"In the Midst of a Loneliness":
The Architectural History of the Salinas Missions
NPS Logo


The pueblo that the Spanish called Las Humanas was popularly known as Gran Quivira from at least the 1830s and probably well back into the 1700s.1 However, in the 1890s, Adolf Bandelier argued that it was actually the place called Tabirá. Bandelier was not aware of the difference between the Indians the Spanish called "Jumanos" on the plains of eastern New Mexico and Texas and the Indians they called "Jumanos" at Las Humanas. The statements in the records that the Indians of the "pueblo of the Jumanos" were Piro confused him. He was convinced that "Las Humanas" was a settlement of plains Jumanos, rather than a village of Pueblo Indians.2 By his reasoning, this left only Tabirá as the possible name for the pueblo ruins called "Gran Quivira." This name was accepted among historians through 1939.3

Kubler, Scholes, Toulouse and the Renaming of Tabirá

In October, 1939, George Kubler published a short note in the New Mexico Historical Review briefly outlining an argument that Gran Quivira was Las Humanas, not Tabirá. Kubler's book on the religious architecture of New Mexico was published the next year, 1940, and was available for reading by about mid-year (L. L. Bloom reviewed it in the New Mexico Historical Review, for example, in October, 1940). The book contained further information on the identification of Gran Quivira as Las Humanas, and specifically discusses the churches. However, Kubler did not make the assumption that Benavides's "San Isidro" was the name that should be associated with the smaller church, called the "Old Church" by the National Park Service at the time, even though he used Benavides's description of his early missionary activities at the pueblo. Kubler thought the smaller building was the chapel for the pueblo of Tabirá, which he construes the documents to state was built at Las Humanas. He called the missionary establishment at Las Humanas "San Buenaventura," but did not associate the name with any specific building.

About the time Kubler's book became available, France Scholes and H. P. Mera published "Some Aspects of the Jumano Problem," released in June, 1940. In this document, Scholes presented a complete argument demonstrating that "Tabirá" was Las Humanas.4 Scholes then continued with an outline of the history of Las Humanas as reconstructed from documents available at the time.5 In his discussion of events and construction at the pueblo, Scholes accepted that the first church at Las Humanas was called "San Isidro," but further stated that sometime before 1660, the patron saint was changed to San Buenaventura.

Joseph Toulouse became custodian of Gran Quivira in January, 1940. He kept up with the work of Hackett, Kubler and Scholes, and in November, 1940, wrote a summary of the status of the research for the National Park Service.6 In this summary, Toulouse accepted Scholes's attribution of "San Isidro" to the "Old Church," and mentioned Scholes's conclusion that the name was changed before 1660. Toulouse, however, suggested that the larger church, the "New Church" in Park Service usage, "was intended to be the so-called San Buenaventura de Las Humanas."7 He continued the practice of calling the two churches the "Old Church" and the "New Church" through 1940 to at least May, 1941.8 Finally, in September, 1941, he referred to the Old Church as "San Isidro," even though he continued the use of "New Church" instead of "San Buenaventura." This name was first used in January, 1942. Although the actual decision to change the names of the buildings may have been made by Toulouse's superiors, by the end of 1941 the National Park Service had officially accepted the results of Scholes's and Kubler's work. The two churches have continued to be called by the present names of "San Isidro" for the Old Church and "San Buenaventura" for the New Church since that time.

Fray Alonso Benavides and the Origin of "San Isidro"

The writing of France Scholes formed the basis for the National Park Service to apply the present names to the church buildings at Gran Quivira, presumed to be the pueblo of Las Humanas. However, Scholes's conclusions in 1940 were a reevaluation of the evidence available at the time, and should not be considered the final word. Research since 1940, especially archeological work, has provided more information, and calls for a reappraisal of Scholes's conclusions.

It could be argued that neither Toulouse nor Scholes named the buildings, but only revived the original names, because Fray Alonso de Benavides and Fray Diego de Santandér had already named the churches in 1627 and 1660. However, this suggestion cannot be supported. Benavides did not name any church "San Isidro," nor did Santandér name any church "San Buenaventura." Benavides did not name the smaller church at Las Humanas, but dedicated a day of preaching in 1627 to Saint Isidore of Seville, because that was the day on which he preached to the Indians of the pueblo. Santandér named a convento San Buenaventura, but never completed the larger church associated with it.9 Further, there is a third church at Las Humanas with no name applied to it at all, discovered by Alden Hayes in 1965-68, during the excavations of mound 7. The problem, then, is to determine the names of these three churches, based on very limited historical evidence.

The situation is not as confused as it sounds. It is simplest to begin at the beginning, with Fray Benavides. In 1630 he wrote a report to the King of Spain describing his activities in New Mexico, which he had left in late September or early October, 1629. In that report, he described his visit to Las Humanas: "I began the conversion of the great pueblo of the Xumanas, the which I dedicated to the glorious San Isidoro, Archbishop of Sevilla, because of having made the conversion on his day."10 This statement immediately causes problems. Benavides used the word "conversion" twice in his statement, but did not make it clear whether he referred to the act of converting pagans to Christianity, or to the Franciscan administrative unit of missionary activity, the conversión. Because of his use of two different verbs, comencer for the first "conversion" and aver hecho for the second, it appears that he meant both. His statement then becomes: "I began the process of converting the Indians of the great pueblo of the Xumanas to Christianity, which process I dedicated to San Isidro, because of having created the conversión on his day." If this is what Benavides intended to say, then he apparently considered himself to have actually established the Franciscan administrative unit called the conversión at Las Humanas.11 Notice that Benavides does not give the year of his missionary effort at Las Humanas, or refer to Fray Letrado, to the establishment of a permanent missionary activity at the pueblo, or to the construction of any buildings there. The closest Benavides came to a statement that any construction had been carried out at Las Humanas was a general statement that six conventos and "very good" churches had been established in the Salinas area. 12

Just what such a statement could mean is open to a wide range of interpretation. When Benavides left the province in late September, Letrado had already been appointed to found a mission at Las Humanas, and had gone out to the pueblo, but had not yet returned to spend the winter in Santa Fe. As of September, Letrado had time to do no more than acquire the pueblo rooms at Las Humanas and make a few changes to doors and windows. Undoubtedly the first room he established was the one to serve as the church. Since he did not bring out his wagon of supplies until March of 1630, he could hardly have done much more. Benavides spent the next six months on the road to Mexico City, and then on to the coast where he boarded a ship to Spain. He reached Madrid in August, 1630. Therefore, unless he received messages by fast couriers travelling alone from New Mexico to Mexico City, who reached him before he took ship, Benavides had only what he knew of New Mexico as of late September, 1629, on which to base his reports. From this, it can be concluded either that the statement about six conventos and churches in the Salinas area did not include any structures at Las Humanas, or that it referred only to the pueblo rooms converted to missionary use and the first simple church established in one of these rooms. 13

In 1634, Benavides revised his report, incorporating new information he had received from New Mexico. In his description of the Tompiro, he left the statement about the six conventos and churches, but added the year 1627 to his description of his first preaching to the pueblo of Las Humanas. Benavides said that Las Humanas was left with the start he had made, "and later on there came to continue this conversion the blessed father, Fray Francisco Letrado, who converted and baptized the people and founded there a convent and a very fine church. We now have the information that in the year 1632 he was martyred in the Zuñi nation."14 Again, Benavides uses the word "conversion" in such a way that he is apparently speaking of the mission administration, rather than the activity. Benavides considered Letrado's activities at Las Humanas to be carrying on what he had begun, rather than beginning a new missionary effort at the place.

Benavides, in Spain, had received information updating his knowledge of events in New Mexico to at least February, 1632. This probably would have come on the wagontrain that departed Mexico City sometime in the second half of 1631, arrived in New Mexico probably in early 1632, and left for Mexico City in perhaps mid-1632. With a boat-trip of about six months, the information would have arrived in Benavides's hands by the end of 1632 or early 1633. Again, unless a special messenger made the trip from New Mexico to Mexico City separate from the regular caravan, this was the only time Benavides could have gotten messages from contacts in New Mexico before 1634. This indicates that the 1634 report could not have incorporated information from New Mexico dating more recently than mid-1632. Benavides knew that Letrado had left Las Humanas, but not what further provisions had been made for the mission there.

Considering the circumstances under which Benavides received his information, and the precise phrasing of his reports emphasizing the continuity of the missionary effort, the most reasonable conclusion to reach is that Benavides established a conversión at Las Humanas that he called "San Isidro." However, the degree to which such a dedication was binding on future Franciscan work at the pueblo is unknown.15

Fray Letrado and "San Isidro"

When Fray Letrado purchased rooms in the pueblo of Las Humanas in 1629 and set up his residence there, he was duplicating the actions of the Franciscans at Hawikuh in the same year. Here, "a house was bought for lodging of the Religious, and at once was the first Church of the Province, where the next day was celebrated the first mass."16 The first order of business for a missionary was to establish a place to hold religious services, and this place was called "the church" because it was used for religious activities. Alden Hayes, who excavated mound 7 at Las Humanas in 1965-68, considered room 208, in the pueblo rooms converted to use as a convento by Letrado, to be where religious services were conducted.17 This is the equivalent of saying that room 208 was the first church at Las Humanas. It was the "church" to which Benavides referred in the 1634 report when he stated that Letrado had built a "fine church" at Las Humanas. However, Letrado never applied the name "San Isidro" to the room, because a saint's name cannot be assigned to a church until at least a "quasi-fixed" altar has been constructed and the portable altar stone installed in it.18 This is the ceremony called "dedication."19 Since the church rooms in the pueblo never had more than a portable altar table built into them, they could never have been dedicated, named churches.

Letrado began construction on the first "permanent" church of Las Humanas as soon as he was able, but because of more pressing needs this was probably not until 1631. He worked at the pueblo a total of about twenty-five or thirty months. Of these months, no major construction could have occurred before the arrival of the wagontrain of supplies in March, 1630, no construction could have been carried out during the freezing weather of the winter of 1630-31, and Letrado may have slacked off during the last half of 1631. This left Letrado with only about March through October of 1630, and March through September or October of 1631, or perhaps fifteen months, to have accomplished whatever construction he managed to carry out. Letrado had modified the purchased pueblo rooms during 1629, so that he was able to begin the new convento rooms added to the rooms of mound 7 in March, 1630.

The availability of labor determined the amount of work accomplished in a given time. However, even at pueblos with the best circumstances, it still took about six years to build a church and convento, because there was a limit to the amount of time a missionary could spend on construction out of the necessary activities of his day, a limit to the number of people who could be spared from the other work needed to keep a pueblo functioning, and a limit to the number of persons the missionary could actually supervise as they worked. In other words, a missionary might have been able to build a full-sized church and convento in three years by doubling the crew, but this would have required a crew of about eighty people, a difficult management problem.20 Unless there is good reason to assume otherwise, it is better to use the standard crew size for the calculation of construction times. Therefore, two years would not be enough time to build a complete church, even a visita church, even with the usual full crew.

Assuming that he was able to achieve the full level of support and rate of construction found at the missions at the other Salinas pueblos, not a high probability, Letrado would have been able to build only part of the Old Church. He would have completed the new convento rooms by about May or June, 1630, including the addition of room 215 to the church in room 208. If he started immediately on the Old Church, he could have finished the cut into the bedrock of the hillside into which it was to be built by about May, 1631. By the time he left, about October, 1631, the walls would have reached a height of perhaps eleven to thirteen feet. Even under the best working conditions, with full support and a full crew, Letrado would have had another twelve months of work before the church could be completed. With a working year of only nine months, he could not have finished the building until the end of 1632.

Why Letrado left is unknown. He may have run into opposition with some factions in the pueblo; or he may have realized that the shortage of water at the pueblo would prevent its ever becoming self-supporting, because it could not support extensive new fields, pasturage for large herds of animals, or the water requirements of a major building program; or he may have been removed from Las Humanas by the Franciscan administration of the province because of a greater need elsewhere, rather than because he requested to leave. For whatever reason, he left Las Humanas without a full-sized church.

Since Letrado could not have finished the church, Letrado could not have named it. The available evidence is ambiguous about the name he intended for the church. If he was continuing Benavides's dedication of the missionary activity at Las Humanas to San Isidro, this is the name he probably planned to use. However, the question is meaningless, since he did not finish the church. Instead, in 1634 Las Humanas was reduced to visita status, and Fray Francisco Acevedo of Abó became visitador.

Fray Acevedo and "San Buenaventura"

Acevedo completed the church buildings Letrado had begun at Las Humanas and Tabirá. Again assuming a full complement of workers, the construction could have been completed by about 1636.21 Agustín de Vetancurt, the Franciscan historian of missionary activities in New Mexico in the seventeenth century, attributes only the churches at Abó and Ténabo to Acevedo.22 Vetancurt may have made a simple error in leaving the church at Las Humanas off the list of Acevedo's accomplishments; he made many errors in the Menológio. For example, he gives Acevedo's year of death as 1644, when in reality Acevedo lived until at least 1660.

Nicolás de Aguilar, the alcalde mayor of the Jurisdiction of Salinas in 1659-60, stated during his trial before the Inquisition that "Fray Francisco de Acevedo, who has administered those pueblos thirty years or more, has always kept the feast of Señor San Buenaventura . . . and he built a church in the said pueblo of Abó and in Humanas and Tabirá."23 Gordon Vivian, who excavated the Old Church and formulated the first hypothetical construction sequence for it, discredits Aguilar's statement because it was hearsay.24 However, the statement was made in open court and made known to missionaries who had worked in the New Mexico missions for some time. Many of these missionaries criticized or contradicted most of Aguilar's opinions, but they rarely questioned his statements of event, and no one contradicted his attribution of a church at Las Humanas to Acevedo. Since Fray Acevedo was still working in New Mexico in 1659-60, his own narrative of his activities would have been known to most people in the province. Aguilar's statement could have been derived directly from Acevedo. Such circumstances indicate that there are no grounds to discount Aguilar's remarks. They are part of the historical record, and without any evidence to the contrary, either documentary or structural, they must be accepted.

Acevedo dedicated the buildings to titular saints of his choice when they were completed. In the case of the church at Las Humanas, he may have dedicated it, not to San Isidro, but to San Buenaventura. If he did not name it San Buenaventura at the time of its completion and dedication in about 1635, then he changed the name from San Isidro to San Buenaventura sometime soon after. San Buenaventura was the patron saint of the mission at Las Humanas in 1660, and the evidence indicates that it had been the patron for some time before that, perhaps the entire twenty-five years of Acevedo's ministry at the church at Las Humanas. The name was accepted by everyone, both Franciscan and civilian.25

The church in use during these years was, of course, the Old Church. Although it has long been thought that the Old church had been destroyed in an Apache raid in 1653,26 France Scholes and Jack Forbes have convincingly demonstrated that the document on which this assumption was based was a forgery.27 In fact, the raid occurred in September, 1670, and the church destroyed in this raid was the Old Church, still called San Buenaventura.

Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Old Church was called "San Buenaventura" during most or all of its life from 1635 to 1670. Charles Polzer has said that a missionary doing a series of preaching visits to pueblos will usually dedicate his "mission," his preaching activity (this is what the word actually means; it does not, for example, mean a church, as so many people still misuse it) at a specific village to a specific saint, usually the one who is patron of the day on which he conducts the mission. Benavides clearly did just that in 1627. As discussed above, however, Benavides seems to state that he also established a conversión, in the sense of a permanent mission for the purpose of continuing conversion of the Indians. The missionary, Fray Letrado, sent to Las Humanas two years later may have continued the use of "San Isidro," although there is no evidence to this effect in the documents. Letrado's missionary activities ended in late 1631. At this juncture, the Franciscans had the choice of continuing the conversión of San Isidro. Instead, there was a break of two years, at the end of which Las Humanas became a visita, not a conversión. Such a break, according to Polzer, can result in the assigning of a new patron to the missionary activity.28

In other missions, the building of a series of new church structures did not affect the name associated with the mission. For example, at Mission San Francisco de la Espada in San Antonio, the church was first in some temporary jacal, then in the sacristy of the intended permanent church, then in a rebuilt granary, and finally in the sacristy again, after it had been rebuilt specifically to be the church. It was called San Francisco de la Espada throughout. On the other hand, at Tumacacori in southern Arizona, the church was called San José de Tumacacori from its establishment by the Jesuits in 1753, through its changing hands to the Franciscans, and even through the partial construction and consecration for burial of a new church in 1822. Then, sometime between 1822 and the final inventories in 1841, the patronage of the new church was changed from San José to Nuestra Señora de Purísima Concepción.29 The circumstances that prompted the renaming are unknown. These examples show that the name associated with the last church at a mission may or may not be the name associated with that mission from the beginning.

Only Benavides's memorials of 1630 and 1634, both written before any church other than the small room in the pueblo convento were built, mention the name "San Isidro" in connection with Las Humanas. There is no other documentary reference to this saint's name at Las Humanas. Other than Benavides, everyone speaks of the church at Las Humanas as being San Buenaventura. Because of the lack of evidence and the ambiguous nature of Benavides's references to "San Isidro," the question of whether a mission dedicated to San Isidro ever existed at Las Humanas cannot be answered. The probable sequence of construction events and the long history of the use of the name "San Buenaventura" suggests that such a dedication is unlikely.

For the sake of clarity, however, and because the names have been used for so long, this report continues the use of the name "San Isidro" for the Old Church, even though it was known to have been called "San Buenaventura" for most of its working life. Historians and interpreters, however, must remember just how tenuous, or perhaps non-existent, is the case for the use of the name "San Isidro."

1 Adolph Bandelier, Final Report of Investigations Among the Indians of the Southwestern United States, Carried On Mainly in the Years From 1880 to 1885, Part I, Papers of the Archeological Institute of America, American Series no. 4 (Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1892), p. 131 and n. 2. See also Adolph Bandelier, The Southwestern Journals of Adolph F. Bandelier, 1883-1884, edited by Charles H. Lange, Carroll L. Riley, and Elizabeth M. Lange (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1970), p. 160, 162; and George Kubler, The Religious Architecture of New Mexico in the Colonial Period and Since the American Occupation, foruth printing (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972), p. 91.

2 Bandelier, Final Report, Part II, pp. 268-69.

3 The name was questioned earlier, but the first published statement proposing another name for the pueblo did not see print until 1939. As early as November 1936, Frances Scholes had begun to prepare a paper demonstrating that the place was actually Las Humans; see George Boundey, "Southestern Monuments Monthly Reports," Novemeber, 1936, pp. 317-18; France Scholes and H. P. Mera, "Some Aspects of the Jumanos Problem," Contributions to American Anthroplogy and History, volume 6, no. 34 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1940), p. 270. In early 1939, Joseph Tolouse realized that the descriptions of Las Humans in Charles Wilson Hackett, ed. Historical Documents Relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcava, and Approaches Thereto, to 1773, Collected by Adolph F. A. Bandelier and Fanny R. Bandelier, Vol. 3 (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1937), p. 135, 142, 143, 273, and 298 fit Gran Quivira better than any references to Tabirá, and suggested in a short discussion that Gran Quivira was the pueblo of the Jumanos; see "Historical Notes on Gran Quivira," January 31, 1939, manuscript at Salinas National Monument, in bound volume entitled "Gran Quivira and Salinas Group: Various Authors."

4 Scholes's and Kubler's contentions have been accepted as proof beyond a reasonable doubt by all subsequent students. However, note that it is a proof based on inference from documents and architectural remains, and has not in actuality been proven beyond any question. In other words, the historian cannot be sure that "Gran Quivira" is Las Humanas, but only reasonably certain.

5 France Scholes, "Documentary Evidence Relating to the Jumano Indians," p. 281, in Scholes and Mera, "Jumanos Problem." The narrative presented by Scholes has since been reconsidered somewhat. For example, Scholes described the Apache raid on Las Humanas in 1653 in some detail and quoted from the document referring to it, but within a few years decided that the document was a forgery; see the discussion of this in Jack D. Forbes, Apache, Navaho and Spaniard (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1960), pp. 146-48.

6 Joseph H. Toulouse, Jr., "Recent Data Relating to Gran Quivira National Monument," Southwestern Monuments Monthly Reports, Supplement, November, 1940, pp. 326-31.

7 Toulouse, "Recent Data," p. 327.

8 Joseph H. Toulouse, Jr., "Southwestern Monuments Monthly Reports," February, 1941. Toulouse, in fact, resisted a movement within the Park Service to rename "Gran Quivira National Monument" as "Las Humanas National Monument." See Joseph Toulouse to Hugh Miller, Gran Quivira National Monument, December 6, 1940, in the files of Salinas National Monument, Section H2223. The official decision to rename the two churches was probably made in mid-1941 and is undoubtedly on record in the files of the National Park Service, but has not yet been located.

9 It should be remembered that when the Franciscans built a convento at a pueblo, the church was considered part of it, not a separate structure. See, for example, France Scholes, "Documents for the History of the New Mexican Missions in the Seventeenth Century, I," New Mexico Historical Review, 4 (January 1929): 45-58, where the saint's name is consistently said to be the name of the convento, not just of the church.

10 The Memorial of Fray Alonso de Benavides, 1630, Mrs. Edward E. Ayer, trans. (Chicago: Edward E. Ayer, 1916), p. 20 and p. 101-02. Ayer inserted the word "begun" in brackets after the word "made" in her translation, suggesting that Benavides meant the Spanish comencé, which he used earlier in the sentence. He actually used the Spanish aver hecho in the second half of the sentence, implying that he meant specifically "to have made," or "having created."

11 See the discussion of the various administrative levels of missionary activity in Chapter 2.

12 Ayer, Memorial, p. 20.

13 Ibid., pp. 20, 188.

14 Benavides specifically mentioned the activities of Fray Francisco Letrado in the revised version of his report because this allowed him to discuss Letrado's martyrdom. He took every opportunity in the report to note the names and activities of those who died while engaged in work he had begun.

15 This conclusion, however, depends on a very fine distinction between the possible meanings of Benavides' words. It is quite possible to argue that he did not actually establish a conversión at Las Humanas, in which case Letrado's work would be a new misión to the pueblo, and presumably would have been dedicated to a different saint.

16 Lansing Bloom, "Fray Estevan de Perea's Relacion," New Mexico Historical Review 8 (July 1933): 228.

17 Alden Hayes, Excavation of Mound 7, Gran Quivira National Monument, New Mexico, Publications in Archeology, no. 16 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, 1981), p. 32. See also Alden Hayes, "The Missing Convento of San Isidro," El Palacio 75 (October 1967): 35-40.

18 This is the altar al modum fixi described in Ross Montgomery's discussion of the level of consecration of New Mexico churches and the implications of such a level for the interpretation of the altar structures; see Ross Gordon Montgomery, Watson Smith, and John Otis Brew, Franciscan Awatovi: The Excavation and Conjectural Reconstruction of a 17th-Century Spanish Mission Establishment at a Hopi Indian Town in Northeastern Arizona, Reports of the Awatovi Expedition, No. 3, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 36 (Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1949), p. 178.

19 See a brief description of a dedication ceremony in a seventeenth century New Mexico mission in Scholes, "Documents for the History of the New Mexican Missions, II," p. 196.

20 The Franciscans may have built churches very quickly under some circumstances; see, for example, a church described in Lansing Bloom and Lynn Mitchell, "The Chapter Elections in 1672," New Mexico Historical Review 8 (January 1933): 90, n. 14, 103. Bloom assumes that this building was built "in the summer of 1694." The ruins are recognizable as a church, but there is no documentary reference to the building being finished, and the site was abandoned in 1696. The available information suggests that the church was begun in 1694 and may not have been complete when the work stopped in 1696. Any such quickly built churches were probably small, simple structures, not full-sized churches. The Old Church at Las Humanas was a typical first church on a site, and would have taken a substantial amount of time and labor. See for example John James, Chartres: The Masons Who Built a Legend (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982), pp. 133-35. James demonstrates that even for the great cathedrals of medieval Europe, the core team of skilled workers rarely numbered more than seventy or eighty persons. Today a major construction project rarely has more than one hundred and fifty persons on the job at one time, and managing this number requires a large staff besides the master mason himself. It is unlikely that a mission project had more than one or two people available for management, which would severely limit the crew size. Forty crewmembers are probably about the largest number of persons that can be carefully supervised by one foreman.

21 This assumes a beginning date of about March, 1634. Wall construction would have been completed by early 1635. Roofing and interior work would have taken most of the rest of the year.

22 Fray Agustín de Vetancurt, Menológio Franciscano de los Varones Mas Señalados que con sus Vidas Exemplares Ilustraron La Provincia de el Santo Evangelio de Mexico, volume 4 of the Teatro Mexicano: Descripcion Breve de Los Sucessos Exemplares de la Nueva-España en el Nuevo Mundo Occidental de las Indias, José Porrua Turanzas, ed., Coleccion Chimalistac de Libros y Documentos Acerca de la Nueva España, vol. 11 (Madrid: José Porrua Turanzas, 1961), p. 260.

23 See Hackett, Documents, p. 146, and Scholes, "Documentary Evidence," p. 281. Scholes shows that Hackett's transcription of Aguilar's statement was incomplete, leaving out the reference to Acevedo's construction of the churches of Abá, Humanas, and Tabirá.

24 Gordon Vivian, Excavations in a 17th-Century Jumano Pueblo: Gran Quivira, Archeological Research Series, no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, 1961), pp. 24, 26, 63.

25 See, for example, Hackett, Documents, pp. 135, 160, and 185.

26 France Scholes, "Documentary Evidence," p. 281. See references to this raid in, for example, Vivian, Excavations, p. 26, and Hayes, et al., Mound 7, p. 5.

27 see Forbes, Apache, Navaho and Spaniard, pp. 146-48.

28 Personal communication, Charles Polzer, June 28, 1988.

29 James E. Ivey, "The Plan of the Church was Radically Altered: An Hypothetical History of the Construction of San José de Tumacacori," manuscript at Tumacacori National Monument, Arizona.

<<< Previous <<< Contents >>> Next >>>

Last Updated: 28-Aug-2006