INDIAN GROUPS AT MISSION CONCEPCION
In this and the three following sections the Indian groups known to have been associated with the four missions of the historical park are identified and discussed. The four sections are arranged in mission geographic order from north to south, and for each mission the Indian group names appear in alphabetical order (see Table 1 for an alphabetized list of Indian groups at all four missions combined). Each Indian group is discussed as a unit, and the discussion appears when the group name first occurs in the mission sequence. For example, the Borrado are discussed under the heading of Mission Concepción, but the Borrado recorded for San José, Capistrano, and Espada receive only the following notation: see Concepción: Borrado. This procedure, although somewhat cumbersome, preserves descriptive unity for each Indian group and avoids needless repetition of detail when one Indian group was represented at two or more missions.
TABLE 1. INDIAN GROUPS AT MISSIONS OF THE SAN ANTONIO MISSIONS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
Mission Concepción was moved to San Antonio in 1731 from a site on the Angelina River of eastern Texas, where it had been known as La Purísima Concepción de los Ainai. Ainai (Hainai) refers to a subdivision of the Hasinai Caddoans. There is no record which indicates that any Caddoan individuals followed the mission when it was moved to San Antonio. As noted above, the fortunate survival of its earlier marriage register has greatly enlarged the number of Indian groups otherwise known to have entered Mission Concepción. Several groups identified in this register are not known from any other document.
See Lipan Apache below.
The Spanish name Borrado was widely used in northern Mexico, from Tamaulipas westward into Chihuahua, to refer to many Indian groups who decorated their faces and bodies by painting or tattooing (documents rarely indicate which is meant). It is evident that all of these groups were not linguistically or culturally related (Campbell 1979:6; Griffen 1969:57, 156, 172-174; Hoyo 1972:2). Borrado Indians were recorded in documents that pertain to all four missions of the historical park (Schuetz 1980b:51, 55-57), and it seems reasonable to conclude that these Borrado were remnants of various Indian groups displaced from Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. Such information as is available indicates that all Borrado of the San Antonio missions entered those missions after 1750, or after the initial Spanish colonization of northern Tamaulipas. As yet no one has made a thorough study of specific and collective uses of the name Borrado in north eastern Mexico. Except for Mission Concepción, the number of Borrado individuals is not recorded. In the Concepción marriage register Santos (1966-1967:157) found four Borrado; Schuetz (1980b:55) found five; and we have found eight in entries for the years 1767-1775.
Camasuqua, a recently discovered name refers to one of five Indian groups who were designated collectively as Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45) Although specifically recorded only for Capistrano, they could have been present among the Pamaque of Concepción and Espada. See Pamaque below.
Over 20 variants of the name Chayopin occur in mission-related documents, including Cayopin, Chaiopin, Choyapin, Saiopin, and Tiopin. The Chayopin entered three of the San Antonio missionsConcepción, San José, and Capistrano (Habig 1968:164-165; Schuetz 1980a:3-5, 10). The Concepción marriage register records one, possibly two, Chayopin (Schuetz 1980b:55). No pre-mission location for the Chayopin seems to have been recorded, but Cabello (1780:37-38) mentions that in 1780 some were living near the coast north of the Nueces River. A group with a similar name, Cayupina, lived in Nuevo León in the middle 17th century (León, Chapa, y Sánchez de Zamora 1961:191), but it is not now possible to demonstrate that the names Chayopin and Cayupina refer to the same Indians.
Garcia (1760:title page) identified the Chayopin as Coahuilteco-speakers, but Goddard (1979:374) doubts that the Chayopin spoke Coahuilteco before entering the San Antonio missions. Suggestions that the Chayopin spoke the Tonkawa language cannot now be taken seriously (Hodge 1907 Vol. I:239; Swanton 1952:310).
The Coapite (Guapica, Guapite) were a coastal people, commonly considered to be of Karankawan affiliation, whose earliest known territory was in the vicinity of Matagorda Bay. They seem to have shifted farther westward along the coast later in time. Santos (1966-1967:157) identifIed two Guapica individuals in the Concepción marriage register, and Schuetz (1980b:55) has identified three. We find six Guapica recorded for the period 1738-1746. Most of the Coapite who entered Spanish missions went to those near the coast, particularly at Goliad and Refugio (Bolton 1906; Oberste 1942).
The Comanche, who originally lived west of the Rocky Mountains and spoke a Numic (Plateau Shoshonean) language, entered northwestern Texas in the early 18th century. Some of the Comanche bands later moved southeastward into the Edwards Plateau, from which they displaced various Apache groups. In Spanish documents pertaining to the San Antonio area, Comanche band names were rarely specified until late in the 18th century. The few Comanche who entered San Antonio missions were women and children and evidently captives. Three Comanche were recorded at Mission Valero and two at Concepción (Schuetz 1980b:52, 55).
The Copan, a coastal people who were most frequently linked with the San Antonio and Aransas Bays, have long been regarded as Karankawan in both speech and culture. Four Copan are recorded in the Concepción marriage register for 1768, and one Copan individual is recorded for Mission Valero (Schuetz 1980b:52, 55). Most of the Copan who entered Spanish missions went to those near the coast, particularly at Goliad and Refugio (Bolton 1915; Oberste 1942).
The Cujan, also considered to be Karankawan in affiliation, were associated with the central section of the Texas coast, at various times ranging from Matagorda Bay westward to Aransas Bay. A few Cujan entered Mission Concepción, and in the marriage register are most often listed as "Pujan." That Cujan and Pujan are the same seems to be indicated by the two earliest entries (1734). In these entries the name Cujan appears in the text, and the name Pujan is entered in the margin. Thereafter all entries contain the name Pujan. Santos (1966-1967:157) identifies eight Pujan, and Schuetz (1980b:55) identifies 12 Pujan. We find only nine individuals for the period 1734-1756.
Schuetz (1980b:52, 56) also indicates the presence of "Cujan" at both San José and Valero. Most of the Cujan went to missions at Goliad and Refugio (Bolton 1906; Oberste 1942).
Numerous Apache bands with specific names were recorded by Spaniards in what is now known as Texas. Most of these specific names, however, do not appear in the earlier Spanish documents, which commonly use the collective name Apache. No special study has yet been made of all the identifiable Apache bands in Texas. Many names that have been recorded in documents may refer to Apache groups, but this cannot be demonstrated.
In the middle 17th century various Apache bands from the southern Plains, after acquiring horses from Spaniards in New Mexico, moved southeastward into the Edwards Plateau region, displacing the native hunting and gathering groups. It was these Apache groups who were best known to Spaniards at San Antonio, but the Spaniards never bothered to list all the bands by name and indicate where each band normally ranged. One of these groups was known as Lipan (see Hodge 1907 Vol. I:769 for a confusing list of synonyms). After 1750, when most Apache groups of the central Texas highlands were displaced by Comanche Indians and moved into the coastal plain of southern Texas, the Spaniards of the San Antonio area began referring to all Apache groups in southern Texas as Lipan or Lipan Apache (Campbell and Campbell 1981:62-64).
So far as is known, few Apache individuals entered missions of the historical park, probably because many Indian groups of those missions had recently been displaced from southern Texas by Apaches and were still hostile. Lipan Apache are said to have been present at Mission San José. Six Apache and one Lipan are identifiable in the Concepción marriage register. Most of the Apache who entered San Antonio missions went to Valero (Schuetz 1980b:52, 55, 56). It has generally been assumed that all Indian groups referred to in Spanish documents as Apache spoke the Apachean (Athapaskan) language, which seems to be reasonable. There must, however, have been some cases of mistaken identity.
In numerous Spanish documents the name Malaguita is variously rendered as Maguyalita, Malagueco, Malaquit, Maraguita, Marahuiayo, Maraquita, and Marhita. The ethnohistory of the Malaguita has been summarized by Campbell (1979:20), who cites the main sources of information. The first recorded territory of the Malaguita was in northeastern Tamaulipas (see maps of Jiménez Moreno 1944 and Saldívar 1943), from which they were displaced in 1749 and later by the extensive colonization of Tamaulipas by José de Escandón. Most of those who did not enter Spanish missions seem to have moved northward into the coastal strip between Corpus Christi Bay and the mouth of the Rio Grande. In some documents of the time, modern Padre Island was referred to as La Isla de los Malaguitos. Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) places the "Maraquita" just south of Corpus Christi Bay, but this does not take into account the original territory of the Malaguita.
The Malaguita were eclectic in their choice of Spanish missions. Small numbers entered at least 10 different missions in northeastern Coahuila (San Bernardo and San Juan Bautista), eastern Nuevo León (two unidentified missions), northern Tamaulipas (San Agustín de Laredo at Camargo and Señor San Joaquín del Norte at Reynosa), and southern Texas (Concepción, Capistrano, and Espada at San Antonio and Nuestra Señora del Refugio at Refugio). In fact, the Malaguita seem to hold the record for greatest number of missions entered.
Little can be specified about the relative numbers of Malaguita who entered the San Antonio missions. The Concepción marriage register records the name of only one Malaguita individual (1764; Schuetz 1980b:55). No figures are available on the number of Malaguita at Capistrano and Espada, but the documents seem to indicate arrival after the year 1750.
There is no basis for identifying the Malaguita as Coahuilteco-speakers. Samples of two languages, Comecrudo and Cotoname, are recorded for northern Tamaulipas, but at present there is no way of demonstrating that the Malaguita spoke either of them. Chabot (1931:46) thought that the Malaguita were probably Apaches, implying an Apachean (Athapaskan) language, but this does not appear to be reasonable.
A document of 1757 (Tienda de Cuerbo 1757:175) mentions that the Malaguita and Garza Indians living near Mier, Tamaulipas, lived in small huts, collected wild fruits, and hunted deer.
Manos de Perro
In some documents the Spanish name Manos de Perro is rendered as Patas de Perro ('dog paws'). No native name has ever been linked with the Spanish name, and it is possible that Manos de Perro was a collective name used in referring to remnants of several groups who had distinctive names. Various Spanish documents cite the Manos de Perro as a coastal group who ranged along the islands and adjacent mainland north of Corpus Christi Bay (Dolores 1754:157; Cabello 1780:37-38). Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) follows these leads and places the Manos de Perro along the coast between Aransas and Corpus Christi Bays. A Spanish map, which was compiled sometime after 1788, places them south of Corpus Christi Bay (De Villiers du Terrage et Rivet 1919:415), and this may reflect a late southward movement of those who did not choose to enter Spanish missions. Several modern writers have mistakenly placed the Manos de Perro much farther south on the Texas coast, near the Rio Grande.
In 1756 a considerable number of Manos de Perro entered Mission Concepción, the only San Antonio mission at which they were recorded. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 72 Manos de Perro in the Concepción marriage register, and Schuetz (1980b:55) identifed 62. We were able to identify only 49 Manos de Perro for the period 1756-1772, but we excluded some individuals who could not be clearly identified as Manos de Perro. An unknown number of Manos de Perro also entered Mission Espíritu Santo de Zúñiga of the Goliad area (Castaneda 1939 Vol. IV:31-32).
García (1760:title page) plainly indicates that the Manos de Perro did not speak the Coahuilteco language before entering Concepción. Various writers, among them Swanton (1940:134), have overlooked this and classified the Manos de Perro as probable speakers of Coahuilteco. Their language remains unknown.
As Orejón is a name of Spanish origin, it is possible that the Orejón people were also recorded under one or more native names and that not enough information is available to demonstrate the overlap. The little that was recorded about the pre-mission location of the Orejón seems to indicate an area between the lower parts of the San Antonio and Nueces Rivers (Campbell and Campbell 1981:41-42). Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) places them in a more restricted area between the lower Aransas and Nueces Rivers, apparently in the vicinity of present San Patricio County.
Most of the Orejón who entered missions went to Capistrano, and this is substantiated by various documents written during the period 1731-1794 (Campbell and Campbell ibid.; Schuetz 1980a:3-5, 10 and 1980b:57). A few Orejón entered Mission Concepición. In the Concepción marriage register Santos (1966-1967:157) found the names of two Orejón females, and in various documents Schuetz (1980b:55) found individuals of at least five Orejón at this mission. The Orejón are known to have entered additional missions. A few Orejón from Capistrano accompanied missionaries to three missions that were established in 1748 on the San Gabriel River, Milam County, Texas (Bolton 1914:378), and other Orejón deserted Capistrano sometime before 1754 and went to Mission San Francisco Vizarrón of northeastern Coahuila (Campbell and Campbell 1981).
Goddard (1979:374) thinks that there is enough historical evidence to indicate that the Orejón did not speak Coahuilteco before entering missions, as has long been thought, but probably spoke some other language that was never documented.
Considerable confusion has resulted from the failure to distinguish between two Indian groups with similar names, Pacao and Pacoa. García (1760:title page) listed both as mission Indians who spoke the Coahuilteco language. The Pacoa are known only from missions of northwestern Coahuila (Campbell 1979:29-30), and the Pacao are known only from missions at San Antonio.
The Pacao are mentioned in documents that refer to the simultaneous foundation of Missions Concepición, Capistrano, and Espada in 1731, and it has sometimes been assumed that Pacao individuals entered all three of these missions. It is difficult to prove or disprove that some of the Pacao entered Mission Capistrano. Most of the Pacao seem to have entered Mission Espada. Several sources mention Pacao desertion of Espada. In 1737, and documents pertaining to a murder case of 1752 record the testimony of 13 adult males from Espada (Campbell and Campbell 1981:42-43). No more than two Pacao seem to have been identified in the Concepción marriage register, and one of these is said to have come from Espada (Campbell and Campbell ibid.; see also Santos 1966-1967:158 and Schuetz 1980b:55). Santos (1966-1967:158) noted the presence of one Pacao individual at Mission Valero, but Schuetz did not find this in the Valero registers.
The pre-mission location of the Pacao is not clearly recorded, but indirect evidence suggests that they lived between the lower courses of the San Antonio and Nueces Rivers (Campbell and Campbell 1981:43). Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) has placed the Pacao between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande in the vicinity of present-day Dimmit and Webb Counties, but this is the location for Pacoa, not Pacao.
An identity for this Indian group, known mainly from a few documents that pertain to Mission Concepción, has not yet been clearly established. The Pachalaque were apparently not the same as the Pajalat, since both names were recorded in 1743 on a list of Indian groups said to have been present at Concepción when it was founded in 1731 (Santa Ana 1743:69). Although it cannot be properly demonstrated by citation of documents, it is possible that the Pachalaque of Concepción were the same people as the Pastaloca who were present at Missions San Juan Bautista and San Bernardo near present Guerrero, northeastern Coahuila. In pre-mission times the Pastaloca were encountered between the Rio Grande and the Nueces River in the vicinity of present-day Zavala County (Campbell 1979:33-35).
Santos (1966-1967) did not identify any Indians at Concepeción under the name Pachalaque. Schuetz (1980b:55), however, identified 15 Pachalaque at this mission. Our analysis of the Concepción register entries has yielded a maximum of eight Pachalaque for the period 1733-1756. It is evident that the main problem here is recognition of the name variants assignable to Pachalaque and Pajalat.
If the Pachalaque of Concepción were the same as the Pastaloca of the Guerrero missions in Coahuila, Mazanet's comments on languages spoken between Guerrero and San Antonio suggest that Coahuilteco was the language spoken by the Pachalaque (Gómez Canedo 1968:240). This is also supported by the apparent close association of Pachalaque with Pajalat, who are known to have spoken a dialect of Coahuilteco (see Pajalat below).
In various documents, both primary and secondary, the name Pajalat has been rendered in over 30 different ways, and some of these are dubiously synonymous. Most of the Pajalat who entered missions seem to have gone to Concepición. We follow Schuetz and interpret the names Pajalat and Pachalaque as representing two separate Indian groups (see Pachalaque above). It is difficult to determine just how many Pajalat individuals are represented in the Concepción marriage register. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 82 individuals under three names: Pajalate, 44; Cajalate, 13; and Pajalache, 25. We take these names to be synonyms of Pajalat, but our analysis of the register entries does not confirm the figures given. Schuetz (1980b:55) identified 23 individuals as Pajalat. We recognize 33 individuals for the period 1733-1766.
A few Pajal at seem to have entered other missions of Texas. One "Pasatlath" was baptized at Valero in 1730, and one "Pajalachi" was recorded in the baptismal and burial registers of Mission Nuestra Señora del Refugio (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44). In 1748 a few Pajalat from Concepción were taken by missionaries to three missions established on the San Gabriel River near present Rockdale, Milam County (Bolton 1914:378). Schuetz (1980b:57) indicates that some Pajalat entered Mission Capistrano in 1731, but we are unable to confirm this by clear documentary evidence.
In 1727 the Pajalat were twice reported as living along the lower San Antonio River, and one of these sources is a map that places the Pajalat in what is now western Goliad County (Campbell and Campbell 1981:43). A document of 1746 (Santa Ana 1743:69) indicates that the Pajalat came to the San Antonio missions from the same area, and another document of 1780 (Cabello 1780) implies that some of the Pajalat were still living in that area. The pocket map of Schuetz (1980b) places the Pajalat farther to the northwest, along Cibolo Creek in the northern part of Wilson County, a location we have been unable to verify.
Goddard (1979:364-367) has reviewed evidence which clearly indicates that the Pajalat spoke a dialect of the Coahuilteco language.
It is now known that Pamaque is a collective name that means "people of the south" and that at least five specifically named groups were referred to by this geographic term: Camasuqua, Sarapjon, Taguaguan, Tinapihuaya, and Viayan. It would thus appear that there never was a primary ethnic unit known specifically as Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45). The various Pamaque subdivisions are rather clearly linked with an area near the mouth of the Nueces River, which is where Schuetz (1980b) places the name Pamaque on her map.
Pamaque groups were represented at all of the historical park missions except San José. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified nine "Pamache" in the Concepción marriage register. Schuetz (1980b:55) identified 14 "Pamache" and one Pamaque, the latter said to have come to Concepción from Capistrano. In our analysis of the Concepción marriage register, we found only nine clearly identifiable "Pamache" and Pamaque. There seems to be no good reason for assuming that the two names refer to separate ethnic units.
The Pamaque and their subdivisions are best known from Capistrano (Schuetz 1980a), and some of these deserted Capistrano and entered Mission San Francisco Vizarrón of northeastern Coahuila. Most of what is known about the Pamaque comes from documents pertaining to a jurisdictional dispute between missionaries of Capistrano and Vizarrón. Only one Pamaque can be linked with Espada, and one "Pamqua" at Valero was probably a Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45).
A few Pamaque were recorded at Mission Nuestra Señora del Refugio for the period 1807-1825. Almaraz (1979:52) indicates the presence of one Pamaque individual at Mission San Bernardo of northeastern Coahuila, but this is an error (a misreading of the name Pamasu).
García (1760:title page) identified the Pamaque among Indian groups who spoke Coahuilteco in San Antonio missions, but there is enough evidence to indicate that they probably spoke some other language before going to San Antonio (Goddard 1979:364, 374).
The name Patalca appears to have been recorded only in the marriage register of Mission Concepción. In this register Santos (1966-1967:157) recognized eight Patalca individuals (one was given under the name "Iatalca," which is an obvious misreading of Patalca). Schuetz (1980b:55) recognized nine Patalca; our review of the register entries indicates that perhaps as many as 12 Patalca individuals may be recorded.
As the name Patalca was not given separate entry status in the Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (Hodge 1907-1910), little attention has been focused on the question of Patalca identity. Is Patalca a valid group name, or is it possibly a distorted variant of some other group name? It has been suggested (Campbell 1979:43) that Patalca may be a corruption of the name Pitalac, which is documented for nearby Mission Capistrano (see Capistrano: Pitalac). In a recent review of the Concepción register, a detail was noted that we had previously overlooked. A Patalca woman of Concepción is said to have a sister living at Capistrano. Documents pertaining to Capistrano refer to Pitalac but never to Patalca, and this makes equation of the names Patalca and Pitalac appear even more plausible.
Patumaco are known by name only from the marriage register of Mission Concepción, in which Patumaco adults are identified during the period 1733-1762. It is difficult to determine just how many Patumaco individuals are identifiable in this register. Our first analysis led us to identify only 28 individuals (Campbell and Campbell 1981:54), but a later analysis indicated that perhaps as many as 37 individuals could be identified. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 31 Patumaco, and Schuetz (1980b:55) seems to have identified at least 55 individuals. The Concepción marriage register apparently indicates a close pre-mission association of Patumaco with Pajalat, Siquipil, and Tilpacopal, and a Spanish map of 1727 places the Pajalat in what is now the western part of Goliad County (Campbell and Campbell 1981). The Patumaco may have lived in the same area. Schuetz (1980b) has a pocket map which places the Patumaco farther to the northwest, apparently in present Karnes County.
If the Patumaco spoke the same language as the Pajalat, then they can be identified as speakers of the Coahuilteco language (Goddard 1979:364-367).
Of the four historical park missions, the Payaya were represented only at Mission Concepción, where a Payaya woman from Valero was married in 1739. The Payaya entered Mission Valero in greater numbers than any other group. A considerable amount of information on the Payaya has been presented by Campbell (1975) and Schuetz (1980b). The pre-mission territory of the Payaya extended from San Antonio southwestward for a distance of at least 40 miles, and Payaya in small numbers also entered missions in northeastern Coahuila-San Bernardo, San Juan Bautista, and San Francisco Solano (Campbell 1979:39). A few words believed to be of Payaya origin seem to indicate that the Payaya spoke a dialect of the Coahuilteco language (Goddard 1979:366-367).
It has not been known until recently that Piguique is a collective name that was used to refer to several Indian groups who also had specific names. Unfortunately, no document has yet been found which identifies the specific names or indicates how many there were. It thus seems likely that known documents contain some of these specific names but do not link them with the Piguique.
Evidently most of the Piguique who came to San Antonio missions entered Capistrano in 1747 or shortly thereafter. Some of these deserted Capistrano sometime before 1754 and entered Mission San Francisco Vizarrón of northeastern Coahuila (Campbell and Campbell 1981:54). Very few Piguique appear to have entered Mission Concepción. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified two "Siquiques" in the Concepción marriage register, but Schuetz (1980b:55) identifies only one, a male said to have come there from Capistrano. Our analysis of the Concepción register agrees with that of Schuetz. "Piguican" were recorded in 1768 as being present at Mission Espíritu Santo de Zúñiga at present Goliad, and at least one Piguique is indicated for the year 1809 at Mission Nuestra Señora del Refugio at Refugio, Texas (Campbell and Campbell 1981).
Although the Piguique have sometimes been identified as originally living in Coahuila, this cannot be demonstrated. The Piguique are most closely linked with the coastal zone lying between the San Antonio and Nueces Rivers, for missionaries refer to them as a coastal people or as a people who occupied the coastal marshes (Campbell and Campbell 1981). Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) places them along the lower Nueces River northwest of Corpus Christi Bay, which may be too far inland to agree with the coastal marsh terrain noted by missionaries.
Although García (1760:title page) indicated that before entering San Antonio missions the Piguique did not speak the Coahuilteco language, this has not prevented some writers from classifying the Piguique as Coahuilteco-speakers. One missionary, Joseph de Guadalupe, noted that the Piguique spoke a language different from other Indian languages that were spoken at Capistrano (Campbell and Campbell 1981; Goddard 1979:374).
The Sanipao are known only from documents that pertain to Mission Concepción, which indicate that some of them arrived there as early as 1753. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 24 Sanipao in the Concepción marriage register, but Schuetz (1980b:55) found 37 Sanipao individuals. Our analysis yielded 34 for the period 1753-1776, which agrees fairly well with the figure given by Schuetz.
We have been unable to find a document which indicates a pre-mission location for the Sanipao. Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) places the Sanipao in northeastern Coahuila, but no documentary support has been found for this location. We have previously suggested (Campbell and Campbell 1981:56) that the Sanipao may have originally lived in southern Texas, from which so many other groups came to Concepción. It is possible that the Sanipao were referred to in other documents by one of the collective names known to have been used in southern Texas.
García (1760:title page) clearly indicates that the Sanipao did not speak the Coahuilteco language before entering Mission Concepción. In spite of this, most writers have identified the Sanipao as Coahuilteco-speakers. As no identified sample of Sanipao speech is known, it seems likely that this people spoke one of the undocumented languages of the region. It is gratuitous to suggest (see Webb 1952 Vol. II:567) that the Sanipao may have spoken the Tonkawa language.
Sarapjon is a new name in ethnohistoric literature (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45) and refers to one of five Indian groups who were designated collectively as Pamaque. They are specifically recorded only for Capistrano, but could have been present among the Pamaque of Concepción and Espada. See Pamaque above.
Recognizable variants of this name are known only from documents pertaining to Mission Concepción. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 16 Siquipil in the Concepeción marriage register. Schuetz (1980b:55) has identified a total of 29, which evidently includes individuals recorded later than the period 1733-1756. Our analysis of the register entries agrees with that of Santos.
As the Concepción register indicates pre-mission association of Siquipil, Pajalat, and Patumaco, and a Spanish map of 1727 gives a location for the Pajalat, the Siquipil in 1727 may have been living in what is now western Goliad County (Campbell and Campbell 1981:56). The pocket map of Schuetz (1980b) places the Siquipil farther to the northwest, evidently in present Wilson County. If the Siquipil spoke the same language as their associates, the Pajalat, then the Siquipil can be identified as speakers of the Coahuilteco language (Goddard 1979:364-367). This receives some support from similarities in recorded native personal names (Campbell and Campbell 1981).
During the early period at San Antonio the Tacame were noted for shifting from one mission to another. It appears that they first entered San José, but in 1736 they left this mission for Espada, from which over 200 Tacame are said to have fled in 1737 to a locality somewhere on the Colorado River (Santa Ana 1737:380 and 1739:40). Later a few Tacame entered Mission Valero. Eventually most of the Tacame settled down at Mission Concepción, where they seem to have been the most numerous group. Santos (1966-1967:157) identified 69 Tacame in the Concepción marriage register, and Schuetz (1980b:55) reports a total of 80.
A specific pre-mission location for the Tacame appears not to have been recorded, but indirect evidence in various documents indicates an area lying between the lower courses of the San Antonio and Nueces Rivers (Campbell and Campbell 1981:59). García (1760:title page) listed the Tacame among Indian groups who spoke Coahuilteco at the San Antonio missions, and most writers have assumed that they also spoke Coahuilteco before arriving at the missions.
The name Taguaguan refers to one of five Indian groups who were collectively designated as Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45). They are specifically recorded only for Capistrano, but could have been present among the Pamaque of Concepción and Espada. See Pamaque above.
Some 45 variants of the name Tilijae appear in numerous documents, and most of these are readily recognizable and can be demonstrated by contextual evidence in the documents. It seems evident that the Tilijae, when first recorded in 1675, were living in northeastern Coahuila, from which they were displaced into southern Texas after 1700 (Campbell 1979:48-49). It was after displacement from Coahuila that some of the Tilijae entered Missions Espada and Concepción at San Antonio. Schuetz (1980b:pocket map) places the "Tiloja" south of the Nueces River (vicinity of present Dimmit County), which indicates their location after being displaced from Coahuila and before entering the San Antonio missions.
At various times some of the Tilijae entered missions in northeastern Coahuila, among them San Bernardino de la Candela, San Juan Bautista, and San Francisco Vizarrón (Campbell 1979). Apparently most of the Tilijae who entered San Antonio missions went to Capistrano. According to the mission foundation document examined by Bolton (in Hodge 1910 Vol. II:880), the "Tiloujaa" were one of two groups for which Mission Capistrano was founded in 1731. At least 20 "Thelojas" were recorded there for the year 1737 (Habig 1968:164). Only one Tilijae was recorded in the Concepción marriage register. Bolton (1915:16) read the group name as "Teloja," Santos (1966-1967:157) as "Tileja," and Schuetz (1980b:55) as "Tilofa." García (1760:title page) identified the Tilijae language as Coahuilteco. As the Tilijae came from an area in Coahuila where Coahuilteco was commonly spoken, it seems reasonable to accept them as Coahuilteco-speakers.
The Indian group Tilpacopal is known only from the marriage register of Mission Concepción. No positive statement about pre-mission location of the Tilpacopal seems to have been recorded, but circumstantial evidence in the Concepción register suggests that the Tilcacopal lived in the same area as the Pajalat, that is, in the western part of modern Goliad County (Campbell and Campbell 1981:59). The pocket map of Schuetz (1980b), however, places the Tilpacopal near the junction of Cibolo Creek with the San Antonio River in Karnes County.
Santos (1966-1967:157) recognized 22 Tilpacopal individuals in the Concepción marriage register; Schuetz (1980b:55) recognized 24. Our analysis of entries for the period 1733-1756 yields a figure of 26, which agrees well with the figures of both Santos and Schuetz. If the Tilpacopal spoke the same language as the Pajalat, a Coahuilteco dialect is indicated (Goddard 1979:363-367).
This was one of five groups who were referred to collectively as Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45). They are specifically recorded only for Capistrano but could have been present among the Pamaque of Concepción and Espada. See Pamaque above.
Schuetz (1980b:55) has recently called attention to a document of 1772 which records the presence of 18 Toaraque at Mission Concepción. On her map, Schuetz places the name Toarque (presumably a miscopy of Toaraque) in northeastern Coahuila, and it is followed by a question mark, which seems appropriate. We have been unable to find the name in Coahuila documents. The Toaraque of Concepción may have been the same as the Tuarique of Espada, but documentary proof is lacking.
The Venado (Spanish 'deer') recorded at the San Antonio missions of Capistrano and Concepción are generally believed to be the same Venado (also given as Benado) as those associated with the lower Rio San Juan of northern Tamaulipas and the adjoining part of Nuevo León (see maps by Jiménez Moreno 1944; Saldívar 1943; Schuetz 1980b). Some of these Venado remained south of the Rio Grande and were associated with Mission Agustín de Laredo of Camargo (Bolton 1913:450-451); others seem to have crossed the Rio Grande into southern Texas and eventually ended up at San Antonio missions (Santa Ana 1743:69). One or more native names for the Venado may be recorded in documents, but as yet no linkages have been demonstrated.
Most of the Venado at the San Antonio missions apparently entered Capistrano, which is said to have been founded for Venado and Tilijae Indians in 1731. In 1737 the Venado abandoned Capistrano but later returned (Bolton, in Hodge 1910 Vol II:880; see also Schuetz 1980a:3, 5, 10). It has sometimes been assumed that some of the Venado of Capistrano moved to Mission San Francisco Vizarrón in northeastern Coahuila, but the Venado of Vizarrón were refugees from Chihuahua farther to the west and were probably unrelated to the Venado of Tamaulipas and southern Texas (Griffen 1969:74; Revilla Gigedo 1966:61).
Only a few Venado entered Mission Concepción at San Antonio. Santos (1966-1967:157) and Schuetz (1980b:55) have identified two Venado individuals at Concepción, but our analysis of entries in the marriage register indicates four Venado for the period 1740-1770. García (1760:title page) listed Venado among those who spoke the Coahuilteco language, but Goddard (1979:364-365) doubts if they spoke Coahuilteco before coming to San Antonio.
The Viayan were one of five Indian groups who were collectively referred to as Pamaque (Campbell and Campbell 1981:44-45). They are recorded by this name only for Capistrano but could have been present among the Pamaque of Concepción and Espada. It is possible that the Viayan were the same as the Bioy, who were said to be living in southern Texas in 1708 (Maas 1915:36-37). See Pamaque above.
At various times during the late 17th century the Xarame were encountered by Spaniards in an area that extended from northeastern Coahuila northeastward to the Frio River southwest of San Antonio. They entered various Coahuila missions, including San Francisco Solano, San Juan Bautista, and San Bernardo (Campbell 1979:52-53). Nearly all of the Xarame who came to San Antonio entered Mission Valero, where they were the second most numerous group (Schuetz 1980b:53). Of the remaining San Antonio missions, the Xarame entered only one, Concepción. The marriage register of Concepción yields the names of only two Xarame individuals (Schuetz 1980b:55). As the Xarame, when first known, ranged over an area in which the Coahuilteco language was commonly spoken, it is generally assumed that they spoke that language.
This Indian group has long been identified as a subdivision of the Tonkawa Indians (Bolton, in Hodge 1910 Vol. II:998-999; Sjoberg 1953:281-283), but this identification has never been fully demonstrated by a detailed ethnohistoric study of the Yojuane. It seems clear that no sample of the Yojuane language was ever recorded. When first known under the name Diujuan in 1691, the Yojuane were living in northern Texas west of the Hasinai Caddoans (Casanas, in Swanton 1942:251). The French encountered Yojuane on the Red River in 1719, at which time they were associated with Tonkawa and also with other groups which some writers identify as Wichita. It was not until the middle of the 18th century that Yojuane moved southward into an area generally east of San Antonio. The map of Schuetz (1980b) shows Yojuane west of the lower Brazos River, apparently in the vicinity of present Fort Bend County. This was one of their later locations.
For the four park missions no Tonkawa seem to have been recorded, and only two Yojuane individuals can be identified in the Concepción marriage register. The entries are for the brief period of 1758-1760 (Schuetz 1980b:55). There were, however, six Tonkawa and eight Yojuane at nearby Mission Valero (Schuetz 1980b:53).
Last Updated: 26-Apr-2007