ríos (RR), San Juan Mission, San Antonio, TX, 8/25/99. Tape #2 of 4. Transcribed by Debra Dandridge. Rick Mendoza has conducted research on his family history at Mission San Juan and regional history; he is not a member of the Men’s Club. He brought Rey Ríos to the interview. Mr. Ríos is a local resident who has ties to the contemporary San Juan community but does trace his ancestry to San Juan’s residents during the mission era. [looking at pictures] RM: The priest, our parish priest, Father Jorge Baistra, he’s from Tenocique, Tabasco. And the massacre that they had there in Chiapas, those were his relatives that were murdered in the church. JC:

Uh huh.

RM:

Yeah. We had a mass there for the people that were killed. And it was beautiful. I have some pictures here. That’s our wedding there, where they want to put the remains back in the unfinished chapel.

JC:

Uh huh, uh huh.

RM:

That’s me and my wife getting married there. And they’re going to put them in here. This is where they took them out of. They want to put them back in here. But then the problem they’re going to incur there is that they only dug to certain levels, and they want to put the remains back inside there. It’s going to be hard because they’re going to want to put limestone rocks on top of that. Then they’re going to want to put it to grade, you know, to match the grade there. So how are they going to do it? If they dig a foot deeper they’re going to find more of our ancestors. [laughs].

JC:

That’s right, yeah.

RM:

Because at the San Juan Cemetery, my great-great-grandmother Antonia is buried, and then her daughter’s buried on top, my great-grandmother. And then my grandmother, Florinda, is buried on top. And, you know, that’s the way they buried them, and here, when they took them out, they found them in levels like that.

JC.

Yeah, right.

RM:

And then they’re scratching their head, you know. ii

JC:

Right, right.

RM:

We still bury them that way. And that was us in front.


RM:

That’s Emma Ortega. She’s Apache and she did a story, a real beautiful story. And this is Ray Hernández’s cousin Anthony, who played the flute. And this is where we also buried my daughter’s afterbirth iii.

JC:

Oh.

RM:

We had a sunrise ceremony.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

And we went over there, probably they’ll find out we dug over there [laughs].

JC:

[Laughs]

RM:

They’re going to pass out. But it’s right here, under here, we did that. It was an awesome ceremony.

JC:

Oh yeah, it’s a great thing to do.

RM:

It was beautiful. We put it back in the earth to honor the ancestors that were taken out of there, to bring new life back.

JC:

Right, yeah. That’s a wonderful old tradition.

RM:

Yeah, so out of respect for the ancestors that were taken out of there, we decided to take the afterbirth and stuff and the placenta and the whole bit, and the blood and everything, and take it and bury it iv. And Father Jorge Baistra, who was pastor at the time, thought that it was an awesome idea because that’s his cultura too, you know.

JC:

Uh huh.

RM:

And his nephew was there with us, and we did it at sunrise.

JC:

Uh huh.

RM:

This is the mass. And some of the Men’s Club were in there, even though they kind of didn’t like for us to be in there on the altar. It’s kind of tough, because they see us as newcomers there. But yet we are descendents from people from the 1600s and the 1700s, and who knows how long before that.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

Before they were baptized as Catholics.

JC:

Yeah, right.


RM:

The Spanish built the missions in the areas where the indigenous people met. You know, here they had plenty of big pecan trees, and fruits and nuts, and stuff like that, and the river was right there, and I think even Mardith Schuetz said in one of her works that the Coahuiltecos ate very well.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

But then you go to other people, you read about them and they ate bugs and all kinds of other junk.

JC:

Mmm hmm.

RM:

This is just a whole bunch of really neat stuff. And we carry on. We still have a purification lodge down there by the river, a sweat lodge ceremony that we do out there by the river.

JC:

I think Alston has been out there.

RM:

We have gone and participated in a lot of different things at the mission.

JC:

Now do you still think of yourself as a Catholic?

RM:

Actually I do, because I always say that I don’t know if it was by God’s grace or by the point of sword that we became Catholics, you know, over 200 years ago. But we are.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

And that’s just it, you know, so my religious beliefs and from what I’ve seen and through Father Jorge also, who opened my eyes big time, I do come from indigenous roots. I’m a descendent of the mission Indians but I’m a Catholic. That’s where we clash with a lot of other members who look at the Church as somebody who came in and took them by force, enslaved and this that and the other, and forced them to become Catholics or this that and the other. But I don’t know anything about what happened 200 years ago. I don’t know. I appreciate what they have done so far trying to record our history, trying to figure out, you know, our diets and what happened. But I’m Catholic v.

JC:

Mmm, hmm.

RM:

You know, that’s all I can say. My family, we’re Catholics vi.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

And we’re going to be part of the Catholic ceremony that they’re going to have when they finally get the remains reinterred here at the mission.


JC:

How do you feel about that? Do you feel Catholic?

RR:

I was raised Catholic, my parents are Catholic. I think it’s an imposed vii religion. But I believe in it and I love it. And I can use it for growth as well.

JC:

Yeah. [laughs]

RR:

But I’m from there, from the San Juan area. I’m not from anywhere else but there. I have a real kinship with that land there. It’s protected me from people who have sought to do me harm, whether it’s very bad banditos, or whether it’s the most high tech law enforcement in the land trying to falsely arrest me, the land there has protected me in one form or another, either by absorbing me into it or by the animals coming out and protecting me. And they’ve done it, and I’ve seen it. So I have a real kinship there with that place, and my family extends from Floresville, Texas—our cousins are the Flores’—and to the Hot Wells, the Hot Wells in Presa. And we’ve been going to church at San Juan on and off for about 30 years. I have, 30 years or so, and as Rick, my brother Rick, has stated, people viewing the modern day Indios as newcomers to the San Juan Missions and all, I view the others as newcomers there because indeed they are the ones that are newcomers, because our families have been there forever. Still live there, populate the area. And we could go from house to house, and I’m related to everybody that lives in the area. Everybody, not one person that I’m probably not related to. And they grow up there and they do well and they grow with each other, they marry each other. And a lot of them stay there. Some move, some stay there. Sometimes it’s not the best life, but it’s unique, and sometimes it is the best life. And it is very unique. My grandparents’ names were Inocencio Ríos and Sofia Mungía. And the men in our family, my uncles from Díaz Padre and Flores Villa, would marry the women in Old Town, like Beatrice Gaitán and Petra González, my aunt. And my uncle Eduardo married her. They still live there, they’re still alive. They’re some of the oldest folks around you’ll find.

JC:

Let me try to get them down in order if I can, okay?

RR:

Okay.

JC:

Yeah? So put you here, and so what are your mom and dad’s names?

RR:

My father’s name is Reynaldo Ríos.

JC:

Okay, and your mom?

RR:

Patricia.

JC:

And what was her maiden name, do you know?


RR:

Gutiérrez González.

RM:

We’re probably cousins too, Rey. More than likely we are. Santiago’s wife was Josefa Gutiérrez.

JC:

And do you know when your parents were born?

RR:

My mother was born in ’42, and my father’s about six years older than her.

JC:

So, probably ’36.

RR:

Yeah. And when they were married, they were married just down from the four corners in Berg’s Mill in an abandoned building that looks like a Pizza Hut there. It’s still there. And I think from the stories I’ve heard, they had the most massive wedding that anybody’s ever had in that area.

JC:

Hmm, and how old are you, when were you born?

RR:

’62.

JC:

That’s a good year. When? What month?

RR:

September 1.

JC:

Okay and so with your dad, does he have brothers and sisters?

RR:

Eight.

JC:

Wow, big family. Do you know all their names?

RR:

The oldest one is Inocencio. Alfredo, Eduardo, Baltimore, José, María, Jesús, and then my father.

JC:

So, one girl and seven boys? [laughs] Your poor grandma. That’s a lot of hard work. And are they all alive?

RR:

My uncle, Inocencio, is the only that has passed away. He passed away a lot of years ago.

JC:

Okay. In your mom’s family?

RR:

She has, Dominga is her sister, and she has two step—Amelia Gutiérrez and Roy Gutiérrez. They’re from Marble Falls, Texas.

JC:

Okay. So your dad’s parents, they were?


RR:

Sophia and Inocencio.

JC:

And so, Inocencio Ríos?

RR:

Yes, uh huh.

JC:

And Sophía’s last name?

RR:

Mungía.

JC:

And do you know when either of them were born?

RR:

I don’t.

JC:

No? Okay. And do you know either of the names of Sophía’s parents?

RR:

I believe they’re Garza viii. They’re in the records. They are quite easily accessible.

JC:

Okay.

RM:

You have to look under Garza, too, as de la Garza ix.

JC:

De la Garza x.

RM:

Because they changed, some of them changed back.

JC:

Okay. And what about on the Ríos side?

RR:

There’s parents, I think. I’m not real sure. I’m embarrassed by not knowing, but I think they were Garcia xi. And the Indiana state has traced my grandfather’s people back to Brownsville and Chichimec people.

JC:

Okay. And can you go back any farther on your mother’s?

RR:

My mother, I can go back to Zacatecas, Mexico, and she’s from Mexica people and Apache people.

JC:

So her mom and dad, what were their names?

RR:

Juan Gutiérrez and Elvira Gutiérrez.

JC:

Okay, do you know if that was her maiden name as well, was she a Gutiérrez?

RR:

González Gutiérrez.


JC:

Okay, and do you know Juan’s parents?

RR:

María Gutiérrez was his mother, the leader of all the family.

JC:

And her husband, do remember his name?

RR:

His name was Matilde.

JC:

Okay, you can’t remember his last name?

RR:

Gutiérrez.

JC:

Gutiérrez. Okay, and on Elvira’s side?

RR:

Her mother is still alive in Marble Falls. It’s González, she’s 100-plus. And I’ve traced them all the way back to Zacatecas. And they’re real easily accessible.

JC:

Okay. Great.

RR:

Her body was put into a cemetery. On one side was the Anglo cemetery, and on the other side was Mexicans, Indians, and criminals they told us. And then they dug that cemetery up for a golf course, right there in Marble Falls, and they moved her body to Burnet County. And it was stored, thanks God. And we just found her like six months ago and re-buried her in the back of the cemetery on the hill.

JC:

Wow.

RR:

And we did it the best way we knew.

JC:

All right. Rick, can we do yours?

RM:

Yeah, I have it kind of mapped out from Santiago on my father’s side of the family. This is how we come down I guess, from Santiago all the way down.

JC:

So here’s you. I don’t usually get my interviewees handing me—This makes my job much easier.

RM:

That’s why I asked what you had gotten so far, because I was told don’t give them this, don’t tell them that, don’t do this, don’t do that.

JC:

Yeah, see this way I don’t have to pick out the truth serum.

RM:

This is my father at Mission San Juan. And my dad was three or four years old right here. Antonia was still alive. This is Dolores Sánchez Carrión, and this is her sister Anita Sánchez.


JC:

Okay, are they on here?

RM:

Yeah, they’re on there. That’s my aunt. But then you’ll go through this.

JC:

Oh, here.

RM:

Yeah, that’s my great-grandmother.

JC:

So that’s her?

RM:

Yes, that’s right. And then that’s Amelia Gaitán and this is the San Juan area. That’s where my dad lived. Actually my dad lived in a few places around there in San Juan. He was raised by a lot of folks there at San Juan. Santiago Navaira and his wife, Lena Sánchez, they helped to raise my dad. Antonia raised my dad there, too. There was a school that was right here. They knocked that school down. And this is Alfredo González. There’s my father. This picture was shot in 1950. And Alfredo González married Amelia Gaitán. And that’s my dad. Amelia Gaitán González. And this is an old picture too.

JC:

That’s a great photo.

RM.

Yeah my dad, we always kid him about those stockings and those little shoes he was wearing there, [laughs] because that was the times.

JC:

Yeah. Okay.

RM:

They all wanted to raise my dad, they all loved my dad, all of them were fighting over him until my grandma finally came and said, “You know what? I’m taking him out of here.” And she did, when she finally re-married.

JC:

Who’s the one holding you?

RM:

That’s Dolores Sánchez. She’s the one who came up to me after the meeting and said “Muy bueno, mijo.” When we had that meeting, at Slattery, she’s so proud of her heritage. But she’s one of the people—

JC:

She’s beautiful.

RM:

The whole family of Sánchez, they’re all beautiful people. There’s a lot of people there that are really proud of their indigenous roots, but they’ve been ostracized by so many people because when the church gave up on them and finally moved out of San Juan there, the Native American population was assimilated into what they’re calling the Hispanic neighborhood. And then even those people who come from indigenous blood, they had already made it up the ladder to Hispanics, and they wouldn’t give them shelter. I mean they had a hard, hard life.


JC:

Yeah.

RM:

They really did, it was terrible what happened to them. They built the missions for them, and then just kind of forgot about all of them, [laughs] you know. “We made you Catholics, so long.”

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

But no one ever said it was going to be easy. You know, you pick up your cross and you take what God gives you, you know, the Creator gives you, and it’s up to you to use whatever he gave you, your abilities to keep on going. That’s why we’re still here, that’s why we’re not extinct, that so many people say that we’re extinct you know, here we are. We come from indigenous people who were hunters and gatherers, and then they build the missions, and then they embrace Catholicism, they become farmers. They start learning a whole new way of life. The sun would go down, they would sneak out, they would go do their mitotes, and they would have their mescal bean ceremony and the peyote ceremonies, and then they would get caught and they would get beat by the priests or by the Spanish soldiers who went to hunt them down. And they never lost that part of their roots. To this day we still do the same type of ceremonies. We’re out there, down in the river, we’re doing the purification, sweat lodge ceremony, and we call it a temescal xii. That’s what we call it, which is what the Aztec people call their sweat, they call it a temescal. That’s what we do.

JC:

Right. Do you have a sense of, well I guess the question is, who told you the stories about your grandparents and great-grandparents doing those things?

RM:

My grandmother.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

Yeah, grandma, my father’s mother, Florinda, she would xiii, she had so many. I wrote a little bit of our history here as well as I could remember from what they told me. And a little bit—Here we go, four or five pages here. I want my children to be able to look back and be proud of where they come from, their ancestry, because here’s an example: my son is at Glen Oaks Elementary here in San Antonio. His teacher tells him, well, the Coahuiltecos were lazy. They ate rotten fish, they ate second harvest, they ate their crap, they did this, that, and the other, and bugs. And my son was blown away. He was in tears, you know, he came home.

JC:

I bet.

RM:

I had to go to the teacher and give him an education about the Coahuiltecan people and for him to be a little more specific in what nation he was talking about. I said there was close to maybe 5000 different bands of Coahuiltecos, and he goes


“Really?” [laughs] You’re the one that’s educating my son and telling him how lazy and stuff and this and that we were, and I said “Here I am standing here, a descendent of the Coahuiltecan people, a Pamaque standing right in front of your face.” So he said that whatever information I could give him for the following year, so at least he took that step. RR:

And I think that when Father Jorge was at Mission San Juan, that was the best opportunity that this area or this city has ever had to unite as Native people. But it was blown by I don’t know what. The devil.

JC:

Yeah.

RM:

I think the politics of the United States Government, i.e. the Interior Department, and also the Archdiocese of San Antonio, I think they made a terrible mistake in pressuring Father Jorge to leave Mission San Juan. And I think the same community of San Juan, the parishioners—a handful, let’s put it this way—just a handful of parishioners people in the Men’s Club start saying this, that, and the other about Father Jorge and condemning the Indians. I think that was a tragic, big mistake. All I remember from Father Jorge—no, not all I remember—several things I remember was he always embraced us, had food for us you know, fruit and you know, because of his indigenous heritage xiv, and his mother loved us, Florisita, she loved us there. And I think the growing presence of Native Americans at San Juan—The point I’m trying to make is that we were becoming a little bit too much in the public’s eye. And here’s the National Park thinking, oh my God, what if these people find out their true history? You know, maybe there is enough of them to do something. Here we are, we’re not going to be a National Park any more, and then here’s the church saying maybe these people are going to force us to give back the cooperative agreement with the National Park. They want their land back, they want their church back. I think it was a bad move when the National Park moved in, because they bought all our ancestral homeland. You know, they forced the people out by eminent domain and what have you, and these poor people that didn’t have very much. Here they are giving them 1000 to 2000 acres, if they were lucky for a little plot of land, and go out and improve your life. And they go out there and hook water pipes and this, that, and the other, and then want to charge them anywhere from $1000 to $3000 to hook up to it, and they’re poor. They don’t have that money. And I think if this had been worked properly with the right members, the church, and the government, I think this whole thing would have been a whole lot different. I think it could be something real good for the city of San Antonio to embrace its indigenous heritage instead of just the Canary Islanders. What’s the big deal about the Canary Islanders? It’s like the Pilgrims also coming across, you know, it’s the same thing. You know we have such a rich heritage even though we were poor. I mean, we’re still a hardy stock of folks, and we’re still


here. We’re definitely still here, we will always be here. We were talking about the land bridge today, and Bering Strait and all this other stuff, and how the indigenous people came from somewhere else, you know. Why is it so hard for people to believe that we were always here? They’re finding signs of life 40,000 years ago, and well, the Bering Strait, if I’m not mistaken, was something like 12,000 years ago. So, you know, where are we? JC:

Well, let’s get back to some of the things that you guys remember growing up. When you were kids, when both of you were young—

RM:

I’m still young.

JC:

[laughs] Okay.

RR:

I’m the old one.

JC:

[laughs] When you were growing up, you were saying your grandma was telling you about, you know, being Indian and the ceremonies and such. Do you remember moments growing up when she would do certain things maybe, or take you aside and say okay, this is something I want to show you. This is part of that heritage?

RM:

My grandma, Florinda, my father’s mother, she used to smudge her house. Smoke the evil spirits out, you know, that’s something. There’s a shell that I do it in. We still do that.

JC:

Mmm hmm.

RM:

That’s the shell that I do it in. My grandma did that. And right in here, where my grandmother—Florinda was my father’s mother. She was known by everyone as Grandma Flo, and my Grandma knew all kinds of things. She would smudge her house when we came over so there would be good spirits present while we were there. And she was taught a lot about herbs and teas, and she was a great cook, I remember that. A lot of stuff she learned from my great-grandmother, great-great grandmother. All of that stuff was passed down. My grandmother planted pecan trees at her house. When they moved away from the mission, she lived at 201 Simon Street, off of South Flores.

JC:

Mmm hmm.

[End of Side A, beginning of Side B] RM:

My grandmother was pretty fond of her pecan trees because she remembered her childhood. They would gather at San Juan and pick up pecans and they would make pies and stuff for their mitotes that they had at the mission. And the mitotes were a big part of the culture there at Mission San Juan. They would have all the


people get together, and that’s a tradition that was carried on from the indigenous people too, who would meet and have mitotes and you know, they would have their peyote ceremonies or their mescal bean ceremonies, and those that I mentioned earlier there would sneak out from the Mission to go participate in these so-called pagan rituals. JC:

Yeah.

RM:

What they are still calling pagan rituals today. She had a deer bone in her purse and other little objects that she had xv.

JC:

Mmm hmm.

RM:

She did a lot of things. She carried on a tradition that my dad told me the other day, that my great-great-grandmother Antonia did, that when it would rain she would stand in the door with a hatchet. She would say these prayers, or these chants and she would part the rain clouds so the rain could go away. And stuff like that. [laughs] My Grandma Flo used to do that.

JC:

[Laughs]

RM:

Quetita used to sleep with a big knife under her under her pillow.

JC:

For using on the ghosts? [laughs]

RM:

Yeah, they slept with knives and stuff because, you know, back in those days the banditos that were out there, you go back to my great-great-grandmother’s time and you’re talking about still hostile Indians sleeping around. I had an ancestor, José María Sánchez, that was killed by an arrow, an Indian’s arrow. He was 57 years old, and that was in the early 1800s. He got it in the field there in San Juan. [laughs]

JC:

Wow.

RM:

They snuck up on him and let him have it.

JC:

Hmm. What kind of things do you remember your grandparents and parents doing? Were your grandparents farming, or had they already moved away from—

RM:

They already moved away from that, my grandmother. Yeah, they already moved away from that. I think the last one to do farming or anything out there, I guess was Santiago. It was just an unfortunate, unfortunate time. That’s when the church left and abandoned the missions, and he was one of the property owners there. He lived on the property there at Mission San Juan. So did José María Díaz. And they had property all the way around—Canuto Díaz had property


there. Escolástica [?] Díaz had property there right on the compound. They were the ones that did most of the farming. After that they worked at, I know a lot of them worked at the pecan shelling [laughs] over there at the Triangle, what was that, Nogalito Street. They did whatever they could. A lot of them worked with the WPA going out there doing whatever they could do. Go dig out there, haul dirt and whatever it is that they could do. By the time my dad went into the Navy and stuff like that, his mom, my grandmother, had moved away from the Missions already for a long time. Remarried and had a whole new life. JC:

What about your family, Rey?

RR:

My grandparents, Inocencio and Sofia, they were farmers and ranchers, and their main source of income was watermelons. And they raised chickens, turkeys, ducks, pigs, cats. And we used to run around and chase them when we were small.

JC:

[Laughs]

RR:

And she was the family doctor. She knew everything about herbs. She used to practice something call the empachada on us a lot when we were sick. I don’t know if it was more placebo medicine more than anything else, but it would make us feel—

JC:

Now that’s, what would she do?

RR:

She would pinch your back until all your ailments went away. She would pinch it in a row like kneading dough. And then the sofacada was for the bad stomach. She would put her open palm on your stomach and tap the top of her hand until the ailments in your stomach went away. She knew everything about healing, and I can remember swallowing, eating blades of grass one time and I was choking. She quickly grabbed a tortilla to make me eat it so that the grass would get on the tortilla and I could stop choking. She knew just about everything, and people would bring their sick kids to her. And I can remember one of my cousins, he was born real skinny and with a bad eye, and he was going to die, and his mother, Baby, brought him over to my grandmother. And my grandmother said, “I’m not sure I can save him, but I’ll try.” So she kept giving him these teas, and he’s still alive now, with a good eye. He drinks a lot, but he’s alive.

JC:

Hmm.

RR:

And it was a real, real good living. In my opinion they were very rich, and they were happy people. They also, my grandmother slept with knives also. They were afraid of animals, lobos and stuff. And when my grandfather died, his dog, Pinto León, ran away. And he still lives in Floresville, up there somewhere.

JC:

Hmm. Did he ever describe the dog as his animal familiar?


RR:

Yeah. He was all our animal. He was a big St. Bernard-looking dog with lion features, and when he left, the dog left. And I still have the house up there on Plum Street. When you were going up there and you got to the red dirt you knew you were home.

JC:

Did people refer to your grandmother as a curandera?

RR:

Not really that, called her, mafia, the mother.

JC:

Oh, okay.

RR:

And all the stuff that she knew has been forgotten. My aunt knows some, but not near enough. She could cure anything, and in an emergency situation, she wouldn’t panic. She would tell you exactly what to do.

JC:

And do you remember them talking about, being Indian?

RR:

Not so much in that we knew that they knew that they were. My parents knew that they were Indian, but some of their brothers and sisters wanted to assimilate, just to be able to work and stuff, and plus it was thought of to be good to be an American, and stuff like that. And in that day there was good American people, like Kennedys and Martin Luther King and like that, which you seem like you were progressing, and if there was going to be some type of whole country that it could have happened with people like that and my grandparents. Now, I don’t know, but it was good to assimilate then, and the cars were good and things were still clean. But we always knew we were Indian. I’ve always known even since I was five years old or something. And you just know. There’s certain things that you do. You don’t know why you do them.

JC:

Yeah, well, what are some of the things that really define you as being Indian?

RR:

My healing ability is one. My intuition for sure. I think one day we’ll all develop some kind of sonar and be able to talk to each other. Some of us probably have it already.

RM:

We can. We just forgot how to do it.

RR:

Yeah. I’m learning a lot about the moon right now from Aztec ways, where if you’re sick, like tonight’s the full moon, I like to go sleep out in the yard, and the moon will absorb everything out of me through my navel that’s bad, and it will take everything, whether it’s alcohol or sadness or something bad. It will try to cleanse me as best as it can, and that’s something that I never knew, but I found out.

JC:

Hmm, that’s interesting.


RR:

Yeah.

RM:

We used to take our stuff out in the full moon and leave it out there, you know, whatever objects we had that we wanted to be blessed by Abuelita Metzli, that’s what we called it, what the Aztecas called the moon; grandma, Abuelita Metzli. Take our rocks and medicine bags and whatever we have and take a piece of cloth, white cotton cloth, and on a tray and put all your stuff out there and it’s purified and blessed. And that’s stuff that my grandmother used to do, greatgrandmother used to do. And I had some friends that also did that. Not even from the mission. [laughs] One day they were out there putting their stuff out there like that, and I’m going, “Hey where did you all learn how to do that? My grandma does that.”

JC:

And what did they say?

RM:

But they’re descendents of Native Americans also, Choctaws, and you know that’s something that they did, that’s something they taught them how to do. My great-great-grandmother Antonia, she was a partera xvi. She brought a lot of babies at Mission San Juan into the world, and Espada also. She delivered quite a few. And she knew everything about healing also. Herbs and teas, and that was passed down to my great-grandmother and my grandmother. They all did the empachada when we would eat so much. I remember one of my tías also, Martinez, which is on my mother’s side of the family, which is a line that I haven’t even begun to find out where we go to. I know they’re from Saltillo, and I know they’re also from the Zacatecas area, Real de Catorce, too. And I remember my tía, her name was Enriqueta Martínez, and boy, she did that pinching thing on me so loud my body was popping. I was a kid, I remember that. And she would laugh. Boy, the more I struggled and the more I pulled away, the more she pulled [laughs]. Those kinds of things really help, she would get all kinds of stuff. Some type of lard, I don’t remember what it was. But she would rub that on us. She would do our stomach. But I remember the one where they pinch you like that—it was painful. But you know, all those things, they all work. They all work. All that stuff.

JC:

And, do you remember other people your age or a little older or a little younger, that maybe you were friends with that used to share in doing these things with you guys?

RR:

Sure. If you have bad throat, you could put tomato on your throat. It will draw it out. If you cut yourself real bad, you can get a spider web off the wall and wrap it and it will stop the bleeding. And, yeah they’re all knowledgeable, and that just comes with—

RM:

And lot of them probably don’t even remember or know where it came from.

JC:

Yeah, it’s just something that you do. Everyone does it.


RM:

My mother’s father I never met, he died when she was little. But they’re from Germany, and that’s the only European [laughs] blood we have. The rest are Huicholes from Mexico, or Pamaque Coahuiltecos, but they were Feitlunds in Germanyxvii. They changed their name to Fisher when they came across. What they might [laughs] have done to warrant the name change—But we found out about the Feitlund and the name change when one of my mother’s cousins, I believe it was, passed away and the will came down and we got all this stuff in mail, and wanted us to go to New York City. And then we found that we had ancestors that went through New York, Staten Island, that came in through that way. Others came in through Corpus, and my mom’s dad was one of the ones that came in through Corpus, and they settled there in the Kennedy/Karnes City there, Alice, Nixon, all of those places out there. And he married my grandmother, Lola Martinez, who comes from Apache blood, and he married her and you know, their families were there in Nixon and Alice and all those places which were still the area that the Coahuiltecas inhabited. All those areas over there. So it’s been interesting learning, and it’s been a lot of hard work. Hard for me because I have to sit and do this research and I have, you know, a lot of spinal surgeries, and it kind of hurts [laughs] sitting there. But you get so addicted to it that you don’t want to put these records and stuff away until they tap you on the shoulder and say “Hey we’re closing, get out of here.” You know, they throw us out of the library all the time.

JC:

It’s incredible the evidence that you’ve found on your own family. It’s just wonderful.

RM:

What I have, I would like for them to prove now that I’m not. They’re going to have a hard time doing that, because we know where we come from. We have, not so much as an oral tradition like the native peoples from up North have, you know. They have their stories. The oral tradition is more or less the stories that they have passed down about great-great-grandmother, because that’s as far as I knew. I didn’t know about Santiago until I started really looking into it. But it’s funny how I was pointed into this direction, because I knew from the Mission, and I knew about my grandmother and my great-grandmother and stuff, and then we started going to the Mission, and then there was Kuauhtli and them, they were dancing there. And then Father Jorge was there. And then all of sudden, here come some people from AIT and I get invited to go to Oklahoma City for the NAGPRA conference that they had up there in Oklahoma City in July of 1995. And then here we go starting to look at the history and bam, everything starts falling in. And Santiago this, that, and the other you know, and I was drawn to the Mission like a moth to a flame like they say. And, you know, I just have such a feeling of closeness to the land there, like I said when we buried my daughter’s there. It was like the way I felt, and tears were cried, it was like the ancestors kind of, their spirits welcomed that, they appreciated what we did. It’s something that was really good. And I don’t know how to describe it to other people without them saying, “Oh, that’s all hokey.” But, [laughs] you had to be there to appreciate it.


The nights, right? The nights, you know, you go out to the Mission, and you sit out there, and I don’t know if we’ll sit out there any more, the new priest is kind of tough. They call [laughs] the police on us if we go out there and lay in the grass. With Father Jorge, you know, we had the run of the Mission, we did security for him when the National Parks ran out of money and they closed it. We were out there in 20-degree weather, me and my wife and our kids out there doing security, all night. And we had a wonderful time out there. We still do. We don’t go as often as we used to because Father Jorge’s not there, and the priest that’s there now, he feels pressure from one part of the community that doesn’t like the indigenous people there. And then he tries to embrace the indigenous people there, but then he gets chastised for it and you know he doesn’t know which way to turn, so it’s kind of hard. But, getting back to the place, the Mission, that’s an awesome place, that’s all I can say. I don’t feel that close to any other place here in San Antonio as I do at the Mission. Man it’s really something. Even in our ceremonies, you know, we have the sweat ceremony we had the other night, for instance. We sang a song to welcome the owl in. He was out there you know [laughs] almost, immediately. You know, hoo, hoot. A big one. RR:

I couldn’t believe it. I’ve never seen so many owls, ever.

RM:

You welcome their spirit. Ours is an owl lodge. A lot of people say owl is bad luck, this, that, and the other, and we didn’t name it that to keep people from going there, but that’s just the way that the spirit just had, you know xviii—

JC:

Why do they say that the owl is for bad luck?

RM:

Well, they think that it is a sign of death, where we say it is a sign of wisdom. [laughs] It’s just people. See, these people are going on traditions from other Native Americans, because they really—

RR:

It’s also a very serious sign, and when it shows up something is going to happen, so you better walk a straight line, if not something bad could happen.

RM:

We had coyotes there the other night also, and an owl, which means that the trickster was here, trying to get in, and the owl was here warning us of impending, you know something is going on. And here we go finding out that we get the bones, but we don’t get the artifacts. All these things are real serious to us. A lot of people, you know, they make fun of us and stuff, but you probably have to participate in one of our sweats to understand how, why we do the things we do. Sit down in a peyote ceremony with us and eat medicine all night. That’s the way we pray, we pray to Jesus. You know, we pray from sundown to sunup, we eat medicine all night. And you know that’s fourteen hours sometimes, straight sitting there praying. You get a little water break maybe at noon, I mean at midnight. And that’s hard, praying all night. Other people go to their one hour in


church and pray, and whew, skedaddle and that’s it. Father Jorge sat through a peyote ceremony one night in November, and October. It was October. We had torrential rains [laughs]. And it was so funny because he walked in and we were already sitting there and it was raining so bad that we were afraid that the fire was going to go out. So we had people that were digging these little trenches to divert the water. And Father Jorge walks in and says “Mira los indios Coahuiltecos, tu [unintelligible] haciendo sus acequias,” because they were digging these little things. Man, he just lit up the place when he walked in, you know, here’s a Catholic priest, eating medicine. He’s sitting next to me and I’m passing it and he said, “What do I do?” So, eat it. So here’s a tea, you know he was in the mud and the water with us, praying all night. And you know, it was just one of those things. RR:

It’s sad to go there without him being there, you know. It feels like something is missing from there when you go there.

RM:

But he did help us out even though he’s not there. It should be up to us to still continue, because that’s our native land. It is. That’s our people.

RR:

If it wasn’t for him, I probably wouldn’t have started going back to church, you know, Catholic church and all because I thought it was boring. When a lot of native people started going, all the kids, you could see their faces light up. The Natives would partake in the Natives’ masses, which was only once a month, but the other parishioners were real angry about that. And I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s people had the fancier clothes than them or what, but it’s pretty bad. I feel sorry for whoever thinks that way, because they’re so closed-minded. Because they’re Native people as well, and they’re just so brainwashed and they want to control things so much that they don’t give room to anybody else. And the people they’re putting out is their own identity. It’s like right now the Mexican people, Mexican Indians, believe that things will be put in balance now because it’s the sixth sun period in the calendar and the return of Quetzlcoatl and all, and things should be put back in some sort of balance. And that’s what I hope for too. And one way or another, you know, we survived this far. And I think there will be quite a resurgence coming up.

RM:

They brought the eagle. Here’s the big picture with the evidence. There’s the National Park’s truck, the guy with the permits. You see, they told us that we never had a tipi, and if we set it up it was illegal. Now how can it be illegal if the National Park is right there? We run into a lot of stuff with them.

RR:

And all these things, these prayers, this dancing and all this work that we do there, it is very family-oriented. And it keeps young people away from drugs and gangs and violence and all the other stuff that’s popular these days.


RM:

There’s that picture. Fr. Jorge gave me that when he was forced to leave. Yeah, people were going in there like buzzards, taking whatever they could. Do you remember when it snowed at San Juan?

JC:

That can’t happen too often.

RM:

I have those Christmas cards in the ’80s. Yeah, there’s snow on the ground right there in that picture. But I have an awesome picture. It’s on the bottom of my casket thing here.

RR:

I knew we were in prayer one day where we were having ceremony, and they brought in a bulldozer to doze up all around us, and it was late, late at night and they were tripping all over themselves. But they went out of their way to crank their motors up while we were in prayer.

RM:

Here’s part of the cross here, and this is Father Jorge’s, put his mother’s—They didn’t allow Father Jorge to put this stone at San Fernando Cemetery, so he brought it and put it at the feet of the Guadalupe there in the back of the church. This was the cross that was vandalized and then moved and that stuff. And here’s Fr. Jorge right here, in Tenocique, Tabasco, doing what he always wanted to do was work with the indigenous people. That’s all he ever wanted to do. This is an awesome picture.

JC:

What are some of your earliest memories of going to the Mission as kids, or playing around there as kids?

RR:

Stickers.

RM:

[Laughs] They have these big, green Sputnik-looking things that, one time when the dancers were out there we approached the National Park and asked them if they would get rid of all those cadillos xix, is what we call them. And they assured us that they would do it, and they didn’t do it. And here came the dance, and here’s our friends and their wives and their children dancing and ow, and ow, and all bloody and everything else, but the dance continued. My memories of the Mission don’t go back as far as Rey’s do, but it’s just that once I started to the Mission there you know, it was like being home. You know, you start learning about your history, then it all starts to fit. It all starts to fit. The stories of the Mission and stuff that I remember from my dad and my grandmother and stuff, they were very happy people, they were very poor. And I have documents around here from church meetings and different stuff and different meetings that they had improving the Missions and allowing these agencies to come in and dig up the Missions and this and that, and the parishioners didn’t like it then. They’ve never liked outside interference because they never had a chance to say, “I would like my mission to look like this” or “I remember when it looked like this.” No, they wanted to come in and do what


they wanted to do, and the parishioners in the community, they didn’t like it. But they never had a chance. It’s just like Brooks. Brooks polluted the crap out of the people over there. Their wells, people getting cancers, tumors and everything else, and here comes the government— [End of Side B.]


Transcription of Dr. Jeff Cohen’s (JC) interview with Rick Mendoza (RM) and Rey Ríos (RR), San Juan Mission, San Antonio, TX, 8/25/99. Tape #3 of 4. Transcribed by Debra Dandridge. RM:

Residents of Texas 1782 to 1836.

JC:

Oh, look at that.

RM:

Boy this is interesting when you get to 1836, and the battle of the Alamo. And the records say that the Spanish soldiers were, you know the Mexican soldiers, they were dumped in the river and there was only like five that were allowed to be given a Christian burial because they had a relative there. I wish we could give our version of the Alamo. I wish we could get the Alamo back as one of our missions. But, you know, just because this big myth about the Alamo. Those people at the Alamo, they were citizens of Mexico, you know.

JC:

Right.

RM:

And then here comes this big master plan [laughs] you know. And then here comes this battle, and the Mexican comes back to take what’s theirs, and you know, these people die. What about, which one was it, the battle of Goliad? Where they killed all of those, they murdered all of those Mexican soldiers just like that? And nobody said anything about it. Here was, Santiago was alcalde. Right here in this one. There’s all the—See Spaniards, farmer, farmer. And that, this is something that Micky came up with, here, but that really doesn’t—See, I had gathered that it was 1777, but actually researching and finding his death record, it was 1768 actually. When he was—and then in here also I have pictures. Let’s see, I guess I could—

RR:

The whole Texas history, seeing the way they teach it, is pretty disheartening to a Mexican person. You know, in actuality Juan Seguín won Texas independence.

RM:

Maria Juan Antonia. Here’s some other stuff.

JC:

Do you remember any stories about your ancestors, your great-great-grandfathers participating in any of the fighting? I heard someone said something about a couple of brothers, I don’t even remember who told me this, a couple of brothers who were from San Juan but were at the Alamo.

RR:

I don’t remember that one. [laughs]

RM:

Could be.

RR:

Larry [?] or somebody was telling me about that—


RM:

See here’s, Juliano’s one of Santiago Ríos’ sons. There’s a record on him also. And that’s as back as—I’m going to go ahead and put all of this together. And here’s the land and the packages that they owned, Santiago’s, and there’s José María’s. And then here’s a map of the land that they had at the Mission. There’s Canuto’s, that’s also the entrance where you go in there. That’s where Escolastica and Canuto had this place over here. And Santiago’s was over here, room 22, that they’re calling room 22. Here’s across the river, see we had from Espada to Mission San Juan. What happened was, they called them the Díaz of San Juan and the Díaz of Espada. And they say they’re not related. But they are related. What happened was that one of the Díaz, and I’m assuming that it’s Canuto, he married a first cousin that kind of p.o.’d a lot of people in the family, so the family split. And it split to the point to where my great-great-grandmother Antonia, when her brother Canuto died, she didn’t even go to the funeral. So, I’m thinking that it’s, from what Dolores Sanchez Carreón told me, he married a first cousin, so she’s saying that Antonia’s brother, she had a brother named Canuto, and so he was the one that married a first cousin, and the family split. Because when Canuto died she didn’t even go to his funeral. And my dad was telling me that he remembers when Katita died and they took her from Pueblo San Juan, which is Corpus Christi highway, those other little houses, and they brought her in a wagon with the horses across, and they buried her in the cemetery there in San Juan. And Santiago’s buried at San Juan.

JC:

This is important because one of the things that Roz Rock over at the Park Service is concerned about is, she said she thought that there were—and I think you’ve just hit on this—that there were two Santiago Díaz’ involved in San Juan. But I think probably what maybe the mistake was made is that she might thinking of this as two separate families and they’re the same family.

RM:

No, they named their kids the same name.

JC:

Same names, but that there may have well been if there was a split though this would explain why she was finding two different families that were separating themselves. And one of the things that she had said to me is that we have to find out if they are talking about the Díaz from Espada or the Díaz from San Juan.

RM:

They’re the same people.

JC:

And so it’s the same family, just split over that. And that helps that connection, too.

RM:

Uh huh. Because Salvador Díaz from Espada is a relative of Santiago and José María and Manuel and all of them. You know, you can only, at first we were assuming and then we found the records, and then you get the ages, you know, and then you get them on the same list, and then you get them on the same Mission, and then you start hitting them on the property. You say man, you know, how can they deny this is the real McCoy? Here’s the maps.


JC:

Well, and then people also, they can just move around a little bit. It’s not, because we’re not, you know, really great and distant places. Now in terms of when I go to the Mission, how would this be, is this the front where the parking lot is or is it over here?

RM:

This is where the National Parks has their parking.

JC:

Oh, okay over here. Okay. So this is—

RM:

This is the Park Headquarters. This is the church. This is the old chapel in the front. This is the road.

JC:

Oh, right. This is where you’d like to do the reburials then, right over here.

RM:

That’s right. That’s where they want to. That’s where, when we told Dr. Hard, his eyes popped out of his head, because he didn’t know they were going to put them in there. Because now the Texas Historical Commission has to come in there, re-survey the area. Now if they find other artifacts here, where’s our plan B? Where are we going to put our ancestors? To me, it’s up to the National Parks or the Catholic Church to give us some land, there’s plenty of properties over here that they could give us. [aside] Hi. It’s my daughter Jasmine. And there’s property that they could give us here so we could have our own cemetery to bury our ancestors, and then these other individuals don’t have to be taken over next to Ft. Hood, because we don’t even know about, you know, what’s going on at Ft. Hood and if those burials are being done legal. And I know that when this group of individuals found out that we wanted the Health and Safety Code and we wanted a coroner and we wanted this, that, and they freaked on that one, because they just wanted to put them in the ground. I’ll give you an example of why. We had a friend—this happened at this little restaurant some place back East—they had this Indian village, they had an arts and crafts type stuff. They had human remains in a glass case. They said this was a Native American Indian, blah, blah, blah, and this, and this. So what he did was, he contacted the authorities. They went and they took those remains, and the pathologist, they did a study and they found out that this guy was murdered. He wasn’t Native American. They had on display somebody who was dead, that was murdered. So how do we know that the remains that we are getting, or how do we know that these individuals that are taking it upon themselves to go to other states, pick up remains, bring them back and bury them, without a coroner, what if somebody kills somebody, they age these remains and give them to them, you know, here goes their evidence buried forever. I would hate that. I couldn’t live with that one. [laughs]


RR:

There’s lots of reservation murders going on and unsolved murders.

RM:

Heck yeah, heck yeah. That’s spooky. It is, it’s spooky. I would hate to have that on my conscience. This is where they want to do the reburial. Inside there’s a bigger blow-up. And you see they have, here was one church, two churches, three churches. That was a granary. Then they have another building, they don’t even know what the heck it was, over here. Now this could have been another church and something fell on this church, so they went to the granary.

JC:

It such a small site, you know.

RM:

Yeah, but one of the most beautiful in the whole city. They talk about the jewel being San Jose, [laughs]. I don’t think so, I don’t think so. And here’s Rosalino Díaz, that’s another son of Santiago. And here’s the baptismal of his son, Fidel Díaz. And Rosalino married Rosa García. He married one of the Garcías [laughs]. So there’s a lot of stuff that I kept finding to tie to see if it was coming to the father or coming to the son. You know, it’s hard. Santiago married—Here’s Santiago Navaira, these are the ones that, he raised my dad. And Lena Sánchez was one of Quetita’s daughters. And then here is—Well, this is just a mention of my great-grandmother, Anita. But whatever you want to use from here you can copy. Here’s Julian, and then I found some other stuff. So whatever you want to go through. I’ll trust you.

JC:

Let me ask you about this, you refer to yourself as a member of the Pamaque. How did you learn that? Was that, who told you, or how did you arrive at that?

RM:

I, from the records that I’ve gone through. The Díaz family, the Díaz family didn’t just appear at San Juan. It’s not 20 different Díaz families. It’s one family, whether they’re uncles or brothers, or like you know, Manuel in that case, the father, it very clearly states in the records that the Díaz’ were Pamaques. So, I don’t, you know where, what anyone else has come up with, but from the information that I’ve gathered, I would safely say that we’re descendents of the Pamaque. On the Sanchez’, they’re Maraguitas, another Nation of Coahuiltecans there.

JC:

Maraguitas, did you say?

RM:

Yeah, they call them Maraguitas xx, with an “r” or an “a.” They have them—

RR:

There are people from San Juan and people that are our relatives, that their relatives rode with Pancho Villa and all in the wars. And we have one girl, she is descendent of Gregorio Cortez. She’s a student with me now. And you know he’s pretty much a, he didn’t want to be a figure, but he is a historical figure and all. And María Gutiérrez xxi, she always told us we were Apache. And she knew, they knew a lot of the ways too. She was a fascinating woman. She grew us all


up as harshly as she possibly could because she knew what was ahead, and wanted us to be prepared for it. And everybody was afraid of her. JC:

Is she still alive?

RR:

María Gutiérrez? No she died in the 70s.

RM:

That’s Bernard. That’s the ones that went to meet with the governor today.

JC:

Oh, is it?

RM:

We are the only people who have to prove who we are. Enough is enough on that. I mean we have our ceremonies, they mean a lot to us. I mean, look what I was presented in a ceremony in, that is ancient. And, I mean, those are the things that we do. People find out we do those things and man he’s got [unintelligible] throw him in jail. But, God, we have to prove so many things, you know? We have to prove so many things. We have our treasures. That was given to my wife and I. We sponsored a peyote ceremony, Native American ceremony, and they presented us with this Abuelito in the ceremony. And I’m pretty sure you might know what the Aztecs are and the Mazatlán, and that’s all ancient, and they gave it to us. And you know my little girl goes and picks it up, and she kisses it. “Where’s the Abuelito?” and she’ll go get him and she’ll kiss him and you know she’s in her little highchair and she feeds him and she gives him her drink.

JC:

Listen to her.

RM:

She’s over there acknowledging the Abuelito, she hears it. And—

JC:

It kind of looks like a ball player.

RM:

Yeah, right. It’s a statue. You can tell it’s a macehual, which is just a peasant. And they were standard bearers too. What’s interesting is that you can see the marks where they marched into the temple and broke it and destroyed it, because obsidian blades wouldn’t do that. They came and they broke it, they tore it all up, they broke it, they desecrated our altars and they pulled out the mother of pearl eyes and the teeth, and stuff like that. And, you know, they have to stop doing those things to our people. They have to stop doing it. I don’t know why they continue this campaign, but they are not ever going to get rid of all of us. And one thing that a friend of mine told me, I was talking to a, he was a commissioner, Ray Apodaca, he says “Well you know Rey, there’s more dead Indians in museums than there are today, alive.” Thinking well, you know you’re right, that’s the truth he says, and we’re still having to prove who we are. He says “I feel sorry for you guys down there in Texas that you have such an uphill battle.” Ninety-seven percent of the land in Texas is privately owned. And it’s a great thing that George Bush met with the Lipan Apache Band of Texas today.


And we’ll find out if we have our, what George Bush wants is, he wants an alliance of Native Americans who can prove their ancestry to be recognized by the State of Texas because of the missions, because a lot of the private landowners. There was this guy in West Texas, he was making necklaces out of the finger bones of babies and selling them. JC:

I didn’t know that.

RM:

He had a burial mound. He was digging through it, he was making necklaces out of babies’ fingers. And then here comes the government, tells him you can’t do that anymore. He says well that’s my livelihood, this, that, and the other. They give him $90,000, build a fence around the burial thing probably high enough so that he could jump over it at night and still do the desecration that he was doing. That’s what he was doing, and they can do that because it’s private property. It’s like the Church tried to tell us that NAGPRA doesn’t apply to Mission San Juan, because it’s private property. But there were certain things from NAGPRA that do apply. [aside] Hey sweetie. This is the eighth generation. My little Indian girl, she was born like that, with almost a full head of hair.

[End of Side A, Side B blank.]


Transcription of Dr. Jeffrey Cohen’s (JC) interview with Mickey Killian (MK), San Juan Mission, San Antonio, Texas, 8/25/99. Tape #4 of 4. Transcribed by Debra Dandridge and Hilary Standish. Mickey Killian is a leader for the community and is an active member in the Men’s Club. He has conducted extensive research into his family history as well as regional history. JC:

One of the things that I would like to do is, you know, we talked about there are really two goals of the project. The first goal is to identify lineal descent in the San Juan community, and the second goal is to talk about some of the oral traditions that really make San Juan the community that it is. So, you know, we’ve talked a little bit on the phone, you know, your family history and such. What I’d like to do is, is get down some of your genealogy so that we can add that to our database.

MK:

Okay. I’ll tell you what I know.

JC:

Okay. And what I’ll do is I’ll just try to fit everyone in, so I’ll put it down here. When were you born?

MK:

1941. September 13.

JC:

And, do you have siblings? Brothers, sisters?

MK:

No, no.

JC:

And, you’re married?

MK:

No, I’m divorced.

JC:

Do you have kids?

MK:

Yeah.

JC:

How many kids do you have?

MK:

Two.

JC:

Boy, girl?

MK:

A boy and a girl. One’s 30 . . . 33 and one’s 35.

JC:

Is it your son?

MK:

Son’s 35.

JC:

Okay, daughter’s 33. And are either of them married?


MK:

My son is.

JC:

Does he have any kids?

MK:

He’s got two.

JC:

And are they girl or boy?

MK:

Two boys.

JC:

How old are they?

MK:

One’s two and one is seven.

JC:

Okay. That must be fun.

MK:

Not to me.

JC:

[Laughs] Okay, let’s put your parents in here. Now you were brought up by your mom, right?

MK:

Yeah, yeah. My dad left home when I was 18 months.

JC:

Okay. And your mom has brothers and sisters?

MK:

Yeah. She had five brothers—She had two sisters and three brothers.

JC:

Okay, two sisters and three brothers. And what were their names?

MK:

The sisters, one was Melissia, and one was Elaria.

JC:

Hilaria?

MK:

Elaria, E-L-A-R-I-A, or Liddy or Lydia. And the sons were Manuel, Miguel, and Lucio, L-U-C-I-O, Lucio.

JC:

And what was your mom’s name?

MK:

Mom was Antonia.

JC:

Okay. [car alarm goes off]

MK:

Geez!


JC:

Those are always good. I’ve never actually seen someone come out when one of those goes off, you know? Do you remember approximately when they were born, your mom and her brothers and sisters?

MK:

Yeah. Mom was born in 1899, Melissia was born in 1907, I believe, 1905 for her, for the next one xxii.

JC:

1905, okay.

MK:

Manuel was born 1895. Miguel was born 1897. Lucio was born in 1904 or something like that.

JC:

Are any of them living any longer?

MK:

No.

JC:

No? Okay. And let’s put their parents on. These would be your grandparents, then.

MK:

Yeah. Their parents were Lucio Cantú and Adelina Montes.

JC:

Okay. Now which side of the family is this side? Okay. This is the Montes family is a San Juan family? Okay. Do you know if she had brothers or sisters?

MK:

Yes, she did. She had, it’s getting fuzzier now. It’s not getting easy now [laughs]. Let’s see now, she had a brother named Nicasio. That’s Becky’s, Nicasio xxiii. And then she had another brother named Eloy, E-L-O-Y. Then she had another brother named José. And I believe there was another one named—I think there was another brother, but I can’t remember his name. It’s either, I’m not sure, Manuel maybe?

JC:

Okay.

MK:

I’m not sure.

JC:

Alright. And can you go up to the next generation? Their parents?

MK:

Yeah. Let’s see, their parents were Juan Montes and Refugia Díaz, D-I-A-Z.

JC:

And these also were in San Juan?

MK:

Yeah. Yeah, but he was mostly from San Antonio. He’s a Canary Islander type. We’re descended anyway, and she’s a San Juan parishioner xxiv.

JC:

Okay. And can you go to here?

MK:

Yeah. Her mother was—Her father was Canuto Díaz, C-A-N-U-T-O, and her mother’s name was Margarita Zamora.


JC:

And were they both from San Juan, do you know?

MK:

He was for sure. She was born, she was living in town in 1820, here in San Antonio. But I’m not sure if she was a Mission person or not, because people used to have different houses. I don’t know.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

I don’t believe—I believe she was from town.

JC:

Okay.

MK:

She was 1820 census. 1820 census shows she’s Indian, lists her as Indian. That’s Bexar Archives, 1820 census of Bexar County, lists her as Indian.

JC:

Okay, and what about Canuto?

MK:

His father and mother? His father was Santiago Díaz. By the way, he was born 1811, or 1812, I believe. Put a question mark by that, because that’s kind of—Santiago Díaz, and his wife is Josefa Gutiérrez.

JC:

Okay. And he was born in San Juan, do you think?

MK:

I believe he was born in Espada, but don’t quote me on that. But I believe that was where he was born.

JC:

But he probably went back and forth though, I would think, right?

MK:

Yeah. But he was in San Juan by 1812. He was in San Juan.

JC:

Right, because he was born there. And do you know how either of them were listed in the census?

MK:

What census?

JC:

In, like this 1820 census of the county. Do you know if either of them were listed in it?

MK:

1820, no, I don’t know. I don’t know about the 1820 census. He was listed in the 1826. Now the 1819 census, he’s listed as the alcalde of San Juan. Alcalde was like a, they had elections every year. They elected somebody to be the spokesperson or the representative. I mean there’s somebody else maybe later on was the alcalde.

JC:

But he was there in 1819?

MK:

Yeah.


JC:

And do you know when either of them were born? Do you have any idea?

MK:

Let me think. Well, certainly it had to have been before the turn of the century. I’m not certain. They were probably born around 1780 or something like that, but I’m not certain.

JC:

Okay. Can you go back any further on either one?

MK:

Is this Santiago?

JC:

Yeah, this is Santiago.

MK:

No. That’s it. There’s other people named Díaz xxv around at that time, but I can’t make the connection. It’s a problem.

JC:

Yeah. Now, when you were showing me the little deed map of the plots around the mission, you showed me there was one that was for, was this for Refugia, the deed? No? I was trying to remember who it was that you had showed me.

MK:

It was, let’s see, it was her mother. Her mother was Barbara Torres. I’m not sure about, you know, anything about her. I know very little about her.

JC:

But she does show up on this deed at least.

MK:

Yeah. She also shows up on, there’s some other mission records she shows up on as being the owner of that property. Mission records. They were in the Bexar archives. Or not Bexar archives, the county courthouse.

JC:

Okay.

MK:

If you go up and look in those records, you will find her. Oh well, let’s see, where was I? There was a valuación, it’s called a valuación, of the mission property. The government took an inventory of the mission property there in 1824 or something like that to see how much it was worth because it was government property, and she shows up as being the owner of all those lots.

JC:

Okay, great. Okay. Well this gets us back. With these folks we get back nice and far.

MK:

I didn’t make this up. My mother got me as far back as this right here, orally. And that’s as far back as I go. I had to find this stuff myself.

JC:

Now do you remember stories about any one of these people in particular that you know?

MK:

Sure. This individual here, for example, he was my mother’s grandfather xxvi. He died in 1877, I believe, or close to it. Something like that. I found a record of his. I can’t


remember exactly. I don’t even know where it’s at. But I’m not very good at putting everything down. It’s kind of scattered. JC:

Yeah, well, that’s what we’re for.

MK:

But anyway, it appears that he lived there at the mission, or around there. He was a fisherman besides being a farmer, you know they used to do everything like that. But at that time in the 1870s or so the San Antonio River was quite a river. It was an imposing river, you know, a lot of water. Clear, clean, and there was a lot of pools and stuff along the river. A beautiful place. And there was a lot of fish in it at that time. [Begin second transcriber]

MK:

And like I say, he was a farmer but he was a fisherman too, and what he used to do is, he used to catch these fish, and I don’t know what they were, I would assume catfish, mostly. And he used to take them to the market in town.

JC:

And this would be here in San Antonio?

MK:

Yeah. And he said, you know, it would take him four or five hours to get to town.

JC:

Wow.

MK:

I don’t know, six hours or whatever. They used to put them in sacks to keep them cool and all this kind of stuff, and take them to town, and the people would come, I guess you had to get there by morning, and people would buy them, buy the fish.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

So he went off on one of these trips one day, this is the story I get, and then he came back at night and he was like, he appeared to be stumbling. And his wife at the time asked him if he had been drinking. And he said “No,” and he said that the wagon had run over him.

JC:

Wow.

MK:

I guess that was a common problem in those days. They got in front of the wagon, and the team bolted for some reason and moved, and he got caught under the wheel. And I assume he died shortly thereafter, that’s what he died of.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

And so from that I got that he used to fish, fish the river, which you can’t do now.

JC:

[Laughs] Well, you can do it but you might not want to eat it.


MK:

Yeah, you won’t catch any fish, I tell you, but you might catch something else. But anyway, that’s the story I got on him.

JC:

Yeah, and so that’s Canuto? Do you know anything about his wife?

MK:

Margarita Zamora Díaz? No, I don’t know anything about her except that she lived in San Antonio. And my family didn’t know anything about her either xxvii.

JC:

Yeah. Yeah. What about some of your mom’s siblings? Your uncles and, I know—

MK:

My mom’s siblings? These?

JC:

Oh, these are your grandmother’s siblings. I’m sorry, yeah.

MK:

Eloy, José, Nicasio. That’s my grandmother. That’s Becky’s—

JC:

That’s Becky’s granddad?

MK:

That’s Becky’s. Eloy lived in Pleasanton. I guess his dad had purchased land in Pleasanton, and he took over the Pleasanton, Atascosa county land. I think he got a head right or something, some kind of grant from the state, because my grandmother, Adelina, owned some of that land too, but she transferred it over. And he did too. He transferred it over to Eloy. So their family, Montes, is still there in Pleasanton.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

He was a farmer. And José, I don’t know if he ever worked or not. I’m not sure about him. I think that he died without children. Neither one of them married. They had no issue. One of these guys died of, he got drunk and he died of exposure, either one of these. He got drunk and stayed out. In the old days, what the guys would do, they’d go get drunk and stuff, and they’d get on their horse and they’d just go to sleep and the horse would take them home.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

You know? And people try to do the same thing today. And it doesn’t work [laughs].

JC:

No, doesn’t work at all.

MK:

So he died of exposure. And he wasn’t an old man either. I got to meet him xxviii. I knew him xxix, and I knew him. But I didn’t know my grandmother. She died in 1835. I mean 1935, I’m sorry.

JC:

1935. One of the things that we’re interested in is the way that the stories are getting passed down, because that’s one of the ways that we can talk about these traditions, and these traditions of community. And one of things that we’re interested in of course are


stories about people identifying themselves or being identified as Indian. Do you have stories about that? MK:

Well, I’ll say that the only thing that really came down is that we knew that we had been there for centuries. And my uncle xxx used to tell me that there were Indian people at San Juan. And I asked him, “How do you know?” And he said “Well, that’s what they said.”

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

But as far as relating directly to Indian people, I can’t say that there was anything direct. Like, they believe, my family would believe in the curanderos, and herbs.

JC:

Right, okay.

MK:

For health. And were superstitious to a degree.

JC:

Like what kind of superstitions?

MK:

Well, I know there’s this one custom my mother used to have back in the old days, this is when I was little. Now this is probably Spanish, this superstition. When it would get dark, and cloud up, she’d go and grab a butcher knife and go outside and make the sign of the cross with a butcher knife.

JC:

Huh.

MK:

And I think that’s more of a Spanish tradition. But that’s an old tradition.

JC:

Right, that is.

MK:

And I had to get out of the way of my mother, because she was running and would grab that butcher knife [laughs].

JC:

[Laughs]

MK:

So, of course we never did discuss it, because I thought that’s what people did. And I never did think about it. Now, of course, I’d like to know more about it, but I think it was that her mother did that, and that’s probably why she did.

JC:

Can you think of anything else like that?

MK:

Probably I will—it’s just that it’s been so long.

JC:

[Laughs] Yeah, you can e-mail them to me. Well, like when your uncle was saying “We knew they were Indian because that’s what people always said,” do you have an idea of who he was talking about? Was he talking about the priests, or the people in the neighborhood?


MK:

No. No, he was talking about people in the neighborhood, you know. He was talking about people in the neighborhood or his relatives, because you have to understand that he was born in 1897 and when he was 10 years old, you still had people that were born in the 1840s and stuff living around there.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

So he was like a—I was born when my mother was 42 or thereabouts, so I skipped a generation. I mean, the people I grew up with were all older. They weren’t like young adults. I grew up with these people and I missed a generation.

JC:

Right.

MK:

And so I get all these stories, these stories that go back to when people were more agrarian. They were farmers. That’s what they related to, my family did. They related to farmers. They didn’t relate to city life.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

They used to talk about the biggest thing was killing hogs and stuff like that. They made a big deal about that. My mother too. You know, killing hogs and making tamales and this type of stuff, it was a big deal to them. So they were just basically farmers, is what they were. They just didn’t farm. The city just, well, it wasn’t a city. I guess the land there around where we lived was too competitive and they were forced out of the farming in the area. Because there was some irrigation land there in San Juan, and of course the Anglo people moved in with more capital and they pushed the price of the land up, and it pushed the Mexican people off the property.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

So my family became, like my great-grandfather Juan Montes, he was a farmer. He had been successful at farming the area there. But he died in 1907. Now I think with him, when he died, the whole farming thing just ceased to exist for my family. They just couldn’t do it.

JC:

Right. And so one of your uncles was an ironworker?

MK:

Ironworker. Yeah, he’s an iron worker. Miguel xxxi. He was an ironworker. And my uncle Manuel, he was a school district employee for a long time, doing odd jobs and stuff like that, being a custodian and stuff like that. And then my uncle Louis, Lucio, he was an ironworker sometimes and he kind of did part-time jobs and stuff like this. Never really did anything too long. But I think that was in 1907 he died. Remember I told you that the other part of the family was in Pleasanton?

JC:

Uh huh.


MK:

Now they remained farmers over in Pleasanton. I think it was more of a geographic thing. I guess the city just moved in is what happened, even though it wasn’t really the city per se. But it was just, civilization moved in and they had to change. Within one generation they changed from being farmers.

JC:

Now, what do you think, if you were able to, say, oh, ask one of your uncles or your grandparents or your grandmother or someone what they thought, or who they were, or how they would describe themselves, how do you think they might describe themselves? You know, like now they might say—

MK:

Ethnically? You mean ethnically?

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

Well, you know that’s an interesting question. Because that question never came up. It never came up.

JC:

I know, exactly. Yeah, yeah. It’s something we’re so aware of now.

MK:

Yeah. They considered themselves, I think, Mexican. Mexicanos. But then, you get this from my great-great-grandfather, he was a Canary Islander. I think they had a touch of this, you know, not an aristocracy but kind of like an idea, something like that. He kind of gave me the impression of something like that. Or maybe just Mexican-American xxxii.

JC:

Do you think that they would identify themselves as maybe members of the San Juan community?

MK:

Oh sure, sure, yeah.

JC:

I mean not really as San Antonio people but as San Juan people?

MK:

Oh yeah, I think. They didn’t have anything else, so that was their identity.

JC:

And certainly not as Texans, or…

MK:

Well, I don’t think they ever called themselves Tejanos. But they didn’t say, you know, “Yo soy Mexicano.” They would never say that, they would never say that xxxiii.

JC:

Yeah, it was a different time.

MK:

It was like a, they didn’t have an allegiance to Mexico. They identified with the people somewhat, but they never did with the government. I never heard anyone say “I wish Mexico would take over,” or something like this. They never said that.

JC:

Right, right. Now for you, growing up, did you feel Mexican, Mexican-American?


MK:

Well, you know, of course you grow up over a period of a long time. I think I really didn’t have an identity. I don’t think I really did. In my teenage years I didn’t because I was part Anglo. In my particular situation I could fit in with an Anglo crowd or fit in with a Mexican crowd.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

It didn’t make any difference to me, so maybe I’m not a good example for these things. Because I speak Spanish just like anybody else. I speak English just like anybody else, I would think. At least I think I do! [laughs] I don’t know, no one’s ever told me any different. So see, I’m not a good subject because I fit in with any crowd.

JC:

Yeah. Well, was there an event in your life or a moment when you started thinking about your Indian roots, or when they became important?

MK:

Well, I thought about them because, well, there are several reasons. My mother told me that my father said that he was a quarter Cherokee, so I thought I was Indian on that side. And then of course, through being able to see my people and see what they look like, I knew that I wasn’t altogether White. I think I knew very early on that I was not a White person, exactly. And I knew that there were some Indians in the background. Of course it’s hard to get a hold of, you know, without any—[tape shuts off]

END OF TAPE 3: SIDE A MK:

—”estamos muy indios.” In other words, they are more Indian. They’re more Indian. Not in a pejorative way, but it’s just a fact. I used to hear that in the neighborhood. And I don’t think anybody accused us of being White people.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

And I knew some of my ancestors were not. And my mother used to tell me, she said that those Díaz people were dark complexioned. So I guess maybe, like I say, that I’m kind of an anomaly, because I’m just not representative of the whole population. I’m kind of unusual.

JC:

Yeah, right. Well, from the people I’ve talked to, I think it’s actually very representative of the community.

MK:

Really?

JC:

Yeah, since there’s so many traditions coming into this area. And so many different kinds of waves of migrants coming in, of immigrants coming in. That it really does make it very, very difficult.

MK:

Yeah. See I never did have much experience with any, at least in the family, everyone was from San Antonio, the people I grew up with, where I grew up. I never did have,


you know, like “My cousin lives in Monterrey” or “We’re from Monterrey,” or something like this, you know. It was that we were always here, in south Texas. Don’t have any other country. JC:

Yeah. Now do you feel like your children have identified at all with your heritage?

MK:

No, no.

JC:

Not at all?

MK:

No, they haven’t. And of course, my children aren’t just mine. They belong to—I needed help to create those folks. So their mother wasn’t too, well, in our marriage we never did make this a priority, so they don’t have very much of an interest.

JC:

Uh huh. Was she a Mexican-American?

MK:

Well, she was part, I think her grandmother was. I think she learned to be Anglo.

JC:

[Laughs]

MK:

[Laughs] But you know, she was dark. She was kind of dark-skinned. And it was hard for her, I guess, growing up.

JC:

Have you found that there are, say, people in say your children’s generation or their children’s generation that are expressing any interests in their heritage? Either as coming from San Juan, or being native?

MK:

Well, I don’t know of any. I don’t know of any. There very well might be but I don’t know of any. I don’t deal too much with the young folks, so there could be quite a few and I don’t know. But most kids I think are, they have their mind on something else. Rock and roll, or whatever it is now. I don’t know what it is now. I don’t know what you call it now.

JC:

[Laughs] I think that’s what I got my parents angry with.

MK:

It’s some other strange stuff now. I don’t know what it is.

JC:

I don’t know what my kid’s gonna listen to. I don’t worry about it. Well, when you were growing up, you and your friends, what kind of things do you remember, events or experiences, that stand out in your mind?

MK:

Well, where I grew up it was a quasi-rural area at that time. It wasn’t as built up as it is today. And my experiences when I was growing up, as a teenager, we did a lot of outdoor stuff on the river and things like that. We didn’t spend all our time either hunting or fishing and stuff like this on the river, but we’d just step out our door and walk a little ways and we were kind of in the woods. That’s what I remember most about growing up.


JC:

Now, when you were a child, you were living in San Juan?

MK:

Well, that area. My grandmother’s house.

JC:

And you went to school, you said you went to Catholic school?

MK:

Yeah, Catholic school for six years.

JC:

And was it the school that most went to?

MK:

No, no. It was St. Theresa’s. It’s about three miles from there. And you know, some other kids from that neighborhood also went.

JC:

Uh huh. And where did you go to high school?

MK:

Brackenridge, here in San Antonio.

JC:

And then you went to college?

MK:

Yeah, San Antonio College for a while and then St. Mary’s for a while, and then I finally graduated in UT [University of Texas] up in Odessa.

JC:

When did you graduate from there?

MK:

In ’77.

JC:

What did you get your degree in?

MK:

Bachelor of Arts in Accounting.

JC:

And then you worked for the IRS, is that right?

MK:

Yeah, a Bachelor of Business Administration.

JC:

Yeah, okay. That must have been, was it fun working for the IRS [laughs]?

MK:

Oh, well, it was a job. I was trying to make a living, you know. And no, it wasn’t fun.

JC:

I can’t imagine.

MK:

You got all that crap from everybody!

JC:

Yeah, and nobody likes you when you work for the IRS.

MK:

[Laughs] Yeah, and the boss doesn’t like you.


JC:

None of your friends like you.

MK:

Yeah, your wife doesn’t like you! My advice is find a job with the Peace Corps!

JC:

Do you remember some of the projects that went on at San Juan, like in the ’60s when they were digging the bones, they were digging up the graves?

MK:

Yeah, I remember that, yeah.

JC:

Now, were you involved at all in that?

MK:

No. I went to see what they were doing, you know. The thing is that they had publicized that these were Indian people and that they had no descendants and were extinct. And then of course, that was in the newspaper. I don’t know if you’ve seen those or not?

JC:

Yeah, I have.

MK:

But then I got talking to some people there, one of the individuals was around xxxiv that was around the age of my uncle, and he told me that when they had redone the church in 1907—he didn’t remember when, but he was a barefoot little kid around then—He said that they uncovered all sorts of bones. And I guess they reburied them. And he told me that story, you know, and then after that I started understanding what happened.

JC:

Uh huh. When did you begin to think, “Well this is wrong to think that these folks are extinct, that there are no descendants”?

MK:

Well, it was some time after that, I’ll say that. I don’t remember when. But you have to remember also that I think that the role of the church in this was that they had traditionally been patronizing to the population—either innocently or intentionally, I don’t know. They would tell them only what they needed to know. And unfortunately that’s what happened with these archaeological explanations. They knew, obviously, full well before it started what they had. And they still approved it [the dig]. And the church as a matter of fact, and I don’t know if you knew this, but they financed part of the first excavations.

JC:

Right, right.

MK:

So, you know this is wrong and I can’t understand why they did it. Unless maybe they thought that the Mexican population there was still so innocent and naïve that no one would ever say anything. I guess that’s what they thought. I guess that’s what they thought.

JC:

Yeah. And when did you start to become active in the Men’s Club?


MK:

Okay. I started around ’93, ’94. Before this no one had ever expressed any interest in it. Then these guys started this Indian thing. Then I got somebody that had a sympathetic ear and understood.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

It was ’93, ’94. Before that of course I really didn’t know, I guess more or less didn’t know what to do. I knew it was wrong and all that, but I didn’t know what to do about it. You know, I couldn’t talk about it to the priests, because they were the ones behind it. So then we started with this group and that’s been one of the things that has held us together is the fact that we had these things done.

JC:

Now are you talking about the Men’s Club or AIT-SCM?

MK:

AIT. The Men’s Club is a separate organization.

JC:

Right. You’re active in both though, aren’t you?

MK:

Yeah, yeah. Men’s Club of course, I know all those people. A lot of those people I grew up with.

JC:

Right, right.

MK:

I’ve known them all my life.

JC:

Would you say, well, if you were to think of things that are say, integral to holding together the people of San Juan, of making it more than just a place on a map but a community, would you say the Men’s Club is one of those very important things?

MK:

Well, I think the church is.

JC:

The church?

MK:

Yeah, the church. Not because of the religious aspect so much as the social aspect.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

It’s more of a social thing. Of course the religious aspect is what draws, but then the social aspect are the ones that maintain the community. I think that’s always been the case.

JC:

Uh huh. And what would you say some of the social aspects are?

MK:

What do you mean?

JC:

Like what are some of the things that are done socially that are so important?


MK:

Well, you have masses that you go to and then the meetings after mass where the people congregate. You have the different functions like the bazaars and whatever activities they have involved with the church. And to a lesser degree I guess there have been very few functions or community functions which occur outside of a connection with the church. Very few. And I think one of the ones that has come up is this Men’s Club thing that’s occurred. It’s the first time I think in the history of San Juan that anything has been done outside the aegis and control of the church. That’s unusual.

JC:

Yeah. Do you have—In the church though, it’s not really the priest doing the work, it’s the membership of the church, isn’t it? Wouldn’t you say?

MK:

Yeah.

JC:

And so are there other kinds of things that say, I’m not exactly sure what I’m asking, but you know, what other kinds of groups are there? I mean are there committees for the bazaars, and committees for the celebrations?

MK:

Yeah, we have them. Some functions are more religious than others. Like you have there’s a group, what is it? It’s called the Holy Name Society. And then there’s this, the Guadalupadas, and they’re these ladies who are kind of off to themselves. It’s like suborganizations. Of course you know San Juan used to be more of a, it had more population right around the mission area. But now it’s scattered, more scattered.

JC:

Yeah. Now what do you think that’s due to? Is it due to the aging?

MK:

No, it’s due to, of course the National Park Service is trying to move everybody out.

JC:

Right.

MK:

And that’s one thing, the main thing I guess, that’s caused the destruction of the community.

JC:

Yeah. It makes it hard for people to be there.

MK:

It drives people off, and it makes it harder for them to associate with the community. It’s barely hanging on as a community now. But I think you have the same thing at San José, you have the same thing at La Concepción. At Concepción, you know, you can’t identify, I don’t know of any of the old parishioners are there. San José I can. I can go and show you who the old parishioners are, still, and Espada. But Concepción is just totally assimilated. I understand they opened it up again for services.

JC:

Yeah. Did the reunion, how did that make you feel?

MK:

Well, it made me feel good. It made me feel good in the sense that there are so many people that want to assert their heritage and their past and to share it with other people. You know, that kind of restores my faith in people. Some people do have a sense of


history. Although they do of course, want to concentrate on their own people, but it’s good that they do. JC:

Yeah.

MK:

I wish we could have another one but it takes a lot of work.

JC:

Oh, it does.

MK:

The individual who organized this one said, “That’s the last time!”

JC:

[Laughs] Yeah, I talked to Janie. She was very tired from all that.

MK:

Yeah. So I can’t really say “Yeah, come on!” Maybe, I don’t know. It’s a lot of work, a lot of headaches. If something goes wrong everybody points the finger at you, you know? If something goes right, so what [laughs]!

JC:

Exactly. Well, is there anything that I haven’t asked you that you’d like to tell me?

MK:

Well yeah. I guess so. I guess one thing. Well, all these remains you know, this situation, I think that I’m still, I feel very badly about things. Not just because they’re my people but I think because it’s something on a human level. They totally disregarded these people that had been buried there. They even totally disregarded the fact that they were Catholics when they were buried.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

And on top of that they could have, you know I’ve done this myself, I’ve gone down to the archives and found the names of people that had been buried there.

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

Now, I am not a trained archaeologist or an individual that is trained in looking up archives, and I found this stuff. Now why couldn’t they do that? And why didn’t they? They could have made this something, instead of something horrible they could have made this something that people would have been proud of.

JC:

Right.

MK:

And they still, it’s really a slap in the face to the minority people, the way I look at it. They try to put make-up on it and paint. They’ve destroyed a lot of my trust. But my way of thinking was this: Why should I stop being Catholic, on account of this, you know?

JC:

Uh huh.


MK:

They should stop being Catholic. Why should I stop being Catholic? I’m not going to change my faith because of something other people have done. I’m really very incensed about the whole thing. I try to get along with them, I try to put up a good front, but you know I just feel like we’ve been cheated in a lot of ways.

JC:

Yeah. Well, in terms of that, like feeling like you’ve been cheated—

MK:

Mistreated.

JC:

—and mistreated, cheated—

MK:

Yeah. In other words you’re saying to me, “Well, you guys aren’t worth very much. You all weren’t worth very much. We won’t do this to the Italians or to the Germans or anybody, but we’ll do it to you Mexicans.”

JC:

Right. Yeah.

MK:

And I mean, this is what causes very bad feelings. Of course, you know, not very many people share my feelings, I’ll say that, because if they did they’d probably be burning something now [laughs]!

JC:

Yeah [laughs].

MK:

I mean, not everybody is as good a guy as I am.

JC:

Yeah, well what would be your sense of repayment for that mistreatment? It’s obviously not just—

MK:

Well, what does a Catholic do when he commits a sin? What does he do? He goes to the priest and confesses, right? So something like that. Plus, I would like to see the Catholic Church stop mining those areas for their benefit. You know, that’s all they’re doing. You know, the Catholic Church doesn’t really own those properties. Those were trust properties.

JC:

Yeah, right, right.

MK:

And I just feel like they should sit down with the responsible people and have some sort of reconciliation, and what they are doing, in my estimate, is not sufficient. But that’s my opinion.

JC:

Uh huh. I hope that maybe we can help in a little way with this thing.

MK:

Well, of course, the Santiago’s family is buried there. You know, Santiago Díaz?

JC:

Uh huh.


MK:

And some of his family I would think.

JC:

Now do you know for a fact that he’s buried there?

MK:

No, no. Felix Gutiérrez is buried there.

JC:

Now, how is he—

MK:

He’s a—Where’s the [???]? He’s a husband of Barbara Torres. And she’s buried there too, but I don’t have a document on her.

JC:

But you actually have a document.

MK:

Yes sir. Yes. I can prove that he’s [Gutiérrez] buried there.

JC:

Now, do you have an idea of whether or not he was born there?

MK:

No, I don’t think he was. I don’t think he was.

JC:

Do you think he was maybe born in one of the missions though?

MK:

No, I don’t think so. There’s a census record that shows he’s from Pesquaría Chica, somewhere near Monterrey, in there somewhere. Now Barbara, Barbara is from here, somewhere in San Antonio. She may have been a mission Indian.

JC:

Okay.

MK:

She’s listed various times in census records. She’s listed as Indian, mulatta, or Española, so you know, all three of them.

JC:

Wow, all three of them, huh? Yeah [laughs], that doesn’t make it easy!

MK:

Yeah, that’s true, but here’s the thing I found out. If you take, if they listed all three— You know, if you’re really Spanish, I mean a real Spaniard from overseas, you’re never listed as a mulatto. Never.

JC:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s right. You can only become Spanish but you don’t become mulatta.

MK:

Absolutely. And so—

JC:

Well, this is a nice link because frankly, one of the things that was a concern was that I guess there are two Santiago Díaz’s in the record and I heard that they’re different.

MK:

What record?


JC:

In the church record. I haven’t seen this, I just heard that there may be two men named Santiago Díaz.

MK:

Well I’d like to find about it. I’d like to find out about it.

JC:

Well Roz was telling me a little bit about it. She doesn’t quite know what’s going on with it either. Because I was talking with her, and I said “You know we found this person that’s probably there around the turn of the nineteenth century.” But this is probably even better because this means, I mean this is probably pushing it back to—I would imagine she was born maybe 1760s or something. Which means that we’ve gotten very early, and if we can say that she’s identified as Indian and mulatta, and she’s on the mission records there, I mean that gives us a really nice—

MK:

Well, I don’t know which mission records.

JC:

But if we know that her husband is buried and—

MK:

See, there’s no sacramental records—

JC:

There aren’t? Hmm.

MK:

—for San Juan before 1811, see.

JC:

Huh. Okay.

MK:

See, because the records themselves from San Juan, I would think, in 1820— Here’s what happened. Here’s what I think happened. And I may be wrong. But what happened was, the mission was secularized in 1794. So then San Juan became a submission of Espada. And I think all the records from San Juan were probably moved to Espada, okay? And that went on until about 1811. 1811, everything was moved to San José. Okay, so then I assume the records were moved to San José.

JC:

Okay.

MK:

And all during this time you have the possibility of fires, floods, whatever. Vandals, whatever. Rats, mice, whatever.

JC:

Uh huh.

MK:

And then in 1824, everything was moved over to San Fernando cathedral. And then to top it off, in 1828 there was a big fire at San Fernando.

JC:

Wow. But now you’ve seen this, you’ve seen her name on some records though?

MK:

Oh yeah.


JC:

And when you’re talking about seeing her listed as Indian, mulatta, and Española, what record are you seeing that in?

MK:

The census records.

JC:

Okay, so this is like the area census. This would have been the census by the Spanish crown?

MK:

Yes, the Spanish, yeah. I was just, there is no—

JC:

These aren’t say, baptismal records?

MK:

No, not baptismal, but census records. But I’m pretty positive that that’s correct.

JC:

Because these are the kind of links that will be very important in our report, as to be able to say, “We can go back this far. And here’s this man who we know is buried there with his wife who we know is buried there, who’s listed as Indian or mulatta.” That’s exactly what—

MK:

I’ve noticed several listings where her name comes up and they don’t list her last name. They just list her first name. Kind of leads me to believe that she’s Indian. Several instances where they just put “Barbara.”

JC:

Yeah.

MK:

They used to do that with Indian people. Just “José,” or “Diego,” or whatever.

JC:

Right. Yeah.

MK:

Maybe she had tattoos or something, I don’t know.

JC:

Yeah, yeah. Well Mickey, this had been just wonderfully interesting. I really appreciate your taking so much time from your day to sit down with me.

MK:

Yeah. But don’t tell anybody about this, okay [joking]?

JC:

[Laughs].

MK:

Don’t laugh [laughs]!

JC:

[Laughs] You gave me permission, man!

END OF TAPE THREE

Page 302 – Appendix E i

interviewees were afforded the opportunity to submit corrections to their transcripts. Three of the interviewees (MK, RR, RM) responded to this opportunity with corrections. Misspelled names, Spanish terms, dates, and passages unintelligible to the transcriber were corrected. Those instances in which a clear discrepancy exists between the corrections offered by the interviewee and their recorded interview are footnoted with the interviewees’ comments. Like the others interviewed, Ms. Stuart was given the opportunity to remit corrections of her transcript. ii Speaker clarifies this statement, “And then they’re scratching their head, you know [why are they buried like that? There wasn’t much space or money for burial plots.]” iii Placenta. iv Bury it at the “unfinished” chapel. v And Native American. vi Catholic Native Americans. vii An imposed foreign religion. viii Correction: Mungía. ix Correction: Garcia, not Garza or de la Garza. x See endnote 9. xi Correction: Barsada. xii Temescal = sweat lodge ceremony. xiii She would say we were indios. xiv Because he was proud of his indigenous heritage. xv This was “medicine” that she carried. xvi Partera = midwife. xvii My mother’s family. xviii The way that the spirit had blessed us. xix Cadillos = “stickers,” grass burrs. xx Malaguita, according to Campbell and Campbell 1996:68. xxi María Gutiérrez exemplified being Native and instilled this in all of us. xxii Elaria was born in 1905. xxiii Nicasio was Becky’s (Rebecca Stuart’s) grandfather. xiv Native to San Juan. xxv Also spelled with an “s,” Días. xxvi Canuto Dias. xxvii Except that her sister was Marianita Zamora. xviii M.K. corrects this statement, stressing that he never got to meet this person. xxix Again, M.K. individual corrects that he did not know this person. xxx Miguel Cantú. xxxi Miguel Cantú. xxxii Stories of MK’s great-grandfather, passed down to him from his mother. His great-grandfather was independent and aloof. xxxiii MK has heard them referred to as Mexicanos or Tejanos, however. xxxiv Manuel Sánchez.

Appendix F – Page 303

APPENDIX F

LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED Compiled by Jennifer L. Logan

Appendix F – Page 305

Father Brumer Mission Espada 10040 Espada Road San Antonio, Texas 78214 (210) 627-2064 Lola Carreon (For contact information, see Rick and Monica Mendoza, below) Enrique Flores 811 Greer San Antonio, Texas 78210 (210) 533-2663 Father James Galvin Mission San Juan de Capistrano 9101 Graf Road San Antonio, Texas 78214 (210) 534-3161 Janie Garza 1507 San Casimiro San Antonio, Texas 78214 (210) 627-2034 Robert J. Hard, Director Center for Archaeological Research University of Texas at San Antonio 6900 North Loop 1604 West San Antonio, Texas 78249-0658 (210) 458-4378 Ray Hernández, Director American Indians of Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions (AIT-SCM) Rt. 1, Box 76B-2 Comfort, Texas 78013 Ted Herrera P.O. Box 460346 San Antonio, Texas 78246 FAX: (210) 404-1939 Mickey Killian 418 Beryl Drive San Antonio, Texas 78213-3407

Page 306 – Appendix F

Mr. A. Joachim McGraw Archaeologist Texas Department of Transportation 125 E. 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701-2483 Rick and Monica Mendoza 4060 Medical Drive, #502 San Antonio, Texas 78229 (210) 614-6534 Joe Mendoza (For contact information, see Rick and Monica Mendoza, above) Rey Ríos CONTACT INFORMATION UNKNOWN Rosalind Rock, Historian San Antonio Missions NHP 2202 Roosevelt Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78210 (210) 534-8833 FAX: (210) 534-1106 Daniel Castro Romero, General Council Chairman Lipan Apache Band of Texas 330 Kitty Hawk Road, Apt. 3406 Universal City, Texas 78148 (210) 566-8471 [email protected] Ramón Vásquez y Sánchez American Indians in Texas—At Spanish Colonial Missions P.O. Box 10113 San Antonio, Texas 78201 (210) 434-5531 Rebecca Stuart 2929 Jasper San Antonio, Texas 78223 Henry Troutz, President Men’s Club 4410 Irene Drive San Antonio, Texas 78222-2818

Appendix G – Page 307

APPENDIX G

LIST OF POTENTIAL FUTURE CONTACTS Compiled by Jennifer L. Logan

Appendix G – Page 309

American Indian Movement Texas Chapter P.O. Box 756 Elm Mott, Texas 76640 [email protected] Choctaw-Apache Tribe of Ebarb P.O. Box 858 Zwolle, Louisiana 71486 (318) 645-2588 Mr. Richard Cornell, President Tonkawa Business Committee P.O. Box 70 Tonkawa, Oklahoma 74653 (405) 628-2561 FAX: (405) 628-3375 Henry Devora 3127 Nancy Carole Way San Antonio, Texas 78223 (210) 633-0956 Most Rev. Archbishop Patrick Flores 2718 W. Woodlawn San Antonio, Texas 78228-5195 (210) 734-2620 FAX: 210-734-2774 Mr. Gary McAdams, Acting President Wichita Executive Committee P.O. Box 729 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 (405) 492-2425 FAX: (405) 492-2005 Tribal Council of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas C/O Juan B. Macias 5319 East 6th Street Lubbock, Texas 79403 J. Gilberto Quezada, Research Consultant 5810 Windyhill San Antonio, Texas 78242 (210) 673-0261

Page 310 – Appendix G

Lipan Apache Band of Texas, Inc. C/O Daniel Castro Romero, Jr. 109 Clifford Court San Antonio, Texas 78210 [email protected] Mardith K. Schuetz [M. Miller] 4025 E. Kilmer St. Tucson, Arizona 85711 (520) 327-2911 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District P.O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102-0300

Appendix H – Page 311

APPENDIX H

SELECTED LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

• •

Letter from Curtis Tunnell, State Archaeologist (State Building Commission) to Archbishop Robert E. Lucey, of the San Antonio Archdiocese, concerning an agreement to conduct preliminary archaeological investigations at Mission San Juan Capistrano, dated January 11, 1967 ...........................................................................313 Inter-office Correspondence from Father Grahmann to the Archbishop concerning the contract with the Witte Museum relative to discoveries of artifacts at Mission San Juan Capistrano, dated March 25, 1969 .....................................................................315 Letter from Robert J. Mallouf, State Archaeologist at the Texas Historical Commission, to Rev. Balthasar Janacek, Director of the Old Spanish Missions for the San Antonio Archdiocese, regarding the Archdiocese’s intent to rebury the human remains recovered during archaeological excavations at Mission San Juan, dated June 25, 1986......................................................................................................................316 Letter from Curtis Tunnell, Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission, to members of the San Juan Capistrano Mission Repatriation Committee regarding the Committee’s request to obtain human remains and funerary objects recovered during archaeological excavations at the mission, dated August 15, 1994 ...............318 Letter from Robert C. Amdor, Superintendent of the San Antonio Missions National Historic Park, to Raymond Hernandez, of the American Indians in Texas at the Spanish Colonial Missions, regarding human remains and funerary objects recovered from Mission San Juan and stating that the Catholic Church, not SAAN, had legal standing in the matter of reburial issues, dated March 23, 1995 ...............................320 Letter from Most Reverend Patrick F. Flores, the Archbishop of the San Antonio Archdiocese, to Raymond Hernández, President of American Indians in TexasSpanish Colonial Missions, asserting the Church’s legal standing as the only group with rights to seek the return of human remains recovered from Mission San Juan, dated May 10, 1995....................................................................................................322 Letter from Most Reverend Patrick F. Flores, the Archbishop of the San Antonio Archdiocese, to Reverend Jorge Biastra, parish priest at San Juan Capistrano Mission, asserting that NAGPRA is not applicable to the human remains recovered from Mission San Juan during archaeological excavations, dated June 9, 1995 ................324 Resolution by Wichita and Affiliated Tribes to sponsor the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation of San Antonio, Texas in their efforts and activities to protect and preserve their sacred sites, burial grounds and artifacts. Resolution adopted on May 23, 2000, attested by S. D. Williams and approved by G. McAdams .......................................325 HR 787 Enrolled 05/14/2001, authored by Bob Turner, Recognizing the Tap PilamCoahuiltecan Nation and its efforts to preserve its cultural and spiritual heritage and traditions ....................................................................................................................327 SR 1038 Enrolled 05/11/2001, authored by Judy Zaffirini, Commending the Tap Pilam-Coahuiltecan Nation ........................................................................................328


Page 314 – Appendix H
















DRAFT REPORT for Review and Comment Only

DRAFT REPORT for Review and Comment Only

Suggest Documents

draft for comment and review - Google Groups

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft for Review Only

Author Draft For Review Only Author Draft For Review ...

Second Draft Report for Committee Comment

Author Draft for Review Only

Author Draft for Review only - SSRN

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft for Review only

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft For Review Only

Author Draft for Review only

Draft for Public Comment

Draft for discussion and comment - CiteSeerX

DRAFT ONLY

Competition Policy Review Draft Report

Competition Policy Review Draft Report

Comment Card Draft Plan.ai

Comment Card Draft Plan.ai

DRAFT VERSION for author only

DRAFT ONLY/NOT FOR RELEASE

draft for public review and comment 7/11/2017 1 hr 1198 review of ...