Hickerson, "Jumanos"

The Linguistic Position of Jumano
Author(s): Nancy P. Hickerson
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 311-326
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630262
Accessed: 04/12/2010 12:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.
http://www.jstor.org
THELINGUISTIC
POSITIONOF JUMANO
NancyP. Hickerson
ofAnthropology,
TexasTechUniversity,
TX79409
Lubbock,
Department
Jumanois a frequentdesignationin SpanishandFrenchhistoricalsourcesdealingwith
theaboriginalinhabitants
of northernMexico,NewMexico,and Texas,betweenthelate
centuries.Thereis littleagreement
abouttheidentityof
sixteenthand themid-eighteenth
theJumano;amongthe severallinguisticaffiliations
(Sauer
proposedare Uto-Aztecan
1934) andAthapaskan(Forbes1959). One widelyaccepted
position(Scholesand Mera
1940) maintainsthatthe termwas simplya generaldesignation
for Indianswhowere
facialpaintingor tattooing.Thispaperreviewsthehistorical
rayados-i. e., whopracticed
evidencefor intelligibility
involvingJumanoand concludesthat it was a
relationships
mostcloselyaffiliatedwithPiro. The
divisionof theTiwansubfamily
of Tanoan,probably
is
to
the
Jumano explainedbytheactiveinvolvement
of a segment
ubiquityof references
of thispopulationin interarealtrade.
ONEOFTHEMOST
COMMON-yet
mysteriousandelusive-of the namesapplied
to NativeAmericansin the historicSouthwestis "Jumano."
Fromthe time of
the first entradas,manyreferenceswere made to Jumanos,who were encounteredby the Spanishconquerorsin areas of present-dayNew Mexico,
Texas, andArizonaandin adjacentregionsof northernMexico(Figure1). The
in reportsof the Espejo
firstknownappearanceof the nameis its application,
of
of
located
near LaJuntade los
to
the
residents
villages
expedition 1582,
Rios(theconfluenceof the RioConchosandthe RioGrande)andalsoto Indians
foundin campsand rancheriasin the countrybetween these rivers and the
RioPecos. A decadelaterthe chroniclesof the Ofiateexpeditionalsodescribed
contacts with Jumanoslivingin the southeasternTompiropueblosof New
Mexico,east of the RioGrande;inaddition,a partyof Ofiate'smenencountered
Indiansin centralArizonawho were identifiedas Jumanos.
Besidesthese fourlocales,whichencompassa verybroadgeographical
area,
manylaterreferencesto JumanosoccurfromeasternandsouthernTexasareas where Spanishmissionaryandmilitaryexpeditionspenetratedonly towardthe end of the seventeenthcentury.Aroundthis timemountedJumanos
traveledfar and wide over traderoutes whichlinkedthe Rio Grandevalley
andpointshundredsof milesto the east, as faras the villagesof the Tejasor
was also a
Hasinaiconfederacy.By the mid-eighteenthcentury,"Jumano"
frequentdesignationfora grouplocatedon the ArkansasRiver,laterassumed
to be a divisionof the Wichita.Afterthistime,onlya few, scatteredreferences
to the namewere made, both in the LaJuntaarea andin Texas; the last is
perhapsAdolphBandelier's(1984:54)mentionin 1890 of a Tewa Indianwho
remembereda childhoodencounterwiththe "Humanesh."
formof a namewhichoccursin many
is actuallya standardized
"Jumano"
variants (Humana,Xumana,Umane, etc.). Most references come from Spanish sources, since the Spaniardsof both Nueva Vizcaya and New Mexico had
frequent dealings with these people; indeed, the Spaniards apparently met
311
RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
312
JUMANOLOCATIONSIN THE SIXTEENTHAND SEVENTEENTHCENTURIES
.
$P
I \C
4'V
bL~~?~
•
R
C
o
on ov
l
.
o
0
M IC
CL
ElPasoonloo
?E
COAQAA
fb
"o
Perro
G
UL
L
n._
0 River1
son
River Ott
OCIolson
Mo
FIGURE 1.
1. LaJuntade los Rios
2. TompiroPueblos
Salinesof New Mexico
3. HighPlainsencampment
of 1629
4. ConchoRiver("RioNueces")
5.
6.
7.
8.
ColoradoRiver("RioSanClemente")
Pecos River,ToyahCreek
Pecos Pueblo
Rivercampof 1691
Guadalupe
Jumanosin almostevery areaintowhichthey penetratednorthandeast of La
Juntade los Rios.Towardthe endof the seventeenthcentury,Frenchsources
also recordtheirpresencein easternTexasas "Chouman."
Englishor Angloare
to
the
Americanreferences
late, andapplyalmost
Jumano few, historically
entirelyto the ArkansasRivergroup.
andhistoricalliteratureusually
Discussionsof theJumanoin anthropological
"Apartof the mysteryis the apparent
or a "problem.
treatthemas a "mystery"
breadthof referenceof the term.TheJumanoswereperceivedbythe Spaniards
as a singlenacidn,a termwhichmaybe looselytranslatedas either"nation"
diffuse
or "tribe."It has never been clearwhetherthe many,geographically
occurrencesof the nameconstitutereferencesto whatwas, in anyrealsense,
a single ethnic group.It has also been suggested that "Jumano"
may have
been-like "Chichimeco"-abroader,genericdesignationbasedon some selected cultural,physical,and/orlinguisticcharacteristics.
Attemptsto resolve
the necessity,first,of findinga rationale
the "Jumano
haveconfronted
problem"
in the widespreadand scatteredoccurrencesof the namein time andspace
and, second, of identifyingthe Jumanosin terms of establishedethnicand
linguisticclassifications.
POSITION
OFJUMANO
THELINGUISTIC
313
PROBLEM"
THE"JUMANO
The baselineformodemresearchon theJumanois Hodge'shistoricalstudy
(1911). Workingwith a more restrictedbody of primarysources thanlater
refresearchers,Hodgeattemptedto understandthe scatteredgeographical
erences to Jumanoswhichhe foundin the earlySpanishsourcesas embodying
the periodicmovementsandrelocationsof a singletribeof nomads.
Hodge was the first scholarto identifythe "CowNation"of west Texas,
visited by Cabezade Vacain 1536, with the Jumanosof the Espejoentrada
and other early accounts.He believedthat this tribe, locatedin the early
sourcesat or nearLaJuntade los Rios,hadmigratedto New Mexicoby 1598,
when Jumanoswere foundto be livingin or near the Tompiropueblos.By
whowerestationedinthe eastern
1629,whenFraySalasandothermissionaries
in the plainssome 112leagues(perhaps
pueblosvisiteda Jumanoencampment
250 miles) to the east of New Mexico, the tribe had moved again,Hodge
reasoned.AfterSalas'svisit, they evidentlyfollowedhimbackto the Tompiro
pueblosin New Mexico.Arguingthatthe Jumanoswouldnot live in a "village
other thantheirown,"Hodge(1911:251)concludedthatthe "greatpuebloof
the Xumanos"in the Tompiroarea mentionedin the Spanishsources (Ayer
1900:285)must have been "anaggregationof dwellingsof the more or less
temporarykindwhichthey were foundto occupywhenvisitedby Cabezade
Vacaandby Espejoon the lowerRioGrande."Fromthis locationhe believed
thatthe tribeagainshiftedbackto the plainswhenthe missionariestemporarily
suspendedworkamongthemin 1631. The secondrecordedvisit of Salas,in
1634, to Jumanorancheriason the Rio Nueces (againeast of New Mexico,
for the purposeof
but south of their earlierlocation)was made "apparently
bringingthemback"(Hodge1911:258).
of the localesanddistancesgiven in
Hodgemadevery free interpretation
his sources, locatingthe Jumanosettlementsin the plains-from the time of
Salas'svisits up to that of Martinand Castilloin 1650-in the vicinityof El
Cuartelejo,an area in western Kansas;however,in each case the original
sourcesindicatelocationseitherdueeast or southeastof New Mexico.Hodge
was apparentlyguidedin his interpretation
by a desire to establisha lineal
tribesof Kansas
connectionbetweenthe Jumanosandthe Caddoan-speaking
knownfromlatersources.He suggestedthatthe Jumanotribe
andOklahoma,
dividedafter 1650, some of them locatingin Texas (wherethey were found
by expeditionsout of New Mexicoin 1654 and 1683), whileothersremained
furthernorth,becomingalliedwith the Pawneesand French.Since the Ar... aliasJumanes"
of the nineteenthcenturycould
kansasRiver"Panipiquets
be identifiedwith the Tawehashor Taovayas(Wichita),Hodge (1911:268)
backin time to the Jumanos
believedthat he couldprojectthe identification
mentioned in sixteenth-century sources: "Theircustom of tattooing, the character of their houses, andtheir semi-agriculturalmode of life duringthe century
they were first known, suggest relationship,if not identificationwith the Wichita
314
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
JOURNAL
people."Thus, theJumanoof the lowerRioGrandewere claimedas ancestors
in Chihuahua
andNew
of the modernWichita:the term"Jumano,
""originating
to
have
been gradually
Mexico,passedintoTexas, butseems
replacedby the
The apparent
name 'Tawehash,'whichin turnwas supersededby 'Wichita."'
of the Jumano,then, was "simplya matterof changingnomendisappearance
clature"(Hodge1911:268).
of Jumanohistorywas originally
inspiredby entries
Hodge'sinterpretation
on the TawehashandotherWichitagroupswhichthe historianHerbertBolton
submittedfor inclusionin the HandbookofAmericanIndiansNorthof Mexico
(1907-1910),of whichHodgewas editor.At aboutthe sametime, Boltondid
furtherresearchin the archivesof Mexicoand in 1911 respondedwith an
articlewhichalso focuses on the "mystery"of Jumanoidentityand on their
whereaboutsduringandafterthe end of the seventeenthcentury.
BoltondisagreedwithHodge'sconclusionthatthe "RioNueces,"on which
the Jumanoswere situatedin 1634 and 1650, couldbe identifiedas the Arkansas.Hiscarefulanalysisof the itinerariesof the severalSpanishexpeditions
to the "Nueces"betweenthese datesand1684establishedthe identityof this
river as the Concho,andits confluent(the "SanClemente")as the Colorado
of Texas. Witha largerdatabase, Boltonwas also able to correctHodge's
impressionthat the Jumanoshad completelydisappearedfrom their earlier
territoriesby the beginningof the eighteenthcentury;he cited manuscript
sourceswhichindicatedthepresence,afterthisdate,ofJumanoslivingtogether
with Tobososnear the Rio Grandeand also, alliedwithApaches,near San
Antonio.
for Boltonwas an evidentshift
An importantpartof the "Jumano
problem"
inJumanoloyalties:untilSpanishmissionariesleft Texasin 1693,theJumanos
enemiesof the Apaches,but when Spain
were alliesof Spainandimplacable
reclaimedthe territoryin 1716, the JumanosandApachesthere hadbecome
"
allied.Afterthis date Spanishsourcesbeganto refer to "ApachesJumanes,
indicatingthat to some observersthe Jumanoswere considereda divisionof
the Apaches.Whenthe TawehashandApachewere at warin 1771, according
on bothsides of
to Bolton(1911:84),"peoplecalledJumano"
were apparently
the conflict.Thus, at least in these lateryears, the nameclearlydidnot apply
to a unitarygroupor tribe.
AlthoughBoltonexpressedno opinionaboutJumanolinguisticclassification,
his expositionmadeHodge'spositionless tenable.It wouldseem doubtfulthat
the Rio GrandeJumanosof 1582couldbe directancestorsof the nineteenthcenturyCaddoanWichitas.
The geographerCarlSauerenteredthe discussionof the "Jumano
problem"
of Aboriginal
TribesandLanguagesin
throughan essay on "TheDistribution
NorthwesternMexico"(1934). Sauerdirectedhis attentionto the southern
fringes of Jumano distribution,the area around La Junta and the lower Rio
Grande. He presented evidence for culturalcontinuity between the Jumano
and the Suma, the latter a people of wide distributionthrough northern Chihuahuaand Sonora: "I do not thinkthat there was any clear differencebetween
THE LINGUISTIC
POSITION
OFJUMANO
315
Jumanoand Suma.The lattername was generallyappliedat the west, the
formerat the east. TheJumanoincludedlargesedentarycoloniesandnomad
bands, the Sumawere primarilywanderers.The name ranges throughthe
followingforms:Humano,Jumano,Jumana,Xumana,Chouman(French),Zumana, Zuma,Suma,Yuma"(Sauer1934:68).Sumaswere almostas widely
dispersedas Jumanos,rangingwest into Sonoraand as far south as Casas
Grandes.Sauerbelievedthat Sumagroupswhichwere locatedupstreamon
the RioConchosinthe sixteenthcenturymoved,inthe seventeenth,intoareas
on bothsides of the RioGrande,replacingthe Jumano"Otomoacas"
and"Caguates"encounteredby the earlierentradas.
Sauer assignedthe Suma-Jumanos
and their neighbors,the Conchos,to
differentdivisionsof the greatUto-Aztecanlanguagestock.The Conchowere
were set apartas
alignedwith the Pimaand Opata,whilethe Suma-Jumano
"thenortheasternmost
lot of the NorthMexicanUto-Aztecanpeoples"(Sauer
1934:68).
In a jointpublication,
"SomeAspectsof the JumanoProblem,"Scholesand
Mera assessed the state of Jumanostudiesto 1940; they acknowledged
the
contributionsof Hodge, Bolton, and Sauer and broughtnew historicaland
information
to bearon the issues. Mera'scontribution
dealtwith
archaeological
the archaeologyof the Salinesareaof New Mexico,withspecialreferenceto
the identification
of the Jumanopueblosthere. Scholes'spaperproposeda
solutionto the problemof Jumanoidentitywhichhas since been widelyaccepted. Observingthat in some Spanishsources (specifically,the chronicles
of the Ofiateexpedition)the term"Jumano"
was sometimesappliedto people
whowerealsodescribedas "rayados"
(i.e., paintedortattooedpeople),Scholes
(1940:275)concludedthat"inthe earlycolonialperiodthe nameJumanowas
used ... to designateall indiosrayados."
As Scholesindicated,this sense of the term wouldhavemadeit applicable
to a large numberof tribes, since decorationof the face and/orbodywas a
widespread-indeed,almostuniversal-practice;the trickwouldbe to distinandan originalgroupor groupswhich
guishbetweensuchgeneric"Jumanos"
wouldhave been the sourceof the name. However,Scholespresentedonly
two examplesto illustratehis point,andthe argument,in retrospect,does not
seem convincing.Infact,"Jumano"
is nota termwhichwas universally
applied,
as Scholesseems to suggest, to anyandallpaintedandtattooedpeoples;its
use was muchmoreselective.The explanation
thatseveralgroups,separated
in timeandspace,werecalledbythisnamesimplybecauseallof thempracticed
face or bodypaintingmaybeg the questionandmayeven haveservedto divert
attentionfromthe discoveryof more specificandmoremeaningfulhistorical
connectionslinkingthese groups.2
The second, longer section of Scholes's paper (1940:276-85) deals with the
Jumano pueblos in the Salines region of New Mexico in the period between
the Ofiateconquestandthe abandonment
of thisareainroughly1672.Drawing
on his extensive research in colonial New Mexican church history, Scholes
demonstrated that Jumanoswere present as a substantialminoritypopulation
316
RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
in this predominantly
Piro(or "Tompiro")
area.TheJumanosresidedin three
or fourvillages,one of which,largerthanthe others, was "LasHumanas"
or
the "greatpuebloof the Xumanas."The area was repeatedlystressed by
droughtand cropfailuresandby the threatof damageanddestructionfrom
Apacheraiding.Scholes(1940:284)documentedthe progressiveabandonment
with
of the Tompiroareaafter1650andthe removalof the nativepopulation,
most of the Jumanosbeingresettledat the newlyestablishedMansomission
near El Paso.
evidenceconfirming
Sauer'sassessFinally,Scholesincludeddocumentary
and
or identitybetweenSuma Jumano.Although
ment of a close relationship
Scholes
he didnotattemptto resolvethequestionofJumano
affiliation,
linguistic
rejectedHodge'sCaddoantheoryoutrightandalsoappearsto havebeen wary
as Uto-Aztecan.His observationson
of Sauer'sclassification
of Suma-Jumano
betweenTompirosandJumanosare evidence
the apparentmutualintelligibility
for a possibleTanoanaffiliation
of Jumano,a possibilitywhichseems not to
havereceivedseriousconsideration
byotherscholars.Scholes(1940:285)went
so far as to suggest that the "linguistic
phaseof the problemshould... be
carefullyexplored,especiallywithreferenceto currentspeculationaboutthe
widerconnectionsof Tanoan."
andarchaeological
data,Kelley'sstudy(1986,but
Usingbothethnohistorical
of the La
first publishedin 1947) tentativelyacceptedSauer'sidentification
"asUto-Aztecan.However,
whomKelleycalls"Patarabueyes,
Juntapopulation,
are the
Kelleydid not considerthis populationto be Jumano;his "Jumanos"
of
he
On
the
basis
material
remains, suggestedthat
population.
plains-dwelling
a relationshipexisted between the two groups;he was uncertainaboutthe
of the plainsgroup,
andaboutthe linguisticaffiliation
natureof the relationship
as wellas Utoand
Athapaskan, Coahuiltecan,
suggestingCaddoan,Tonkawan,
Aztecan.Strangelyenough,even thoughKelley'sworkwasapparently
inspired
in partby that of ScholesandMera,he didnot mentiona possiblelinkageof
the Jumanosto Tanoan.
The last anthropologist
to dealwithJumanoidentityandlinguisticaffiliation
is Forbes, whose mainresearchinterest has been Apachehistory.Forbes
(1959:144)arguedthatthe Jumanoanda numberof othersin "abelt of tribes
extendingfromthe areaof southeasternArizonato easternTexas"wereAthapaskanin language:"Theevidenceexamined... has led to the classification
of the Janos,Jocomes, Mansos, Sumas, Cholomes,Jumanos,Cibolos,and
Pelones in the Athabaskan
family.The Conchos,Tobosos,andJulimeshave
been placedwith some skepticismin the Uto-Aztecanfamilywhile the Chitribeshavebeenclassifiedas unidentified."
narras,Chisos,andcentralCoahuilla
Using ethnohistorical sources, Forbes based his argument on evidence for
mutualintelligibilityof speech between bands and tribes and also on indications
of the existence of alliances, kinship links, and other types of sociopolitical
connections.
A number of Forbes's sources do strongly indicatelanguageties among the
JumanosandSumas, Cholomes, Cibolos, andMansos, andhe made a convincing
THELINGUISTIC
POSITION
OFJUMANO
317
of thisJumanoblocas Uto-Aztecan.For
case to counterSauer'sclassification
which
indicatethata sharplinguisticbreak
example,he quotedprimarysources
occurredat LaJunta,wherethe speechof the "Otomoaca-Caguate
peoples"Jumanos-was differentfrom,andunintelligible
to, theirConchoandAbriache
neighborsup the Rio Conchos,who can be identifiedas Uto-Aztecans.But
Forbeswent beyondthe limitsof his datain linkingtheseJumanogroupswith
here his case rests almostentirelyon culturalconsiderations
and
Athapaskan;
politicalalliances.Duringthe eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies, Sumas,
Julimes,andmanyotherweakor dyingtribesin northernMexicoandTexas
doubtlessdidbecomeincreasingly
withvariousdivisionsof the stronger
affiliated
and more numerousApacheandwere more or less absorbedas a matterof
politicalnecessity.Indeed,as Forbesdemonstrated,some of these groupsdid
eventuallycome to be regardedas Apachebands,andin the processthey lost
their culturalautonomy.It wouldseem likelythat they becamelinguistically
assimilatedas well;butsuchan occurrencetells us nothingabouttheiroriginal
andForbespresentedno persuasiveevidence,in the form
linguisticaffiliation,
of information
aboutintelligibility,
to supporthis claimofJumanoaffiliation
with
Athapaskan.
JUMANOAND TANOAN
As we havejust seen, most attemptsto classifySuma-Jumano
linguistically
havebeenbasedalmostexclusivelyon culturalconsiderations.
Hodge'slinkage
of JumanoandCaddoanwas based,in the firstinstance,on nomenclature
and
was supportedby culturalconsiderations
of a very generalsort-house types,
subsistencepractices,and the "customof tattooing."Sauerconsideredthe
Jumanosto be sedentaryto semisedentaryfarmers,those livingin the buffalo
he
plainshaving"driftedaway"fromthe river-valleysettlements;accordingly,
classifiedthemas Uto-Aztecans,in partbecauseof geographical
contiguityto
membersof thatgroupingandalso becauseof whathe saw as overallcultural
andotherUto-Aztecandesertfarmsimilarityto Pimas,Opatas,Tarahumaras,
ers. ForbesnotedthatJumanosandApacheswere sometimesgeographically
contiguousandthat,in some cases, a chronological
continuitycouldbe traced
whenApachebandswerefoundto occupyterritoriesformerlyheldbyJumanos.
He thus saw historicJumanos,especiallythe mountedPlainsJumanosof the
late seventeenthcentury,as culturally,and thus linguistically,
similarto the
Apaches.
The linguisticevidencefora connectionbetweenJumanoandTanoan,noted
by Scholes, has receivedlittle consideration,even thoughI believe that it
thanthe
objectivelyprovidesa strongercase for Jumanolinguisticaffiliation
culturalconsiderations so often heavily relied on. One of the first scholars to
suggest a connection between Jumano, Piro, and Tanoan was the Mexican
linguist Francisco Pimentel. Pimentel's 1862-1865 classificationof Indianlanguages (cited by Harrington1909) listed the languages of New Mexico in five
groups, three of which correspondto the Tanoanstock; one of these includes
318
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
JOURNAL
Taos, Picuris,Piro,andSuma(whichshouldimplythe inclusionof Jumanoas
of Orozcoy Berra(1864)alsolistedPiroas thelanguage
well).Theclassification
of boththe SumasandPiros.
JohnP. Harrington,
examiningthe few availablelexicalmaterialsfromPiro,
concludedthatthis languageshouldbe considereda partof the Tiwadivision
Pimentel'sclassification,
of the Tanoanstock.Notingthathisfindingsconfirmed
Harrington(1909:593)concludedthat "Pimentel'sgrouping'Thaoso Piro'is
information"
doubtlessbasedon old and trustworthy
(Harrington's
emphasis).
classification
Further,ina footnoteto thisstatement,he addedthat"Pimentel's
of the unrecordedandextinctlanguageof the Sumaas belongingto the same
groupis perhapsas reliable."
Anothereffort, generallyoverlooked,to deal with some aspects of this
problemwas that of Swanton(1942). Eschewingall of the broaderlinguistic
connectionswhichothershadsuggestedforJumano,Swanton(1942:324-25)
stockacceptedonlythe closest andmost obviousandidentifieda "Shuman"
andthe
the
western
the
Sumas
a languageisolatecomprising
division)
(as
only
Tanoan
and
Piro
to
He
the
eastern).
(as
Jumanos
Tompiro)
(including
assigned
didnot suggest anylinkagebetweenthis stockandShuman.He also madeno
in connectionwiththe
mentionof the use by Hodgeandothersof "Jumano"
Tawehashtribeof the WichitaandassignsWichita,as one mightexpect, to
the Caddoanfamily.However,Swantondid make several commentswhich
suggestthathe saw the possibilityof a historicallinkbetweenWichita,Tanoan,
and/or"Shuman."
Forone thing,he suggestedthatsome of the earlynomenclatureappliedto the Tawehash-includingthe name of a subgroupcalled
tiwa:-might reflecta Tiwa (Tanoan)connection.In addition,he reporteda
folk etymologywhichderivedthe nameof the Waco(anotherdivisionof the
Wichita)from "Wehiko"
(Mexico)and speculatedthat this groupmightbe
andWichita
of the Shumantribe"whomergedwiththe Tawakoni
"descendants
(Swanton1942:303-5).
RELATIONSHIPS
JUMANOINTELLIGIBILITY
whichwouldsupport
Statementsindicating
similarityor mutualintelligibility
an assignmentofJumanoto Tanoanare not numerous;however,the evidence
is significantly
more substantialthanthatfor any othersuggestedaffiliation.
TheLaJunta-PuebloContinuum
WhenAlvarNiifiezCabezade Vacaandhis three companions
were among
the JumanoCibolos,east of the Rio Grandeandnorthof LaJunta,in 1536,
they learnedthat the countryof that groupextendedfurtherupstreamfor
aboutfiftyleagues. Desiringto go on towardMexico,the Spaniardsinquired
about the location of "clothed people" who farmed and lived in towns; the
JumanoCibolos told them about two such groups, those to the west (Opatas,
Yaquis, etc.) and those living seventeen days' travel to the north (the Rio
THE LINGUISTIC
POSITION
OFJUMANO
319
to the narrativeof Cabeza
Grandepueblos).Onthe roadto the latter,according
de Vaca,were "peoplewhowere their[theJumanoCibolos']enemies,although
speakingthe same language"(F. Bandelier1905:126).Accordingto the Joint
Report of the expedition,this maize area "was the closer one, and all the
(F. Bandelier
peopleon the way to it were friendsandof the samelanguage"
didtravelupstreamto the point(nearRincon,N.M.)
1905:251).The Spaniards
where they fordedthe RioGrandein orderto takethe trailto the west which
followedthe GilaRiver (Hallenbeck1940). On the way north,they "always
slept in houses andwith peoplewho gave them manyrobes of cowhide,as
well as otherthings,"just as they hadbeen told (F. Bandelier1905:251).
whichlaterSpanishexpeditionsfoundbetween
Thusthe breakin population
the Mansos(inthe El Paso-LasCrucesarea)andthe firstPiropueblos(near
Socorro,N.M.) appearsto have been less marked,or possiblydidnot exist,
at thisearliertime.Further,whetherornotfriendlyrelationsprevailedthroughout, no majorlanguagebreakis suggestednorthof LaJuntaandsouthof the
Piros.
La Junta and thePlains
The northward
routeviaLaJuntade los Riosandthe lowerRioGrandewas
traveledby the exploringpartiesledbyFrayAugustinRodriguezandbyAntonio
de Espejo, in 1581 and 1582 respectively.Sincethe chroniclersof these expeditions,as well as othervisitorswho followedthem, oftenused completely
differentterminologyto refer to places and nativegroups,correlatingtheir
informationis difficult,and scholarsdisagreeaboutinterpretationof these
sources. The Lujanjournalof the Espejoexpeditionis usuallyconsideredthe
most reliablesource,partlybecauseit includesa detailed,day-by-day
itinerary
and, in addition,because Lujanwas assisted by a remarkabletranslator,a
young boy namedPedro who had been takenfromthe La Juntaarea some
years earlierby a slavingexpeditionandwhohadbeen raisedin Lujan'shouserelationswhich
hold.The groupdesignationsandinformation
aboutintelligibility
come, indirectly,fromthis sourcemakeLujan'saccountof specialimportance
as it relatesto this area.
Boththe RodriguezandEspejoexpeditionsfollowedthe RioConchosnorth
and noted linguisticbreaksbetween the severaltribes alongit andbetween
these tribes and the La Juntainhabitants,as Forbeshas pointedout. When
the expeditionsapproachedthe river'smouth,each encountereda farming
people, the Cabrior Abriaches(thoughtto be the laterJulimes).NearLaJunta
the expeditionsmet peopleoftentermed"Patarabueyes."
However,according
to Espejo,the name"Patarabueyes"
appliedto the villagersin thisvicinitywas
coinedby slavehuntersduringearliervisits;thusit maynotbe a termrelatable
to culturalor linguisticgroupings.Indeed,afterleavingthe Abriaches,Lujan
used "Otomoaca"as the most inclusive term for the villages near La Juntaand
also for the more scattered small communitiesfound for some distance up the
Rio Grande. Espejo calledthese people "Jumanos,"as didObreg6nin his history
of the discovery of New Mexico (Bolton 1916:172).
320
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
JOURNAL
Five Otomoacavillageswere situatedat or nearthe confluenceof the Rio
ConchosandRio Grande,andthese were visitedduringa stay of eight days
wereinitially
hostile,probably
by membersof the Espejoparty.Theinhabitants
becauseof theirearliercontactswithslavers,but they were pacifiedby gifts
madeto theircaciquesandby the reassurancesof the boy translator,Pedro.
From La Juntathe Espejopartymoved north, followingthe Rio Grande
throughsettledareasfora distanceestimatedat around65-70 leagues(perhaps
150 miles).Throughout
this territory,Lujanidentifiedthe nativepeopleeither
as Otomoacasor as similarto, intermarried
with, or relatedto Otomoacas.
to
"the
of
the
for a distanceof twelve days'
banks
river
According Espejo,
nation"
are
settled
with
of
this
(Bolton1916:173).The
travel,
people
[Jumano]
three majordivisionsof this people, fromsouthto north,were those which
andhave
withthe Otomoacas
LujancalledOtomoacas,Caguates("intermarried
almostthe same language"),andTanpachoas
("peopleof the same bloodand
type as the Otomoacas,andof the same dress, except thatthe men tie their
andRey 1966:168-69).Located
privypartswitha smallribbon")(Hammond
in marshlands
nearEl Paso, the Tanpachoas
havebeenidentifiedwiththe later
Mansos(Sauer1934:66).
theJumanocountryalongthe RioGrande,the Espejopartywas
Throughout
able to communicate
with the assistance
andmaintainamicablerelationships
of the translatorPedro,whose uncle--calledJuanCantorby the Spaniardshad been translatorfor the earlierRodriguezexpeditionand"wasknownby
allthe othersin the party"(Hammond
andRey 1966:162).JuanCantor'shome
wasinthe LaJuntaOtomoaca
calledSanBernardino,
which
theSpaniards
village
whilePedro's(maternal?)
was
a caciqueamongthe
called
Guaxi,
grandfather,
two
were interfor
statement
that
the
"nations"
Caguates--evidence Lujan's
married.
BeyondEl Paso the Espejopartycrosseda barrenstretchof roughlyeighty
leaguesandwent on to explorethe populatedareasto the north.At manyof
the pueblosthey hadbeen precedednot onlyby the Rodriguezexpeditionof
1581, but also by the Coronadoentradaforty years earlier,not to mention
severalsmallerofficialandunofficial
exploringparties.Someof these explorers
spent time in the buffaloplains,usuallyreachedby way of Pecos Pueblo,and
had repeatedencounterswithnomadicnativesthere; however,exact identificationof specificethnicgroupsis usuallyimpossible.
The narrativesof the Espejoexpedition(Hammond
andRey 1966:209-11)
of nativesin
deserve specialnote in this regardbecauseof theiridentification
this areaas Jumanos.Espejoandhis partyvisitedPecos, the mosteasternof
the pueblos,andfollowedthe Pecos Riversouthward,intendingto continue
alongthatroutein orderto reachthe RioGrandeandLaJunta.Afterspending
almosta monthon this trail(120 leaguesby Espejo'scalculation),
they came
upon three natives who were recognized as being "of the Jumanonation."The
Spaniardswere able to communicatewith these Indiansthrough the "Patarabueye" interpreter, Pedro. They were informedthat the junctureof the Pecos
THELINGUISTIC
POSITION
OFJUMANO
321
with the Rio Grandewas fardownstreamfromLaJuntaandwere directedto
a shortcut.The Jumanostook the party"bygood trails"an estimatedforty
leagues to theirdestination;on the way they stoppedat a Jumanorancheria
settlementon Toyah
(probably,as Kelley[1986:14]suggests, the "Jediondo"
Creek),wherethey were entertainedwithmusicanddancing,andtheypassed
several other smallJumanocampsbefore arrivingat LaJunta.Accordingto
Lujan,these Jumanos"intheirclothing,appearance,andhabitatare similarto
the Pataragueys[sic]."
Thus the Espejochroniclesprovidegood evidencethat the inhabitantsof
the La Juntaarea had close linguisticand culturalconnectionswith people
dwellingfurtherup the Rio Grandeandin the southernplains.They indicate
thatJumanoshuntedin the valleyof the Pecos in the early historicperiod,
that they inhabitedthe countrybetweenthat riverandthe Rio Grande,and
that linguisticandculturalcontinuityexisted betweenthese plainsgroupsand
the farmingpopulationat LaJunta.
Jumanoand Suma
Most authoritieshave acknowledgeda close relationshipor even an identity
has usually
betweenJumanoandSuma.As Sauer(1934:68)has noted,"Suma"
been appliedto groupsrangingwest of the Rio Grandeas far as northern
to those rangingto the east. In the 1680s the Rio Grande
Sonora,"Jumano"
between LaJuntaand El Paso was inhabitedby smallsettlementsof Sumas
(noted by the Lopez-Dominguezde Mendozaexpeditionof 1684 [Bolton
1916:322-23]),whereasLujanhadreferredto CaguatesandOtomoacas(Jumanos)in this region. It is not clear whetherthese people were the same
basicpopulation
identifiedby differentnamesor whether,as Sauersuggested,
the Sumashadmigratedintotheseareas,replacingtheearlier"Jumano"
groups.
The nomenclature
of individual
groupsrangesthrougha widevarietyof similar
of referencesas Jumanoor Sumahasat times
forms,andthusthe identification
location.
been arbitraryandperhapsinfluencedto a degree by geographical
Howeverthatmaybe, Scholesquotesandcommentson an incidentwhich
attests to the linguisticrelationshipbetween SumaandJumano.In 1682 a
Jumanowho hadbeen takenprisonerby PlainsApacheswas withhis captors
as they met andtradedwithWesternApachesandSumasnearCasasGrandes,
the western extreme of the Sumarange. At this meeting-which Spanish
soldierswitnessedandrecountedto an officialwhomadea reportto Governor
some Sumas,whoselanguagehas a close
Otermin-the Jumano,"overhearing
connectionto his own, took refugewiththem"(ScholesandMera1940:28788; also Forbes 1959:139).As Scholesremarks,the incidentproves nothing
aboutthe affiliation
ofJumanoor SumawithUto-Aztecanor anyotherlanguage
between
family;it does, however, confirma degree of mutualintelligibility
people inhabitingthe easternand western extremes of the largeexpanseof
territoryspannedby JumanoandSuma.
322
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
JOURNAL
JumanoandPiro
mostofthe available
information
ontheJumanos
Scholeshasalsosummarized
whose presencein the southeasternTompiropuebloswas notedby Ofiatein
1598 and who left that area by the 1670s. As we have seen, Hodge (1911)
interpretedthe Spanishreferencesas indicatingthe presence of a nomadic
encampmentin the plainseast of New Mexico.However,Jumanosno doubt
didlive in these pueblosalongwiththe Tompiropopulation,fromwhomthey
couldbe distinguished
by the Spaniardsbecausethey were rayados-painted
or tattooedpeople(ScholesandMera1940:285).3
Severaldocumentsfromthe Ofiateperiod(1598-1610)refer to pueblosof
theJumanoslocatedinthe areaof saltmarshesbeyondthe ManzanoMountains
of New Mexico(Bolton1916:215,225, 234). The three in this Salinesarea
thatarementionedbynamearePatoce(Pataotzei,Patuotzey),Genouey(Genobey,Xenopue),andCueloce(Quellotezei,Quelotzey).Cuelocewasthelargest
of the three andprobablywas the communityoftenreferredto as the "great
in 1634,Benavidesestimated
Pueblo,"or "LasHumanas";
pueblo,""Humanas
the population
of thispuebloat aroundthreethousand(Hodge,Hammond,
and
Rey 1945:66).Anotherlargepueblomentionedin later sourcesas a Jumano
was Tabiri;bothof these largevillageswerelocatedon the eastern
community
marginsof the New MexicanPuebloarea.
The Ofiaterecordsreferto the languageof the Tompiropueblosas Atzigui,
indicatingthatit was very similar,if not identical,to thatof the Piros (Tzigui
or Atzigue)(ScholesandMera1940:277).No mentionis madeof anylanguage
ordialectuniqueto theJumanos,noindication
is givenofanylinguisticdifference
between Piros, Tompiros,andJumanos,andno hintis droppedof problems
in communication
between these groups.Indeed,seventeenth-century
New
Mexicancolonialrecordsmentionthat "thepuebloof Humanasalwaysuses
singersfromthe [Tompiro]puebloof Abo, they beingall of the same nation
as the Humanos"
in Hu(Hackett1937:143),andthatpublicannouncements
manasPueblowere madein Spanishby the alcaldemayorandtranslatedinto
Tompirofor "allthe Indiansof the pueblo,whowere gatheredtogetherin the
plaza,"by "anIndiannamedAndreswho knewSpanish"(Hackett1937:159).
Further,mentionis madeof a certainFray Garciade San Franciso,who in
1660was describedas the "onlyreligiouswhoknowsandpreachesin the Piro
language,the languageof the Indiansof the puebloof El Socorroandof the
pueblosof Senecu,El Alamillo,andSevilleta;he canalsomakehimselfunderstoodby the Indiansof the pueblosof Umanes,Abo,andTabiri.. . ." (Hackett
1937:163).Schroeder(1964:249),after a detailedexaminationof these and
other documentarymaterials,concludedthat all of the puebloseast of the
ManzanoMountainsspokethe same languageanddialect,"avariationof the
PirotonguecalledTompiro."
The Jumanopopulationin New Mexicoevidentlyincreased,at least temporarily,after 1629 when Frays Salas and Lopez broughtseveral hundred
refugees fromthe plainsto be resettlednear Quarac(Vetancurt1960, vol.
3:261, 279). In fact, moremovementprobablyhadalwaysoccurredbetween
plainsandpueblosthanthe recordsindicate,since the Jumanoenclavein the
THELINGUISTIC
POSITION
OFJUMANO
323
Tompiroareaevidentlyserved as a liaisonbetweenthe nomadichuntersand
tradersof the plainsand the sedentaryfarmersof the pueblos.After 1630,
however,the PlainsJumanosbeganto retreatsouthward,andby the 1660s,
if not earlier,Apacheswere tradingat Las Humanasand Tabira(Hackett
1937:142).At aboutthe sametime,Apacheraidingbecamea seriousproblem
alongthe exposed easternflankof New Mexico.The outlyingvillageswere
amongthe first to be abandoned,and the Jumanopuebloswere entirelydepopulatedseveralyearsbeforethe PuebloRevoltof 1680.Whenthe evacuation
of the Salinesareabegan,manyof the JumanosandTompirosappearto have
settled withthe recentlymissionizedMansosat El Paso, a choicewhichmay
reflectculturalandlinguisticcompatibility
of the groupsinvolved(Scholesand
Mera 1940:284).At this time and later, followingthe revolt of 1680, Piros
settled there as well.
The originallinguisticaffiliations
of the El Paso arearefugeesare difficultto
reconstruct.Investigatorstwo hundredyears laterfailedto findanylinguistic
differencesamongthe descendantsof these variouspeoples;indeed,all had
become ratherthoroughlyhispanicized.Nevertheless,a short vocabularyof
Piro was collectedby Bartlettnear El Paso in 1850 and publishedwith an
introduction
was analyzed
by Hodgein 1909. In the sameyearthe vocabulary
by Harrington,with comparisonsto languagesof the three Pueblobranches
of the Tanoanstock. As noted above, Harrington
concludedthat Piroshould
be classedwithTiwa.Harrington
himselfwent to El Paso, buthe was unable
to find anyonewith a speakingknowledgeof the languageamongthe few
(1909:569)also"couldobtainno satisfactory
survivingPirofamilies.Harrington
... aboutthe Suma."However,he was toldby severalindividuals
information
that Isleta (Tiwa)was "cuasila mismaidioma"
as Piro.
A generalconclusionfromthe abovediscussionis that significantlinguistic
divisionsprobablydidnot exist betweenPiro(including
Tompiro),Jumano,and
Suma.Some of the evidencemay suggest dialectvariation,as wouldbe exbut nothingsuggests a real
pected in a languageof such wide distribution;
breakin intelligibility.
As indicatedby Harrington,the languageclassification
of Piro (Tompiro),Jumano,andSumashouldprovisionally
be the Tanoanlanthe
Tiwa
guage family,
subfamily.
TIME PERSPECTIVE
of languagesandpeoples
andrelationships
Proceedingfromthe distribution
seen in the earlyhistoricperiod,one may speculateaboutthe situationas it
existed a relativelyshorttime earlier,i.e., beforethe establishmentof Athapaskandominancein the southernplains.As suggestedby Hyde(1959),Harrington(1940),andothers(e.g., Perry1979),Apaches,havingseparatedfrom
theirAthapaskan
congenersin the northby perhapsA.D.1000,appearto have
movedto the southandto haveenteredthe plainsof New Mexicoandwestern
Texasonlya centuryor two beforethe SpanishConquest.In the earlyhistoric
period of the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies,a progressivesouthern
expansionof theseApachesat the expenseof theJumanosandotherindigenous
324
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH
JOURNAL
peoples can be followed,and the directionandmomentumof this expansion
can be projectedbackto earliertimes.
At an estimateddate of A.D. 1300, Tanoanwouldhave been a largeand
widelydistributedlanguagestock, boundedby Uto-Aztecan,Tonkawan,Coain the north.Tiwa
huiltecan,and Caddoan,and perhapsalso by Athapaskan
was apparentlythe most extendeddivisionof Tanoan,beingrepresentedby
"Espejo's"Jumanos,"
andLu"Puebloid"
settlements(Kelley's"Patarabueyes,
alongthe lowerRioGrandeas faras LaJunta
jan's"CaguatesandOtomoacas")
de los Rios or beyondand by semisedentaryhunter-gatherers
and horticulturalists("Sumas")
west of the river.Tanoan-speaking
huntingbands(Kelley's
"Jumanos")
resemblingthe historicJumanoCibolosinhabitedthe plainseast of
the Rio Grande.These lattertwo groupsprobablywinteredat the villagesof
theirsedentarykinsmen,andthusa mutualdependencybetweenTanoanfarmers andhunterslikelyantedateshistoricmountednomadism,
althoughtherange
of the huntersincreasedin postcontacttimes.
andproductivity
As the plainsof easternNew MexicoandwesternTexas are accessibleby
severalmajorriversystems, they were probablythe scene of relativelystable
intertribalcontactsandtradebetweenTanoans,Caddoans,andothergroups
priorto the Apacheinvasion.The precontactJumanotradesystem provided
both the networkand the carriersfor this circulationof goods amongthe
Tanoansandtheirneighbors.Thus, boththe historicTanoanpuebloson and
near the Rio Grandeandthe TanoanKiowaof the southernplainsare to be
of Tanoanpeoplesin
seen as remnantsof a muchmoreextensivedistribution
times.
and
historic
prehistoric early
THE MEANINGOF "JUMANO"
used the termearliestandin its broadestsense,
as the Spaniards
"Jumano,"
of
wouldhave been the generaldesignationfor the Tiwa-speaking
population
the Rio Grande,Pecos and Coloradoriver drainageareas southandeast of
of characteristics,
New Mexico.These peoplewere identifiedby a combination
includingspeech, clothing,facialmarkings,andperhapsotherculturaltraits.
In a more restrictedsense, whichwouldhave appliedespeciallyto groups
or individualsencounteredoutside of this primaryarea of provenience(in
Arizona,amongthe Piro, andwith the HasinaiandotherTexas tribes), "Jumanos"were traders.In this role, the Jumanoswere not only middlemen,
carriersof goods, and agents of diffusionbetween nativegroups;they also
becameintermediaries
betweenSpainandthe tribeseast of New Mexicoand
inthe acculturative
processinrelation
playedanactiveroleas "culturebrokers"
to these tribes(c.f. Kelley1955).
NOTES
andadopted
1. Jumano
is theformacceptedbytheBureauofAmerican
Ethnology
by Hodgefor the HandbookoflndiansNorthof Mexico(1907-1910).Forsome of the
numerous forms recorded, see Sauer (1934).
OFJUMANO
THELINGUISTIC
POSITION
325
2. This criticismis not meantto detractfromScholes'ssubstantialcontribution
in
the "Jumano
formulating
problem"or to deny him creditfor a usefuland ingenious
to criticizethose whohave
suggestiontowardits solution;it mightbe moreappropriate
acceptedthe suggestionuncritically.
3. Theirdistinctivefacialmarkings("rayas")
are a frequentlynotedJumanofeature.
It is notclearwhethertheywereproducedby tattooing,painting,scarification,
or some
combination
of methods.Accordingto a description
obtainedbyA. Bandelier(1984:54)
in 1890, the Jumanoswere "rathertallandwithincisionsandpunctureson the face,
whichincisionswere coveredover withpaint."Thisnineteenth-century
statementmay
or maynot be accuratefor the Jumanosof two centuriesearlier.
REFERENCESCITED
Ayer,Mrs. E.E., trans., 1900-1901,The Memorialof FrayAlonsode Benavides,
1630. Landof Sunshine13 (1900):227-90,345-58, 435-44; 14 (1901):39-52,131-48,
227-32.
Bandelier,A.F.A., 1984, The SouthwesternJournalsof AdolphF. Bandelier,vol. 4
(ed. by C.H. Lange,C.L. Riley,and E.M. Lange).Albuquerque:
Universityof New
MexicoPress.
Bandelier,F., 1905, The Journeyof AlvarNtifiezCabezade Vaca.New York:A.S.
Barnes.
11(3):426Bartlett,J.R., 1909,The Languageof the Piro.American
Anthropologist
33.
Bolton,H.E., 1911, The JumanoIndians,1650-1771.Texas HistoricalAssociation
Quarterly15:66-84.
in the Southwest,1542-1706.New York:
Bolton,H.E., 1916, SpanishExplorations
Scribner.
The Identification
of theJanos,Jocome,
Forbes,J.D., 1959, UnknownAthabaskans:
6(2):97-159.
Suma,Manso,andOtherIndianTribesof the Southwest.Ethnohistory
Hackett,C.W., ed., 1937, HistoricalDocumentsRelatingto New Mexico,Nueva
of Washington
Vizcaya,andApproachesThereto,to 1773, vol. 3. CarnegieInstitution
D.C.
Publication
330. Washington,
Hallenbeck,C., 1940,AlvarNtifiezCabezade Vaca:TheJourneyandRouteof the
FirstEuropeanto Crossthe Continentof NorthAmerica,1534-1536.Glendale,Calif.:
A.H. Clark.
Hammond,G.P., andA. Rey, eds., 1966, The Rediscoveryof New Mexico,1580of Chamuscado,
1594:The Explorations
Espejo,Castafiode Sosa, Morlete,andLeyva
de BonillaandHumafia.Albuquerque:
Universityof New MexicoPress.
American
11(4):563J.P.,1909,NotesonthePiroLanguage.
Harrington,
Anthropologist
94.
J.P., 1940, SouthernPeripheralAthapaskawan
Harrington,
Origins,Divisions,and
Collections100:503-32. Washington,
Institution
Miscellaneous
Migrations.Smithsonian
D.C.
Hodge, F.W., ed., 1907-1910,Handbookof AmericanIndiansNorthof Mexico.2
D.C.
vols. Bureauof AmericanEthnologyBulletin30. Washington,
SoHodge,F.W., 1911, TheJumanoIndians.Proceedingsof AmericanAntiquarian
ciety 20:249-68. Worcester,Mass.
Hodge, F.W., G.P. Hammond,andA. Rey, eds., 1945, FrayAlonsode Benavides'
RevisedMemorialof 1634.Albuquerque:
Universityof New MexicoPress.
326
RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Hyde, G.E., 1959, Indiansof the HighPlains.Norman:Universityof Oklahoma
Press.
Texas. AmericanAnKelley,J.C., 1955, JuanSabeataand Diffusionin Aboriginal
thropologist57(5):981-95.
Relationsat LaJuntade los Rios.
Kelley,J.C., 1986[1947],JumanoandPatarabueye:
of
Museum
of
University Michigan
Anthropology,
Anthropological
Papers77.AnnArbor.
Orozcoy Berra,M., 1864, Geografiade las lenguasde M6xicoy cartaetnograifica
de Mexico.MexicoD.F.: Andradey Escalante.
Perry, R.J., 1979, The ApacheanTransitionfromthe Subarcticto the Southwest.
PlainsAnthropologist
24:279-96.
of Aboriginal
Tribesand Languagesin NorthThe Distribution
C.O.,
1934,
Sauer,
westernMexico.Ibero-Americana
5. Berkeley,Calif.
Scholes, F.V., andH.P. Mera, 1940, SomeAspectsof the JumanoProblem.Contributionsto AmericanAnthropology
andHistoryvol. 6, no. 34, CarnegieInstitution
of Washington
523. Washington,
Publication
D.C.
Schroeder,A.H., 1964, The Languageof the SalinePueblos:Piro or Tiwa?New
MexicoHistoricalReview39:235-49.
Swanton,J.R., 1942, SourceMaterialon the Historyand Ethnologyof the Caddo
D.C.
Indians.Bureauof AmericanEthnologyBulletin132. Washington,
Fr.
A.
Teatro
Mexicano:
Vetancurt,
de, 1960[1692],
Descripci6nbreve de los sucesos. ... (ed. by J. PorruaTuranzas).4 vols. Madrid:Colecci6nChimalistac.